The Savannah man

Recent advances in genetics and anthropology have evidenced that our current genome is very similar to that of our ancestors who lived in the Savannah after the latest glaciation about 10,000 years ago. This was right before the invention of agriculture.

If this is correct, the logical next step is to question what kind of life these humans had in terms of nutrition and physical activity and see if this can teach us something about what modern days homo-sapiens should do to stay optimally fit. Given the very hash living conditions prevailing in those days, if our ancestors had been obese, suffered from high cholesterol or diabetes or simply have lacked sufficient physical fitness, they would have gone extinct long ago and we would not be here to talk about them.

The "it's my genes" myth

I could not count the number of times someone plump said to me something like: "You eat more than I do (which was probably true) but you manage to stay slender. You MUST have good genes".

Just to set the record straight: my father was obese till he lost a lot of weight after getting very sick and eventually passed away. My sister is obese but has never accepted to hear from me that she eats too much junk (highly processed) food and gets close to zero exercise.

The truth of the matter is that only about 2% of the obese have "defective genes" that can be blamed for their condition.

The Unfulfilled Promises Of Supplements

Like many fitness enthusiasts, there was a time when I bought fitness magazines on a regular basis. The most striking feature of those publications was the incredible number of ads for supplements they featured. As far as I know, nothing has changed since.

A basic fact of life of which everybody interested in fitness should be aware of is that the supplement industry is the single largest source of revenues for the fitness industry, surpassing even club membership fees. The second fact that you should keep in mind is that the supplement industry has been totally deregulated since the Bush area. In other words, no claim concerning a supplement needs to be scientifically substantiated. Last but not least, almost all fitness magazine belong to or have a stake in supplement manufacturers and vendors. Add these three pieces of information and it becomes easy to guess what ails the supplement industry.

To summarize the situation, the vast majority of supplements touted in these magazines (and elsewhere on the Internet) are totally inefficient at best and in some cases potentially harmful (remember the ephedrine scandal).

I do not contend to have tried all major supplement categories. My 20+ years experience has led me to believe though that very few supplements are worth the money you will spend on them over time (potentially hundreds of dollars a year, you do the math).

The No-Carbs Fallacy

Dr Atkins may have been dead for 7 years, many still consider that carbohydrates are the enemy when it comes to maintaining a healthy weight, let alone putting off some. The reality is somewhat more complicated.

First of all carbs are not all born equal. Foods as diverse as plain rice, white sugar, corn syrup or bread are all representatives of the wide carbohydrate family. However some are more healthful than others, partly depending on their glycemic index. As a rule of thumb all highly processed foods should be avoided, be it carbs or other categories.

For instance, not only is the glycemic index of white sugar among the highest but it also does not contain any other nutrients like fibers of vitamins. So the first rule for the carb-wary crowd should be: pick your carb carefully by staying away from all highly processed foods.

The "All-Aerobic" Myth

One of the most prevalent misconceptions about fitness ESPECIALLY after 40 is that this word is synonymous with “aerobic fitness”. Whereas running, bicycling, swimming etc is an indispensable component of any fitness program at any age, it is in no way sufficient to ensure overall fitness, especially after 40.
Sorry for all of you 40-something marathoners who are reading these lines thinking of yourself as the ultimately fit homo sapiens. You've only got part of the equation right.

My observation is that many people in their 40’s, especially males, tend to overdo aerobic training (marathoners) while totally ignoring weight training, whereas the human body gradually start losing muscle mass from the early 30s . This phenomenon, called sarcopenia noticeably accelerates after the mid 40s with potentially disastrous consequences such as a deteriorating metabolism (muscles greatly contribute to the control of blood sugar level), an increased risk of accidents because of weakened muscles (especially falls), postural imbalances and eventually an inability to live independently later in life.

Therefore even a "fit" mature individual following an aerobic-only exercise routine will exhibit unmistakable signs of aging in his gaunt appearance caused by a drastic loss of muscle mass. Sarcopenia is actually one of the hallmarks of old age from a cosmetic viewpoint.

The Fitness Tripod

Very early on in my fitness itinerary (I started working out at the age of 24) I became familiar with one of the most fundamental laws of fitness, which can be summarized in the tripod metaphor: in order to make sustained progress in your level of fitness you must constantly optimize three parameters: what you eat, your exercise routine and your sleep. If any of these three factors gets out of control, then it becomes a gating factor that will hinder any progress in your overall fitness.

My experience suggests that most newcomers in the fitness field tend to concentrate almost exclusively on one of those factors: the exercise component. Whereas this initial emphasis is justified especially when picking up a new exercise routine, not heeding sleep and food will inevitably result in bitter disappointment and more often than not giving up exercise altogether for lack of result.

Erase The Word « Diet » From Your Vocabulary

One of the hardest things needed to stay in shape past 30 or 35 is keeping control over your food intake. As your metabolism becomes less efficient with age, extra calories tend to translate even faster  into extra pound and body fat.

This basic truth has given rise to one of the largest industries in the US and the western world: the “diet” industry. This 60-billion dollar a year sector (one of out 3 woman and one out of four men are on a diet at any given time) rests on a shockingly incorrect assumption:
Dieting can make you thinner in the long run. The scientific truth demonstrates quite the opposite.

This misconception is based on a basic misunderstanding of the very word “diet”. In common parlance the word “dieting” means changing one’s eating habits temporarily in order to achieve weight loss and/or other health benefits.  If you look up the word “diet” in a dictionary, you will find something to the effect of “A regulated selection of foods, as for medical reasons or cosmetic weight loss” The point is that there is no notion of limitation in time in the very definition of the word “diet”.

Unconsciously or not, most people think that losing weight rapidly will magically induce a stabilization of their weight at a lower level than before starting the diet after they “quit” it.
Not only is this assumption false but a lot of people actually experience a permanent weight gain (from their baseline weight) after “quitting” a diet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_dieting