LE BLOGUE DES EXERCICES,DU CONDITIONNEMENT PHYSIQUE ET DE L'ALIMENTATION-DE L'HYGIENE DE VIE/EXERCISES-CONDITIONING AND PROPER FOOD DIET BLOG.
SOYEZ LES BIENVENU(E)S-YOU ARE WELCOME
Tout dans la vie est une question d'équilibre d'où la nécessité de garder un esprit sain dans un corps sain.
Discipline-Volonté-Persévérance
Everything in life is a matter of balance therefore one needs to keep a healthy mind in a healthy body.
21 juillet 2010 – La majorité des fruits et légumes qui ne sont pas issus de la culture biologique sont traités avec des pesticides. Selon le Environmental Working Group, il n’est pas nécessaire pour autant d’acheter tous ses fruits et légumes bio. L’organisme américain propose une liste de fruits et légumes que l’on peut acheter non bio, sans craindre d’être intoxiqué par les résidus de pesticides, et une liste de ceux qu’il est préférable de choisir bio.
Le Shopper’s Guide to Pesticide1, publié par le groupe environnemental, est élaboré à partir des résultats de tests chimiques effectués par le US Department of Agriculture, aux États-Unis (USDA).
Parce qu’ils possèdent des défenses naturelles et qu’ils nécessitent peu ou pas de pesticides : oignon; patate douce.
L’asperge : parce qu’elle pousse tôt au printemps, elle n’est pas victime des insectes, donc pas traitée aux pesticides.
Le chou : parce que ses feuilles extérieures absorbent les pesticides et que celles-ci sont enlevées avant d’arriver au supermarché.
Le kiwi : parce qu’il est protégé par les guêpes et les chrysopes qui s’alimentent d’insectes nuisibles.
Idéalement, optez pour le biologique...
Parce que leurs sucres attirent une multitude d’insectes, ils nécessitent plusieurs arrosages aux pesticides tout au long de leur croissance : bleuet (myrtille); cerise; fraise; nectarine; pêche; pomme.
Le céleri : parce que 75 % de la récolte s’effectue durant l’automne et l’hiver; la pluie et le vent contribuent à la croissance de maladies bactériennes et fongiques que les producteurs combattent avec des produits chimiques.
L’épinard et le chou frisé : parce qu’ils possèdent des feuilles appétissantes pour les insectes, ils sont traités régulièrement aux pesticides.
Le poivron (piment) : parce qu’il est sans défense naturelle et qu’il a besoin d’être arrosé de pesticides. Et les plis de sa « couronne » offrent des recoins où les pesticides peuvent s’accumuler.
La pomme de terre : parce qu’elle est traitée au moins 5 fois aux pesticides pendant la saison afin de la protéger des insectes. Elle peut contenir des résidus toxiques.
Le raisin : parce qu’il est vulnérable aux maladies fongiques pendant le transport. Plus il vient de loin, plus il a été enduit de fongicide.
Martin LaSalle – PasseportSanté.net
D’après Prevention
1. Environmental Working Group, EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides, 2010. Pour visiter le site (en anglais):http://www.foodnews.org/ [consulté le 20 juillet 2010].
Building a chiseled, resilient body requires more than lifting heavy weights—there's good nutrition, proper rest and recovery, and taking super-supplements at the right time to help boost muscle growth and strip body fat. But on the physical side, one of the most underrated methods for building a true warrior body—and perhaps one of the most effective—is short-burst work at maximum intensity. If you need a label, you can call it intervals, HIIT, complexes, or circuit training. Martin Rooney, trainer to some of the top combat athletes in the country, simply calls it hard work. Known for getting his athletes into top physical and mental shape in record time, Rooney is a master of torture and results. His most recent favorite method, something he's dubbed "100 Reps in 100 Seconds," is exactly as hard as it sounds and will help you build a more rugged body (if you don't wuss out).
This Isn't Hard Work For Hard Work's Sake
This method translates into actual physical results.
"I came up with the idea when I started working with Colton Brown, one of the top judo players in the country," says Rooney. "When he first walked in to my gym earlier this summer he weighed 182 pounds. Now he's a monster at 198."
Rooney attributes at least part of Brown's muscle gain and superb conditioning to this new protocol. "I believe if you can take a light weight—sometimes even your bodyweight—and pour all of your energy into five exercises for a total of 100 seconds that you'll hit more motor units than you would even touch with a regular weight-training session," he says. And according to Rooney, it's a great way to rapidly drop body fat and increase mental toughness.
"When my guys are on the mat they can't give up," says Rooney. "This method increases their work capacity, strengthens their connective tissue, and gets them leaner and tougher quicker than most methods I've tried."
Now there's nothing magical about the timeframe or even the reps. Rooney is the first to point out that "100 Reps in 100 Seconds" is more of a challenge that is to be done once per week instead of a stand-alone program. It should be part of a regular weight-training program. But if you want to challenge your body in a new way—and reap the muscle gain and fat loss that goes with it—you'll want to try one of Rooney's five challenges below the next time you hit the gym.
Challenge #1 - Full Body Barbell
Grab your stopwatch and set it for one minute and forty seconds (100 seconds). With this method you're going to load a barbell with a relatively light weight—Rooney suggests starting with 95 pounds—and perform the following exercises one after another as fast as you can with good form.
Bar Push-up*x 20 reps
Stiff-Leg Deadlift x 20 reps
Military Press x 20 reps
Back Squat x 20 reps
Bent-Over Row x 20 reps
*To do the Bar Push-up, simply put your hands on the bar and get into a normal push-up position. Bring your chest down to the bar and explosively push back up.
Isn't 95 Pounds a Bit...Wussy?
It may seem light at first, but you won't be thinking that for long. "Try holding that sucker for 100 seconds and you'll see how heavy it can get," says Rooney. That said, Rooney suggests choosing a weight you think you can get all the reps with. If you use 95 pounds the first time you do it and beat 100 seconds, try bumping it up to 100 pounds or more the next week.
How Long Do I Rest?
Rooney suggest resting three to five minutes before moving into another Challenge. "Ideally you'll have another guy with you timing you," says Rooney. "So after he goes, you'll go right after and that'll be his rest period. Once you finish, he'll be getting ready to start his next challenge."
Challenge #2 –The Gun Show, aka The Bodybuilder Killer
This pure upper body challenge will fill out your shirtsleeves and leave you gasping for air. But be warned: by then you're only halfway done.
10 Chin-ups
10 Dips
10 Biceps Curls
10 Overhead Presses
10 High Pulls
Repeat one more time without rest in order to make 100 reps. How Much Weight Should I Use? Rooney suggests starting with a barbell that you can curl for 12-15 reps and using that for your curls, overhead presses, and high pulls. Oh, and don't bother adding any weight to the chin-ups and dips. Trust us.
Challenge #3 - The Lower Body Torcher
Although Rooney and his MMA athletes hang two twenty-pound chains around their necks before doing this tough lower body challenge, he suggests you start off with just bodyweight (unless you have some chains lying around). You can also wear a weighted vest.
25 Squats
25 Good Mornings
26 Alternating Side Lunges (total)
24 Alternating Front Lunges (total)
If you didn't make the 100 seconds the first time, Rooney is sympathetic. Not many people do. "This is the toughest Challenge to conquer in a minute and 40 seconds," he says.
Challenge #4 –The Gut Check
Got a pull-up bar hanging in your doorframe or a tree with a low branch nearby? Then get out of your chair and try this bodyweight challenge right now (then come back and report your time).
22 Push-ups
21 Ankle-grab Sit-ups*
21 Sit-outs**
21 Bodyweight Squats
15 Chin-ups
Why the odd number of reps?
Since Rooney hasn't seen many athletes get over 15 continuous chins, he won't ask you to do 20. To make the 100 seconds, you'll have to get through those chins without letting go of the bar once. *To perform the Ankle-grab Sit-up Begin by lying on your back with your hands stretched overhead. In one motion bring your arms and legs together while sitting up and grabbing your ankles. Reverse the movement before repeating. **To perform the Sit-Out Begin in a pushup position with your feet wide. Shoot the left foot under your body and out to your right side while lifting the right hand so that your body is supported on the left hand and right foot as shown. Then bring the left foot back to the original position before shooting the right foot under the body and out to the left side while lifting the left hand as shown. Keep repeating. Your hips should be turning side to side as you are reach each foot out.
Challenge #5 – The Two-Hitter Quitter
A quick warning from Rooney: "This is not as easy it looks. "My first try I did it in 101 seconds, but some of my guys completed it in over 150 seconds," he says. "Prepare to be humbled."
10 Pushups
10 Ankle-grab Sit-ups
Switch back and forth between both exercises as fast as possible and complete for five sets one after another. Throwing up is optional.
Important: The Crucial Warm-Up
Although these challenges seem like something you can just waltz into the gym and perform, you have to prepare your body. "You'll get gassed even faster if your adrenaline is pumping and your body isn't warmed up," says Rooney. Before you do any of the challenges, quickly go through this warm-up written by Rooney.
A1) 10 Jumping Jacks
A2) 10 Seal Jumps (Similar to a Jumping Jack but bring your arms in front of you and "clap".)
3 sets with no rest in between
B) 50 Pogo Jumps (Act like you have a jump rope and quickly bounce on the balls of your feet.)
3 sets with 20 seconds of rest in between
C1) 10 Bodyweight Squats
C2) 10 Push-ups
C3) 10 Ankle-grab Sit-ups
3 sets with 30 seconds of rest between each circuit. After finishing the warm-up, rest 3 minutes. You should now feel loose and ready to move into the first challenge. (If you feel worn-out, you're about to be in big freakin' trouble.)
"Oftentimes guys can't even get through my extended warm-up when they first come through my gym," says Rooney. "But after a few sessions it's a breeze."
A Few Final Tips From Rooney •On the challenges that use barbells, make sure to select a weight where you don't compromise quality for intensity. Then again, don't use a bar that's too light either. "You'll have to do these a few times to get a feel for it," says Rooney. •Start with one challenge per week and gradually build up to doing two or three challenges in one day. "Do it right and it'll be the longest 200 or 300 seconds of your life," says Rooney. "Two sets will kill most people." •Make it a competition. "Grab a group of guys and a stopwatch then hit the gym," says Rooney. "Trust me, if you're by yourself the urge to stop halfway through will be intense. With a couple of training partners watching and ridiculing you, you'll make sure to finish." •Attack every single rep as fast as you can with good form. "Don't slow down or hold back. You're going into the gym to better yourself, so make sure not to cheat or give up. You'll only be letting yourself down." •If you don't make it in under 100 seconds, don't start crying. Just beat your time the next week.
Martin Rooney is the COO of the ParisiSpeedSchool and author ofUltimate Warrior Workouts: Fitness Secrets of the Martial Arts. He has trained champion athletes for the UFC, NFL, NBA, MLB, WNBA, ADCC and the Olympics. Find out more athttp://www.parisischool.com
Rooney doing a Challenge with World Champion Roger Gracie
For years bodybuilders were eating plain chicken breasts and doing steady-state cardio to prepare for competitions. And everyone was happy. No one ever really questioned the efficacy of the mind-numbing cardio since bodybuilders had been stepping on stage completely shredded (with far fewer drugs) for decades. Then, in the early 2000's, interval training exploded onto the scene and steady-state cardio was no longer en vogue. (Chicken breasts, however, were still unseasoned and tasteless.) I was in grad school at the time and one of my thesis committee, Dr. Martin Gibala, was doing cutting-edge research showing that intervals produced equal or even better improvements in cardiovascular fitness and performance than steady-state exercise lasting several times as long. Other labs were cranking out research showing similar improvements in mitochondrial functions, potential for fat burning, and increased post-exercise metabolism. Finally, the 1994 study by Tremblay was brought to light and a comparison showed that interval training produced an effect that was nine times better than steady-state cardio for body composition change. After that, the fitness world was never the same. Of course, the new research came as no surprise to sprinters and distance runners (yes, distance runners) who had been using intervals for years. But for the fat loss community it seemed as if we'd found the ultimate in fat burning. Steady-state cardio was dropped in favor of interval training and every coach (myself included) began to use intervals in their programming. But was it a smart decision?
Questioning the Origin
As much as I was swept up in the excitement that surrounded intervals, one thing recently started to become clear to me: None of the studies (with the exception of the Tremblay study) had actually examined the effects of intervals on fat loss in a true randomized controlled trial. Sure, there was definitely a benefit for performance. But when it came to body composition only the mechanisms measured at the muscle level showed a likelihood of greater fat burning. Studies using real people to actually measure fat loss were limited. I want to quickly go over three studies that represent the bulk of research on intervals and body composition and see if we can come to some sort of conclusion on the best method you can use to lose the most fat.
The Tabata Study
Since you can't really go anywhere in the fitness industry without seeing or hearing about the latest and greatest Tabata workout, I just had to include this one. All in all though, there are really only a few points I need to bring forth. •The Tabata study does not measure fat loss. Although Tabatas were certainly effective for improving aerobic and anaerobic performance, there was no mention of fat loss in the paper at all. None.
• The steady-state group in the Tabata study performed steady-state cardio. No surprise there. But the interesting part is that the Tabata group actually performed steady-state cardio instead of Tabatas for one of the five training days. In other words, 20 percent of their training days were allocated to a different method than what they were actually testing.
• The majority of the improvements in Tabata performance happened in the first three weeks and then leveled out.
• Tabatas were done at 170% of VO2 max, which is basically balls to the wall, maximal effort training on every set.
Having read all this I came to the following conclusions: Tabatas may or may not be effective for fat loss, but it certainly wasn't measured in this study and, based on this information, there is no real reason to assume that they are better than steady-state or any other type of interval training. In fact, you can't really draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of Tabata style intervals for anything considering that they were also using steady state exercise and the results are difficult to separate out. Finally, even if Tabatas are effective for fat loss, lifting weights to perform them likely won't enable you to exert maximal effort to reach 170% of VO2 max on every set. If you're lifting weights, odds are that your first set is sub maximal if you're able to lift it again after the 10-second rest interval prescribed by the protocol. Note that I'm not saying these protocols aren't difficult (anyone who's ever done a round knows exactly what I'm talking about). I'm just saying they're not "technically" Tabatas, since you're using sub-maximal weights.
The Tremblay Study
If there's a single study I've seen used to support the use of intervals for fat loss more than any other, this has got to be it. Having checked it out though, I'm sad to say that I was disappointed. Here are a few things I discovered: •The steady-state group sessions started at 30 minutes and gradually increased to 45 minutes. Interval training sessions actually started out with the steady-state exercise around 20-25 minutes. Two different types of intervals (short and long) were added later during the 15-week study.
• The steady-state group lost only 1.1 pounds. The interval group lost 0.22 pounds. Yes, you read that right. Less than a frigging pound after 15 weeks!
• The total of the changes in skinfold measurements (taken with a caliper to assess body fat) was almost three times lower in the interval group suggesting that even though weight loss was less, body composition may have changed more.
• The interval group actually started out with higher skinfold measurements.
• There was no dietary control in this study.
You can take from this study that doing intervals or steady-state without dietary intervention will result in a maximum of one pound of weight loss. As you know, that sucks serious ass. And even though the total skinfolds dropped more in the interval group, the trunk skinfold decrease was pretty much the same. In fact, the main reason for the difference in the skinfolds in the first place wasn't that the steady-state group didn't lose fat. The big problem was that the calf skinfold of the steady-state group actuallywent upwhich obviously affects the total. Moreover, it makes sense that the interval group (who had almost 20 percent greater skinfolds to start with) would lose more regardless of which protocol they used. In the end, I think the body fat testing method in this study sucks. These days we use DEXA or MRI to measure body composition. And even when they did this study, hydrostatic weighing was the standard. So why'd they use caliper testing? Skinfolds can get pretty sketchy depending on your tester. If multiple testers are used, they can be even less reliable. (This might even be responsible for the increase in calf fat seen in the steady state group, but that's total speculation.) Ultimately, the body weight loss in this 15-week study pretty much blows donkey balls and I think this only goes to reinforce the obvious: you can't neglect your diet.
The Trapp Study
In my hunt for research comparing intervals to steady-state, I emailed my old grad school professor Dr. Martin Gibala and he admitted that the research comparing the effects of these two methods on body composition is limited. Studies with any form of dietary control are even harder to find. Fortunately he referred me to the Trapp study and I'm happy to report that there may be some support for interval training on fat loss after all. Here are the cliff notes: •Three groups of women participated in the study. There was a control group (no exercise), steady state group (endurance exercise), and interval group (yep, they did intervals).
• All subjects had VO2 peak test, body composition tested with DEXA, three-day dietary inventory on the first and last visit, and blood tests for fasting glucose, insulin, and leptin.
• The steady-state group started at 10-20 minutes of cycling three times per week for 15 weeks. They gradually worked up to 40 minutes of exercise per session. Resistance on the bike was increased over the study.
• The interval group performed 8 seconds of sprinting followed by 12 seconds of easy pedaling on an exercise bike. Subjects performed as many repeats of this as possible until they reached 60 repeats of this sprint-rest cycle (about 20 minutes). In the beginning, many of the subjects couldn't complete the rounds, so it took a few weeks to build up to it. Resistance on the bike was increased over the course of the study. This was repeated three times per week for 15 weeks.
And the Results?
• Total estimated energy expenditure was the same for both groups after 15 weeks and no dietary differences were determined.
• As expected, VO2 peak increased in both groups
• The interval group lost weight while the control and steady state groups did not. More importantly, the interval group lost 5.5 pounds of fat while the steady-state group actually gained 0.7 pounds of fat mass.
• Interestingly, the four women in the interval group that lost the least fat were also the leanest to begin with. With these women removed the interval group actually lost an average of 8.7 pounds of fat.
• The interval group had a significant decrease in central abdominal fat whereas the other two groups actually had a slight (although statistically insignificant) gain. There was also a slight trend for the interval group to lose more fat from the legs.
• The interval group increased lean mass in the trunk while the steady-state group did not.
• Both groups decreased fasting insulin, but only the interval group was different from the control group.
• Leptin decreased in only the interval group following training as would be expected when losing body mass.
So What Does All of That Mean?
In the end, the results of this study show that interval training can lead to greater fat loss than steady state training when done in the way presented. This study also suggests that this protocol might be more effective for losing fat mass and gaining lean mass, specifically in the trunk. Another major point to be taken from this study is that leaner people tend to lose fat slower no matter what type of protocol they're on. This brings to light the fact that the women in the interval group actually started at 35.1% body fat and the women in the steady state group started at 31.7%. Although these differences were said not to be statistically significant, we can't ignore the fact that this may have contributed to the greater success of the interval group. You'll also note that none of the groups in this study were exceptionally lean to begin with, so this study might not be as relevant to leaner individuals. In fact, the women who did not lose as much fat with the interval protocol were closer to a BMI of 21, so this might be more indicative of what would happen with a leaner person. And even though there were diet records kept at the beginning and end of this study, it's possible that there were dietary differences during the 15 weeks. More specifically, high intensity training is known to suppress appetite while steady state exercise is more likely to increase appetite. This might explain why the steady state group failed to lose any fat at all when we know this method has worked for bodybuilders for years. Without quantifying this, it's hard to know whether the differences are from the training itself or from one group eating less than the other. Of course, some might argue that interval training creates a greater "post exercise burn", but the truth is that this burn (otherwise known as EPOC) only constitutes about 13 percent of the total calories burned from interval training. So if you've burned 500 calories from the bout, a mere 75 calories might be burned in addition as a result of this effect. My guess is that food likely played a large role since self-report isn't the most reliable form of dietary constraint. (Read: the women probably ate some doughtnuts and didn't tell anyone about it.) The most interesting fact about this study, is the 8-second sprint followed by the 12-second light pedaling looks a lot like the Tabata protocol. However, instead of doing the protocol for 8 repeats, the subjects in this study had to do it60 timeswith maximal effort to get the fat loss benefit. So while doing "Tabatas" in the gym might technically be interval training, unless you're doing them 60 times through you're probably wasting your time.
The Bottom Line
Before I tell you what to do for the greatest fat loss, let's quickly review a few key points:
• Tabatas have NOT been studied for fat loss. But based on the last study you should be able to tell that you're going to have to put in a hell of a lot more work than you thought.
• The Tremblay study should never be referenced with regards to the success of interval training.
• Regardless of your cardiovascular protocol, diet is still number one when it comes to fat loss.
• The fatter you are, the more interval training will work for you. The leaner you are, the less effective it will be. This should really be no surprise.
• If you're going to do intervals, performing 8 seconds max effort to 12 seconds, rest three times per week seems to be the only scientifically validated method for fat loss at this time.
• Oh...and you have to do itsixtytimes.
So What the Hell Do I Do?
The bad news, as mentioned above is that most forms of cardio performed without any dietary change aren't really all that effective for fat loss. The good news is that interval exercise performed with 8 seconds of max effort and 12 seconds off for a total of 60 repetitions (20 minutes) might give you an extra edge with fat loss even if you haven't changed your diet. In fact, if you're trying to put on lean mass, this might be a method you could use to mitigate fat gain. Of course, if fat loss is the primary goal, you're smart enough to know that reducing calorie intake is necessary to maximize your results. However, the additional benefit of this protocol is that the high intensity intervals will serve as an appetite suppressant making you less hungry so you won't eat yourself into a food coma and stumble out of the local buffet like Lindsay Lohan at an after party. So what should you do? Simply jump on a treadmill, bike, Airdyne, or local track and set the intervals in motion. To make the whole process easier, you could even pick up a Gym Boss timer to alert you to when you should stop and start each set. This will allow you to focus on your intervals instead of watching the clock (which consequently is difficult to do when your vision is blurred from the tears associated with this protocol). So, despite all the interval hype, it appears that only one interval protocol holds water when it comes to scientifically measured effectiveness. If you want to lose fat, go 8 seconds on and 12 seconds off for 60 rounds, and kill it! (Just don't kill yourself.)
Mark Young is an exercise and nutrition consultant from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Rather than blathering on about credentials and clientele, he would prefer you check out hiswebsiteand check out the content for yourself.
References
Tabata, I., et al. Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996 Oct;28(10):1327-30.
Tremblay, A., et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8.
Trapp, EG., et al. The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women. International Journal of Obesity (2008) 32, 684–691.
The result of interval training or steady-state cardio?
Are intervals really that effective for fat-loss?
Somehow the old school bodybuilders didn't mind the mind-numbing cardio.
Wait. To lose fat you have to work out and eat right? Whoa!
What's the only thing no-neck meatheads and patchouli-scented hippies have in common? We're both interested in organic food and the effects on our health and performance. (Well, maybe the hippies don't care about performance....)
People buy organic food for many reasons: to reduce the toxic load on their body, to eat more nutritious foods, to be environmentally friendly, and to support local and/or sustainable farms. In this article we're gonna save the moral dilemma of organic vs. conventional food for your ethics class or Greenpeace rally and instead ask the question: is organic produce better for us?
Organic Schmorganic. What's It Mean?
In 1900, the amount of organic food being consumed was considerably high, since almost none of it was treated with pesticides. In 1945, two hundred thousand pounds of artificial pesticides were sprayed on US food. In 2002, two billion pounds were sprayed. (I could delve into a hodgepodge of maladies and chronic diseases that have also been on a rapid rise over the same time period, but I won't as it's damn near impossible for scientists to make definitive correlations with diseases since there are too many uncontrollable variables.)
To get a USDA Certified Organic seal a producer must be a licensed organic farmer, and must adhere to the following guidelines: no use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers, no use of genetically modified seeds, no use of sewer-sludge fertilizer, and no use of irradiation treatments. They also must be inspected regularly and let the inspectors onto their farms at any time.
Despite what some Internet doom-and-gloomers would have you believe, the USDA Certified Organic seal does mean something. However, it's under constant attack from agribusiness lobbyists who are funded by powerful conventional farming conglomerates. Most of these attacks have been thwarted in court.
(The only successful one I know of was in 2006 when a Congressional agricultural bill was passed allowing the use of non-organic ingredients when organic ingredients were not available. The bill allows companies to still display the USDA Certified Organic seal on the package. This, however, doesn't affect organic produce since they're not packaged, processed food products.)
We already know that people who eat conventional foods have higher levels of artificial pesticides in their bodies. This issue thus boils down to personal belief: do you believe that your long-term health and performance will suffer from having higher levels of artificial pesticides accumulating in your body? If you answered "yes," I'll have a few strategies for you below to keep your sanity (and wallet) intact while grocery shopping. If you answered "no", well, you should keep reading anyway, because the next question is a doozy.
Is Organic Produce More Nutritious than Conventional Produce?
Plants produce their own natural pesticides in order to survive in the wild. These are of no negative health concern to humans as we have evolved to not only be immune to the adverse effects, but actually benefit from some of them, too.
If foods are grown without artificial pesticides, fungicides, and insecticides, it stands to reason that fewer artificial pesticides will get into the soil and water, into the crops and, consequently, into our bodies. The literature is fairly conclusive that people who eat organics have less artificial pesticides in their bodies (which is probably a good thing).
But the big question remains: Is organic produce more nutritious than conventionally grown produce?
The answer: kinda. The vast majority of studies have concluded that, at best, organics are only slightly more nutritious. The nutritional content of any produce item is highly dependent upon its ripeness level, and whether or not it was grown in season. Any possible increase in vitamin and mineral content gained from organic growing standards will be minimal when compared to its conventionally grown counterpart.
One point that isn't often brought up in the literature, however, is phytochemical content. Phytochemicals are the health promoting (cancer fighting, antioxidant, etc.) components of plants. There are several thousand known phytochemicals, and probably countless others that have yet to be discovered. Soil contains many microorganisms that play a key role in generating the nutrition to feed and provide much of the immune system of the plant. Artificial pesticides kill off many of these beneficial microorganisms.
Most certainly this will have a detrimental effect on the phytochemical content of conventionally grown produce. So while the only slightly increased nutritional content of organics may not be enough to get your panties wet, the possible increased phytochemical content may.
What Kinds of Fruits and Veggies Should You Buy Organic?
Some produce grow fine with only a minimal amount of pesticides and also may have fewer threats from pests. So you can still significantly reduce your exposure to artificial pesticides by buying a few choice organic items and the rest conventionally grown.
Here's a list of produce that you ought to purchase organic due to high levels of contamination:pears,apples, strawberries (most berries), nectarines, cherries, bell peppers, coffee, celery, lettuce, spinach, grapes, raisins, potatoes, and tomatoes.
(Coffee is the big one here. It's been stated that if you were to buy only one thing organic, you better make it coffee since most of it is grown in third-world countries where the laws are less stringent and many use harmful pesticides such as DDT, which is a known carcinogen and outlawed in the US.)
Pears and apples have the highest levels of contamination of all produce, and apples are the second most commonly eaten fruit in the US.
Some produce presents very little risk of contamination to you, and can thus be bought conventionally: asparagus (fewer pest threats), avocados, bananas, broccoli (fewer pest threats), cabbage (requires less spraying to grow), sweet corn, sweet peas, cauliflower, kiwi, mango, onions (less pest threats), papaya, and pineapple. Obviously, eating all organic produce would reduce your exposure to pesticides the most, but by sticking to the above lists, you can be sure to get the most bang for your organic buck.
It's important to note that all produce should be thoroughly rinsed before cutting into it or eating it. This includes thick-skinned produce like pineapples and avocados. Germs, microbes, and artificial pesticides are caked onto the outside of produce. If you don't rinse before cutting into them, then you're simply pushing the bad stuff inside to the edible portion.
The Bottom Line on Organic Produce
Currently, the USDA Certified Organic seal is something you can trust. Eeating conventional produce does cause artificial pesticides to accumulate in the human body. Whether this is of any health or performance concern is up to you to decide for yourself. However, you shouldn't buy organic produce to get more nutritious food, but rather to minimize your exposure to artificial pesticides, and for the possible increased phytochemical content.
If you're a broke college-student or just a tightwad, at least buy organic coffee, apples, and pears, and remember to thoroughly rinse all produce (even thick skinned organic ones) before cutting into or eating.
Most importantly, remember that even a highly contaminated conventional apple will still do a number of wonderful things for your body. As Dr. John Berardi has so eloquently stated, just eat the damn fruit!
Paul Apple is an aspiring firefighter/paramedic who has a keen interest in maximizing human physical performance. He is currently finishing paramedic school, and holds degrees in Physical Education & Health and Fire Science. He can be reached at A1HumanPerfomance@gmail.com
References:
Liponis, Mark M.D., and Mark Hyman M.D. Ultraprevention. New York: Scribner, 2003
Nestle, Marion. What to Eat. New York: North Point Press, 2006
Perry, Luddene, and Dan Schultz. A Field Guide to Buying Organic. Bantam, 2007
Schultz, Dan, and Luddene Perry. A field Guide to Buying Organic. Bantam, 2005
Simopoulos, Artemis P. M.D., and Jo Robinson. The Omega Diet. New York: Harper Collins, 1999
Stewart, Kimberly L. Eating Between the lines: The Supermarket Shopper's Guide to the Truth Behind Food Labels. St Martin's Griffin, 2007
Common sense alert: wash your vegetables before you eat them
There's a reason they wear masks when spraying pesticides on crops...
Coffee, possibly the most contaminated with harmful pesticides, is something you should definitely buy organic
20 juillet 2010 - Manger régulièrement des sucreries et des aliments ayant un index glycémique élevé (pain blanc, gâteau, céréales raffinées...) serait associé à une augmentation du risque d’être atteint d’un cancer du pancréas. En comparaison, la consommation élevée de fruits aurait plutôt un effet protecteur.
Une équipe de chercheurs italiens et américains en est venue à cette conclusion1 en examinant les habitudes de consommation de près de 1 000 adultes italiens. Un tiers d’entre eux étaient atteints d’un cancer du pancréas tandis que les autres participants ne l’étaient pas.
Les participants qui avaient une diète caractérisée par un index glycémique élevé avaient plus de risque de souffrir de cette forme de cancer que ceux dont l’index était bas. Et plus cet index était élevé, plus le risque était accru. En effet, les participants affichant l’index le plus élevé couraient 78 % plus de risque que ceux présentant l’index le plus faible. Les chercheurs ont aussi tenu compte de la charge glycémique des aliments, mais n’ont pas trouvé d’association avec le cancer du pancréas.
L’index glycémique
L’index glycémique (IG) permet de classer les aliments en fonction de l’élévation du taux de glucose sanguin qui survient après qu’on les ait consommés.
Quand l’IG dépasse 50, l’aliment est considéré hyperglycémiant. C’est notamment le cas du riz blanc et du pain blanc qui provoquent un apport bref, mais rapide de glucose dans le sang. Les aliments à index glycémique bas, comme les céréales à grains entiers, les fruits et les légumes, entraînent une hausse plus lente du glucose sanguin.
La charge glycémique
La charge glycémique (CG) tient compte de l’effet « antiglycémiant » des fibres alimentairesprésentes dans un aliment ainsi que la quantité de glucides et de fibres dans une portion. Par exemple, le melon, qui a un IG très élevé (72), a une basse CG (4) en raison des fibres qu’il contient. En comparaison, le tapioca, qui contient peu de fibres, a une CG de 75; et la farine blanche une CG de 48.
Les chercheurs ont aussi établi un lien entre une consommation élevée de sucre, de friandises, de miel et de confitures et le cancer du pancréas. Fait intéressant, en concentrant leurs analyses sur les fruits, ils ont montré une diminution du risque de cancer pancréatique chez les participants qui en consommaient le plus.
Selon la Société canadienne du cancer, environ 4 000 nouveaux cas de cancer pancréatique sont diagnostiqués annuellement. Cette maladie fait 3 900 victimes chaque année au pays, dont le quart au Québec. C’est le 5e cancer en importance dans les pays industrialisés.
