Blog

Oct 23

If you're a fan of steak, you've probably felt alienated by recent trends in health advice. Headlines, ranging from links to chronic disease to harsh environmental impacts of industrial-scale beef production, have generally trended negative. And while our goal in this blog is to stick to the facts, we know dietary dogma is often emotionally charged, so we'll try to steer clear (not a cow pun).

Of course, those who look beneath the surface tend to find the topic of red meat consumption a bit more nuanced. Those in favor point to a reasonably solid evolutionary case: higher fat and protein concentrations almost definitely played an important role in fueling our species' rise to the most dominant position in the food chain - so it can't be inherently bad. On the other hand, those opposed argue that times were quite different "back then". Our predecessors were required to MOVE (a lot) just to stay alive, succeeding for less than 40 years on average - which suggests that our diets should likely also modernize to match the very different risk picture we currently face. The new, modern challenge is staying healthy enough to actually enjoy the extra +/- 30 years of life gained through public health and medical progress since the early 1900s - something that most current research suggests conflicts with a diet heavy in red meat. At some level, both groups are probably right. However, we are still learning exactly why.

In June of this year, a team from UC San Diego summarized the role of red meat in human evolution in the Quarterly Review of Biology, asking if it was both a blessing and a curse in a publication that has wrestled with broad topics in the biological sciences since 1926. It still took 40 pages. To summarize further, there are 5 key points worth knowing. The first four were not surprising based on what we've blogged about in prior months and years:

1. Ancestral diets included meat but were way different: Dining on mass-produced steaks and burgers today - accessible almost anytime, anywhere, with very little exertion required - is a wildly different experience than hunting with irregular success and eating organs, fat, and marrow (in addition to muscle tissue).

2. Dosage Matters: There may be a consumption threshold. Swapping even a single serving for plant-based protein (nuts, seeds, beans, etc.) lowers the risk of premature death from major diseases we face by as much as one-third, including heart disease, diabetes, and colorectal cancer. According to this model, lowering consumption by 30% from current averages would save hundreds of thousands of lives globally each year. 

3. Heme Iron is double-edged: Dosage matters here too. While low doses likely protected early humans from anemia, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing - in this case, becoming a source of free radicals that damage DNA and increase cancer risk.

4. A heavy ecological burden: Whether through deforestation, greenhouse gas and fresh-water contamination, or the risk of "super-bugs" associated with routine antibiotic use in high-density facilities, the trade-offs required to produce the 12 million tons of beef supplied in the US (and 77 million tons globally) may outweigh the reward.

However, the 5th key point was new to me - something I had not previously heard or understood: part of the reason red meat consumption may increase health risk relates to a genetic change. Approximately 2 million years ago, our ancestors stopped producing a cellular molecule called Neu5Gc, and sometime after that our immune systems began recognizing it as foreign, producing antibodies against it. Animals, however, did not experience this same genetic mutation, so when we consume red meat, we have a low-grade inflammatory reaction (called "serum sickness" when first described about 125 years ago), similar to what we might expect when exposed to the common cold. Consuming it regularly - say, several times per week or even multiple times per day - triggers chronic inflammation, which promotes plaque and tumor growth and has been linked with cognitive decline. Then, a few months later at the annual conference of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, a massive review of dietary and medical records of nearly 90,000 people further linked Neu5Gc to type 2 diabetes.

As described in a press release here and in preliminary findings here, even after statistically scrubbing other known risks like physical activity, overall diet, smoking status, and other health conditions, the highest consumers of red meat (and thus the highest exposure to Neu5Gc) had a staggering 41-63% greater risk of developing diabetes during the 7.2-year follow-up period than those in the lowest consuming group, while those in the middle had a much more modest risk increase (+10%) - lending strong support to the theory of an inflammatory threshold. On the other hand, this is still only an observational analysis which cannot reliably point to a cause, so more study is needed to confirm the findings.

The bottom line here is that if you're a high consumer of red meat (1 or more daily servings), it may be time to consider shifting a few per week from food for FUEL to food for thought. 

Have a great weekend,

Mike E.

Oct 9

If you try to keep up with the latest and greatest advances in nutrition, it's easy to get overwhelmed. So many fascinating lines of inquiry reveal new wrinkles every day. However, when we track backward to the underlying themes and consider how they can (or should) impact our day to day approach to eating for health, things mostly stay the same. 

Theme 1: Eat real food - more natural, less processed - mostly plants. The evidence supporting this one continues to grow. Whether it's better brain health via the low process, plant-forward MIND Diet, reducing the risk of depression by severely limiting ultra-processed food, cutting back on the 8 preservatives linked to high blood pressure or finding the whole grain sweet spot (about 4-6 servings per day) to sharply lower cardiometabolic risk factors like belly fat, cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar, real food continues to out-perform industrial food-like items built to sit on a shelf. One new study even found nuance when considering a well-documented nutritional villain: a major difference in risk when comparing naturally occurring trans-fat and industrially produced trans-fat. We'll keep an eye on that one, but for now, it's probably best to save the fallout foods for times when the goal is to survive; eat real food when you want to thrive.

Theme 2: More than Macros - bolster the biome for big benefits. In the grand scheme of nutritional info, the idea that healthy eating provides not only what our system needs to operate but also what the microbial ecosystem living in, on and around us needs, is still a relatively new discovery. However, the more we learn, the more important this ecosystem becomes. Therefore, taking care of it - often in the same ways as theme 1 above - is key to our future thriving. 

A few new studies continue to offer direction on how best to do this. While the fiber in fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds has been in the spotlight since the beginning here as "good bacteria food" and fermented foods are gaining steam, newer insights suggest there is also benefit in other compounds on board. Coffee, which is rich in polyphenols among other notable compounds, may not only be the caffeine kick-starter many of us rely on. This research published in April showed that whether caffeinated or decaf, coffee strongly impacted the gut-brain axis and related to improvements in cognition and memory in those who consumed it. Similarly, phytochemical compounds found in mulberries may have a powerful impact on metabolism. However, how the plant is processed can strongly influence its effect. 

On the other end of the spectrum, how we care for the gut-biome when it is depleted also matters. Much like the connection between alcohol consumption (which kills bacteria) and changes in the gut-biome which we reviewed in August of 2023, what we eat after a course of antibiotics - which are also relatively blunt-force bacteria killers - matters. New research out last month showed that those who consumed a diet heavier in simple sugars (sweets, etc.) while on antibiotics experienced greater and longer gut-biome disruption than those who did not.

Theme 3: Fads Fail - play the long game. Have you had your protein water yet today? OK, that was sarcastic but the race to put protein in everything right now reminds me a lot of "low fat" of yester-year. Please don't get me wrong here - if you've recently reviewed your consumption patterns and found that, like many, you're a bit low in protein, finding ways to increase that intake and inch closer to guidelines (which, not without controversy, have gone up recently) may make sense. We know that protein (and the amino acids that make it up) do more than build muscle. For example, as shown in this study from last year, leucine (one of the branched-chain amino acids) also has an important role in cellular energy regulation by supporting mitochondrial function. Studies like this might make us wonder if more is better. Not always. This February study does a good job showing the double edge of high-protein diets and fatty liver disease (one of the most common liver diseases globally). There is no perfect diet, but there is a sustainable one - aim for that.

Of course, there are MANY MANY more, and we'll keep updating as things become clearer. However, until then - beware the fads, respect the biome and load up on real food, heavy on plants - becuase, as the adage goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Have a great weekend,

Mike E.

Back in 2019, we read a showstopper study that quickly became one of my favorites. It was by no means perfect. For example, using only men in the sample group made it far from generalizable, but the findings were so significant, simple, and clear that they begged people to explore further. The punchline, which we've discussed numerous times here, was that in a group of more than 1500 firefighters who were, on average, about 40 years old, the ability to perform 40 continuous push-ups translated to a status of near heart-attack proof (96% reduced risk) over the next decade. This, of course, led to conversations and plenty of impromptu testing sessions where someone would wonder enough to get on the floor and try...and usually realize, 40 is a LOT for an average person. Anyone who can get even close is both strong and fit, which we know are critical predictors of future health.

Since that time, other studies relaying the predictive power of the push-up have been published. For example, in female soldiers, after statistical scrubbing, the number of push-ups completed was one of the six risk factors identified (and one of two measures of physical capacity) that had a significant relationship with injury risk, as discussed here. A similar association was found in professional firefighters in South Africa: more push-ups related to lower risk of injury. However, in an interesting and counterintuitive twist, higher physical capacity—including that measured by the push-up test—correlated with increased general discomfort and soreness. This finding underscored the need for a well-designed recovery plan for those who tend to push themselves toward their physical limits, as this tendency drives higher capacity. However, in a world where seeing is believing, new research may have unlocked a better understanding of why.

Published on June 30th, a study using an artificial intelligence model to assess CT scans of 1,722 people found that muscle density—specifically whether the muscles in the chest and upper back had fatty streaks (like a marbled steak)—was a stronger predictor of heart attack incidence and severity risk than similar scans of the liver or even the torso. For every 10-point increase in image brightness, which suggests greater muscle density, a 31% risk reduction was noted. Individuals with below-average muscular density—lower than the group's median—had a 58% greater likelihood of having a heart attack and an 85% greater likelihood of dying from one over the next ten years. Practically speaking, this means the quality of our chest and upper back muscles—a result of regular strenuous pushing and pulling—may be more important than other metrics we commonly use to estimate health, such as weight or body fat. However, there are caveats.

Push-ups (and pull-ups if aiming for balanced training) are complex full-body movements that require not only strength but also the ability to load the shoulders and wrists and stabilize the trunk. Unfortunately, this blocks a fair number of people from getting the full benefit of using these movements as either tests or training. This study from 2025 showed that as many as 1 in every 20 participants could not complete a single push-up, most often due to discomfort or some other orthopedic limitation. The important thing to remember here is that there are MANY ways to modify them, whether finding a way to keep the wrists in neutral, dropping to a knee to reduce strain, or even using a wall to start less intensely...so please don't let that stop you.

So what's a good goal?

The short answer here is: progress; anything more than yesterday is a step in the right direction. However, realizing that such an answer is probably unfulfilling, aiming for at least 10 high-quality push-ups daily is a great first goal for most people, while working toward 20 or more for strivers is backed by both experts and evidence. The Mayo Clinic for example provides a recommended standard by age about half way down the page here and although 40 was the gold standard in the firefighter study above, what tends to get less attention is that the risk reduction in that study was generally stepwise: those who could do more than 10 push-ups had a 64% reduction in risk, while those who could grind out 20 or more dropped their risk by another 20%. Doing so at least a few times per week increases the likelihood that the muscle quality will improve over time. Of course, incorporating some pulling, hinging, squatting, and carrying to ensure all fundamental movements stay strong is even better.

Reach out if you're ready for a routine that'll help you stand strong against the number 1 killer of Americans for the last 100 years by this Fall.

Have a great weekend,

Mike E.

I love being outdoors. I think that's been the case most of my life. Many years ago that came to life by trading chores with my siblings; I'd take the outdoor projects if I could unload the ones inside. In fairness there are things I don't love "about" the outdoors.....gnats and mosquitoes, poison ivy and deer who think everything planted is for their consumption......but generally speaking, if given the choice, you can find me finding the fresh air. And so with the nearly perfect sunny skies and relative low humidity this past long (Labor Day) weekend, it was a great opportunity to get a bunch done.

Although my mind and soul were more than willing to get "out there" and log long days, my body, the third leg of the stool, was a little less ready as I was reminded when the alarm rang out on Tuesday morning. The hours of bending, twisting, lifting, lowering, carrying and crouching that the tasks of the day (critter-proofing the yard with a fence and planting some sapling trees) demanded had left me in the throes of recovery. Muscles that took a little time to get going (classic stiffness), a few cranky areas to remind me a few days doing something different would be wise (soreness/mild discomfort) and an energy level that snooze buttons were made for....all signs I had over-reached.

As a generally desk-bound human whose primary tool of the trade is a laptop, I am very well conditioned to sit at a desk and point, click, type and note. By the end of the day my brain is tired but my body feels fine. HOWEVER, as a person who is past the age when we naturally get stronger and more adaptable (sadly that age is around 30 years old after which we lose 3-8% per year), I am learning (and relearning at times) the lesson that expecting my body to just "go" and not yell at me later might be a poor assumption.

But here's the best part.....if we take the warning bells of stiffness and mild discomfort seriously, apply the right self-care tactics and nudge the body move through the RECOVER process....we can not only get through to the other side, but emerge stronger.

The basics

1. MOVE - day 1 was low intensity, high frequency - nothing too regimented, rather I just thought back to the "offending" movements I was doing over the weekend (lots of bending and stooping) and tried to counterbalance by nudging things in the opposite direction. This meant "standing tall" by gently pulling shoulders back backward, sticking chest through and tucking my chin to elongate my neck (I like the headrest on the car for this). On day 2 I avoided heavy loading exercises but opted for an easy run instead.

2. FUEL for recovery - I tried to eat especially clean (low process, low sugar, high fiber) and drink enough water ("straw" urine color) which helps provide the right nutrients without the inflammatory bump.

3. RECOVER with sleep - I couldn't get to bed early unfortunately (best option) but I was able to ramp down earlier than I normally do. This helped me to get the highest quality sleep possible.

The result?

By day 2 I was mostly back to normal.....and by day 3 I was feeling nearly recharged.....just in time, if the weather cooperates, to do it all over again this weekend :)

Maintaining health & fitness is complex, but definitely not impossible. A little push here and some pullback there and we can expect to stay stronger, longer.

Have a great weekend,

Mike E.

Aug 14

"Fatigue makes cowards of us all" as the saying goes....and no one is quite sure who said it first. Although it sounds like Vince Lombardi (one person it's often attributed to), the quote has also been attributed to US Army General George Patton. It probably doesn't matter. Whoever did actually say it first couldn't possibly have known how far down the rabbit hole the statement would take us.

Whether it be the quest to quantify and qualify the factors of fatigue which leave us uncomfortable, irritable and error-prone when we hit our threshold, or the endless supply of performances we hold up as "heroic" when people find a way to defy those same factors, it holds a place of importance and mystery in day to day life.

Take for example this week's prime time show of endurance - 5 overtime periods in a playoff hockey game - FIVE! Even in defeat, the losing goalie was breaking records for saves. How is this possible? What will it do to these players over the next games? Will injury rates go up? Plenty to speculate about there.

But it's not just "fun and games" (and professional athletics) is it? What about if it's experienced during high-stakes work like natural disaster restoration? Is it the same?

Well, no.....and yes.

No - disaster recovery work is rarely done by people with endorsement deals or deep interest in personal jersey sales. They are simply playing a different game altogether.

And yes,  understanding the factors and knowing how to proceed is critical if we are to find that "zone" which seems to live in the space between hard-earned success and the risks of injury/illness/disease to get there. 

Take for example this recent paper which profiled National Guard Medical Personnel during intensive disaster training. Highly trained people doing meaningful work who, when they got tired (as measured by a simple rating 0-9 scale which has been around since 1990), made substantially more errors......exactly as the researchers expected.

What really stood out to me was how significant the difference was - those who felt energetic averaged 91% accuracy (error-free) and those who felt really fatigued only 60% - a full 30% difference. Like many who perform high-risk tasks as part of their work, these included life-or-death decisions, so an error rate of 4 of every 10 chances is a little scary. If we were to give it a letter grade, the well-rested folks would be scoring an "A" or close to it where the tired folks would almost be failing....yikes.

What's the take-away?

We shouldn't be afraid of fatigue. As humans, our systems actually get stronger when we see it as a warning light and refill the tank with rest to RECOVER fully from it. However, as seen in research environments and the real world, since our performance clearly begins to degrade and the risk of failure climbs quickly when we begin to sputter and run out of gas, we should definitely respect it. 

If you're running on fumes, please reach out to discuss a refueling and RECOVER strategy any time.

Stay strong,

Mike E.

FEB 14: 

I woke up out of a deep sleep to the howling bark of Charlie. He’s a fairly generic “yellow dog” we adopted a few years back. He’s mostly a good pet and running partner who mostly respects the fact that in our house dogs live downstairs. It didn’t take long for me to realize that I didn’t need to get everyone out of the house or call 911; that I

must’ve missed one of the 9 volt batteries during the annual smoke detector refresh. It was now yelling at me in that chirping tone that only seems to happen in the middle of the night. I didn’t hear the smoke detector....slept right through its chirps, but I definitely heard Charlie and knew how to respond. I’m not sure if he just hates the chirp too or if he was really trying to make sure we reacted, but his amplification of the bells/whistles going off was enough to get me to act.

20 years ago I witnessed a similar scenario in a very different context. I remember it like it was yesterday. I was in Moorestown, NJ meeting a group of folks who did underground and buried electric cable work and casually asked if anyone had experienced something similar to the numb & tingly hands I had read about in a recent journal. One person nodded, the next person said “yeah” (almost like “of course....duh”) and then person by person, like the wave rolling through a stadium, nearly every person in the room that day said they had. Intrigued, I asked a ton more questions and was able to piece together that some people heard their body chirp, knew it was time to perform some routine maintenance and reset the sensor, while others had an amplified response that often included pain. Something we now know to be the difference between a normally sensitive and an amplified (“sensitized”) nervous system.

Fast forward to today. There I was, in front of a group I had never met before, demonstrating testing and correction techniques of the exact same structures and sensors. Their eyes lit up when they realized they could ”quiet barking dogs” and ultimately calm irritated areas, long enough to “change the battery” and get the system back into a rest mode. It only got better when I explained that certain foods, such as those heavy in nutrients & fiber and naturally low in sugar & processing (fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, certain spices, etc) as wells as improved sleep, stress management and even human connection all could help make the changes permanent. It’s one of my favorite realizations to watch take over a room; almost like stress melting away as people understand that THEY are at the controls of most aches and pains. It’s one of the cooler things we get to see; people who with a little guidance and active nudging, reset their systems and get back to freely moving about their lives.

The human sensory experience is truly fascinating. It can be scary when the chirps and barks of pain are going off. The good news is, if we know how to interpret the messages and react appropriately, when to ask for help and when to just change the battery, we can usually reset & restore the system. Let us know if you need help getting started.

Have a great weekend,

Mike E.