Welcome to another “bonus” episode of The Smarter Science of Slim podcast. A lot of readers and listeners have noticed that there’s quite a bit of Smarter Science of Slim activity going around the world and web, and have emailed asking for one place they could get all things Smarter Science of Slim…at least from an audio perspective.
So here we go!
Between “standard” SSoS podcast episodes I’ll share SSoS interviews etc. from all around the world and web. I hope these are helpful…and heck, if they’re not, or if they become repetitive (interviewers tend to ask me similar questions), feel free to skip them :)
For this week, here’s an interview I did with Jade Teta of Metabolic Effect.
Like this podcast? Please share it on Facebook & Twitter and leave a quick review on iTunes.
Trailer: Jonathan Bailor’s Smarter Science of Slim
Jonathan Bailor- Hey everyone, Jonathan Bailor coming at you with another “bonus”. Yes, a “bonus” Smarter Science of Slim podcast episode. The goal with these “bonus” episodes, is to provide you one spot where you can get all things audio Smarter Science of Slim related. A lot of listeners have e-mailed us saying, “There’s a bunch of stuff going on, Smarter Science of Slim related. Hard to keep tabs on all of it. Can you just give us one spot where we can listen to all things SSoS?” That’s what these bonus episodes are trying to do. Tune in to this podcast, you get it all. Unfortunately, some of the bonus episodes are going to get a little redundant. Interviewers tend to ask me similar questions, but hopefully you get at least something out of each bonus episode. If not, Carrie and I will be back with some new content in just a few days. So, hope they’re at least some what useful. Remember to eat smarter, exercise smarter, and live better.
Jade Teta- Jonathan, you know it’s interesting. I definitely know when I was first personal training and working with individuals, I remember when I first started questioning the calories in/calorie out model. I’d have individuals that I’d be working with and I was all about, “Hey, just eat less, exercise more – you do that, you’re gonna get results.” When they weren’t getting results I was literally -and I’m embarrassed to say it now- but I literally was like – hey, these people must be lying to me. You know it’s a funny thing to think about now, but I was like, they’re lying, they’ve gotta be cheating. I’m interested, what was it for you? The first time you were just like, geez man, something is wrong with this model.
Jonathan- It was really exactly the same, Jade. One, on a micro perspective, when I was working with clients as a trainer, the same basic thing – where people were not having the success I would expect. It was also -this may make people dislike me- but I am one of these fortunate individuals who has a hard time gaining weight, not a hard time losing weight.
Jade- Yeah, you’re right, I hate you, man.
Jonathan- But, that’s been actually very fascinating, Jade. At the same time, it’s very difficult for me to build muscle. So when I would track my calories, I would consume 6000 plus calories per day -and still look like a bean pole, rather than look like a man. Which, is what I wanted to look like.
Jonathan- This actually made me realize the profound insight that gets a lot of people excited about the Smarter Science of Slim, and also about your work. That is there are people called naturally thin people. They can eat whatever they want, not really exercise, and they stay slim. So, we have millions of examples of individuals, whose biology somehow keeps them slim regardless of manual calorie monitoring. So the question is not: Is that possible? It is. I experienced it first hand, I was one of those people. I would also see people who were significantly overweight, and I would be like, “Oh gosh, I’m eating so much more than them and they exercise more than I do.” I just started to say, “This doesn’t add up.” Right? I’m eating more and exercising less than these people and they weigh 150 more pounds than I do. It made me question that core model and say, “What is it about my biology -and about other naturally thin people’s biology- that enables us to burn calories, or stay thin the way we do. How can other people do that as well?”
Jade- Yeah, it’s interesting hearing you talk about that because my brother and I -my brother is a lot like you- he can’t put on muscle, stays very lean. Me, I’m the exact opposite, I put on muscle very easily but I also put on fat very easily as well. It’s funny because in my clinic -one of the things I still marvel at- I’ll have individuals come in and I’ll do a diet recall. Some of these people who are very obese are eating very, very small amounts of food and exercising like crazy – and cannot burn fat. I think you and I both sort of take a different approach. We look at the hormonal model versus the calorie model. My thing is -and I’m interested in your thoughts on this- that it’s a mistake to pit these two models against each other. Saying, “Hey, the calorie model is completely wrong, and the hormonal model is completely right.” I think there is some truth to both. But when I look at the calorie model, I see the way it’s prescribed -the eat less, exercise more- it’s sort of backward. Meaning ultimately -and I’m interested in your take on this, we may not agree here- that calorie deficits may matter, but hormones have to come first. So, someone like yourself, who is very lean naturally, there is something going on in your metabolism. Ultimately, if you want to lose weight, you probably just eat 3000 calories versus the 6000 calories you normally do. That does it for you and you’re able to do that. For me, if I even go from the 3000 calories I eat to 800 calories a day, it doesn’t work that way. So I oftentimes look at it like – Do we need caloric deficits? And if so, what is driving those deficits? It can’t just be math, it has to be something else. Hormones, I think, is where you and I focus, but I’m interested in your thoughts on that.
Jonathan- I’m in exactly the same boat, in the sense that it’s a combination of the two. The nuance that I like to drive home though, what I absolutely believe and have seen in my research, is that the idea of a caloric deficit is useful. However, the idea that we need to explicitly and manually force our body in to a caloric deficit is where the problem arises. So, there’s a difference between saying a caloric deficit is irrelevant -which is not what I would say- and thinking that we need to consciously force our body in to a state of caloric deficit. That is what I would say is foolish. So, let me give some examples. For example, eating 2000 calories -you should never actually do this- eating 2000 calories of simple refined carbohydrate versus eating 2000 calories of protein. You will be in a state of caloric deficit if you ate 2000 calories of protein simply because of the different way your body will metabolize those calories – the amount of calories you will burn during digestion, yadda, yadda, yadda. I mean, you’re eating the same number of calories in both cases. But, because the quality of calories is different, you very well may achieve a caloric deficit in one of those worlds, whereas you wouldn’t in the other world. So, the point that I’m trying to make here is that a caloric deficit absolutely matters. However, pursuing it directly by just eating less food, I think, is a terrible approach. Pursuing it indirectly, by increasing the quality of your exercise -just like you guys say- and increasing the quality of the foods you eat, you will accidentally experience a caloric deficit because your body will automatically create that state. The whole body automatically doing it is so critical because that’s how it becomes sustainable. It’s when your body can maintain that state, you will maintain your health. Whereas, if you try to manually balance calories in/calories out, it will work, as long as you can do it. But 95 percent plus of people can do it for maybe a few weeks, then they fall off, and then they gain more weight. So, it’s about that metabolic effect you talk about. Training your body to metabolize things differently, so that it can achieve a caloric deficit rather than you consciously achieving a caloric deficit. Does that make sense?
Jade- Yeah, it makes a whole lot of sense to me, and the way I would say it is: that a hormonally balanced body, or a metabolism that is working efficiently, really results in a caloric deficit. It doesn’t work in the reverse though, a caloric deficit does not result in a balanced metabolism. So, I agree 100%. I think that people don’t understand when I think of the metabolism, I really think of it like a see-saw. You eat less, the body compensates – you get hungry. You exercise more, the body compensates – you get hungry. It’s basically, you push a lever and you change hormones that make it almost impossible for you to stay on the program that you’re trying to do. You cannot force your body in to this caloric deficit. As soon as you do, your body actually pushes on you in the opposite direction. One of my peeves in this industry is that 20-something-year-old men, are young and they are pretty much able to eat what they want and train how they want, a lot of what we are teaching is based on that. You know what I mean?
Jade- Ultimately, the metabolism does not work like that except for a very small minority of individuals. Now, they’ll say to people like you and I, “How do you explain people in concentration camps and things like that? They certainly get thin.” Well, that’s because it was forced on them. How do you explain our hunter-gatherer ancestors? They ate less and exercised more and that’s because it was forced on them, they had no choice but to do it. But in a world where there are lattes on every corner and we can give in to our hunger and cravings in a split second, it simply does not work -in my mind- and I see that clinically all the time. From looking at your work, the work that I do, and the work that many others are doing; I think finally people are starting to get that. Yes, a caloric deficit may be necessary to lose weight, but you certainly cannot do it coming at it strictly from counting mathematics.
Jonathan- That’s exactly right. Just two quick points, it’s funny that you mentioned the point that our ancestors may have eaten less and exercised more. It was fascinating because just recently- I think this week- a new study was published.
Jade- Yeah, I saw this, I saw this.
Jonathan- Did you see this?
Jonathan- Where they actually have now proven, essentially, that modern hunter-gatherers are not burning more calories than the normal, everyday -sort of European- or western -sort of American- life style. Which is interesting, fascinating none-the-less. But, the other thing that’s important to note is, again, this whole concept of eating less and exercising more. We need to step back, and Jade, you did an excellent job on your recent Huffington Post article talking about this. If the goal is weight loss, that’s what happens in concentration camps -people lose weight. If you see pictures of people who leave concentration camps, most people do not want to look that way. I don’t think anyone’s goal when they embark on something health-and-fitness related, is to look like someone who emerged from a concentration camp. I think their goal is to look and feel healthy and fit, and feel that way for the rest of their life. If you want to look like someone who left a concentration camp, eat less and exercise more, because it’ll burn everything. It’s like pouring gas on your garden to kill the weeds. Yeah, it’ll kill the weeds, but it’s gonna kill everything. It will, it absolutely will – but I don’t think that’s our goal. Our goal is to be healthy and fit and look vibrant. The way we do that is actually by eating more higher quality food. Which actually doesn’t mean eat more calories. These are nutrient dense foods which are actually going to enable us to accidentally eat fewer calories, but get way more nutrition. Which is certainly different than eating less calories and less nutrition. One triggers a starvation response, the other one doesn’t. If we exercise more, which you talk about so well in your research, you cause a hormonal change that no amount -none- of traditional jogging will ever cause that change, it just won’t. So, it just really is an apples to oranges comparison. They’re two completely different approaches and they yield different results. We can argue which is better. I don’t even like having that argument. I mean, if you want to look like a bag of bones, if you want to look like you left a concentration camp – eat less and exercise more. If you want to look like what I actually think you want to look like, and if you actually want to feel the way I think you want to feel – then eat higher quality food and a lot of it, and do less but higher quality exercise.
Jade- Yeah, I love the way you put that. One of the things that I think someone should put together is a picture book that shows the volume of food -the amount of food- and the calories of food. If you take 10 chicken breasts and 10 donuts and put those two things side-by-side, they have the same amount of calories. There is no way you’re gonna eat those 10 chicken breasts. But I know -you might not be able to, Jonathan- but I know, I can eat 10 donuts. I know some of my clients can as well, so it goes in to this thing: the quality of food you’re eating also determines the quantity of food you’re eating. Even if we get in to this calorie argument- having a low calorie, so-called “healthy” breakfast, is neither low calorie or healthy if it leads you to eat a very high calorie, unhealthy meal later in the evening. That is exactly what is happening to most people who are using the traditional approach.
Jonathan- That’s exactly right. The traditional approach, I think, is very short-term focused. We can do “anything” for 30 days. If your goal is to make the scale move as much as it can in 30 days -ask a boxer how to do that, ask a wrestler how to do that, ask anyone who has to make weight. There’s very specific things: you dehydrate yourself, you just put as little in to your body as you can, you make as much come out of your body as you can. You can do all kinds of things to make things come out of your body, that are not healthy. But, that’s what you do to make weight for your wrestling match next week or that’s what you do for your runway show in two weeks. If our goal -and I think it is- is to think about the next 30 years, the next 60 years; that requires a much different approach. That’s a really simple point which we’ve lost sight of because of all this media garbage, right? If you do something to achieve a result and you stop, the result goes away. So anytime we want to try a 17-day diet, or a 3-day this, or a 2-day that -what happens on day 3? What happens on day 4? What happens on day 18? It’s got to be something you can keep up or any result that you get, you’re gonna lose -and you may even regress. If you burn off all your muscle tissue and then you go back to eating the way you were eating before, well, now you’re running slower, so you’re gonna gain back even more fat. That long term approach is also really, really critical to keep in mind.
Jade- Yeah, it’s funny. I know you have these conversations all the time. I enjoy having these conversations with people who challenge the approach that you and I put out there, this different approach. One of the things that I think they miss, or they’re not thinking about, is just what you’re saying. It’s that anything that you do, that is gonna deliver results, has to be something you can do forever. I know you probably know the numbers on this better than I do. What are the long term statistics with this? My understanding is -and I know you’ve looked at the research more in depth than I have- if you look two years out for people who go on traditional weight-loss diets, it’s something like less than 5% actually end up being able to keep that weight off. I don’t know if those numbers are accurate, you probably have the more accurate numbers. Do you know what that number is?
Jonathan- Yeah, you’re very, very close- it’s 4.6%. Just to put that in perspective of how low that is, the long term success rate for quitting smoking cold-turkey, so no help, –and remember nicotine is the third most addictive substance in the world, second only to heroin and cocaine– is 5.5%. That means we’re about a percent more likely to give up the most addictive substance in the world, with no assistance, than we are to be able to continue to force ourselves to eat less and exercise more. There’s the key point though, eating less and exercising more “works”. But like you said, Jade, I put the quotes around it because I define “works” as: for the rest of your life you will have the physique and the health that you want, not for as long as you can keep up this ridiculous routine.
Jade- Yeah, that’s really a great way to say it. One of the things that I say and I get a lot of heat for -and in the Huffington Post article, I got a lot of comments- that people didn’t like this. The way I like to say this is that any other model, in any other discipline, with a track record as poor as the calories in/calories out model, would have really been labeled useless and discarded long ago -in any other model that you look at. So it’s really interesting to me that we keep practicing something that you say may work in the short term, but has an abysmal statistical success rate in the long run. It just really is a shame that people still will defend a model that really does not give any kind of results. You know, one of the things I want to do though, because you and I, we love this kind of stuff. You and I could probably sit here and talk all day. I’m actually really enjoying this conversation -thanks for mentioning that Huffington Post article- it’s pretty interesting though because I got an awful lot of negative comments on that. I think those comments were justified, because as you and I talked about -the calorie model, one of the things that makes it so appealing, is that it’s simple. So when you and I start talking about hormones, quality of food, and quality of exercise, that begins a whole other discussion about- what is that? I really like your model of the SANE foods and I have my model of “fat-loss” foods. Just in the interest -I’m actually recording this conversation as well- and just in the interest of covering that for people because I want to share this conversation. What would you say for these people who have this issue of, “What do I do, Jonathan? What do I do, Jade – with these SANE foods?” What do you tell them to make it simple for them?
Jonathan- Let me answer that in two ways. I will definitely define SANE, but one thing I think is very helpful is —I read your article, I actually read all the comments and you’re an amazing trooper for putting up with some of the crap that people threw at you. So, I give you props for that, first of all. It’s like a religious issue for some people, which always kind of bothers me, I’m like, “Come on guys, we’re all just trying to pursue science here.”
Jonathan- They get negative and pissy, so props to you. What I will say is that, again -and we’ve talked about this before- it’s not that calories in/calories out doesn’t matter. Think about the way any other system in our body works. Like our respiratory system- breaths in and breaths out, matters. But the thought that you need to consciously think about how many breaths you’re taking in and how many breaths you’re letting out, is ridiculous. Think about how your heart works. It pumps blood in and pumps blood out, but it does that on it’s own. Those things can break down, right? You might need a pace maker. If you smoke and take in the wrong quality of air, you might need a respirator. When bodily systems are given the wrong inputs -and I say wrong quality of inputs- their natural ability to keep us healthy breaks down. The same thing happens with your metabolic system. When it’s given the wrong quality of inputs, it’s ability to keep us healthy and fit naturally -’cause that’s our natural state, we didn’t evolve to be sick and heavy all the time, we would have died off as a species a long time ago. So, calories in/calories out absolutely matters, just like breaths in/breaths out matters. The nuance is, do we need to manually regulate that or not? My research shows the answer is, no. That if we can get our body to do what it is designed and adapted to do, it takes care of that for us. So calories in/calories out absolutely matters. What isn’t required is constant regulation of it. When we provide our body with the right quality of stuff- and segueing in to saying- what my research showed to be the right quality of stuff are what I call SANE foods, or foods that are Satisfying, unAggressive, Nutritious and inEfficient. Quickly defining each one of those – Satiety, the first one, just means how many of these calories do we need to fill us up and keep us full. Satisfying foods like non-starchy vegetables, high quality proteins, things like that; they fill us up in relatively few calories. Whereas, processed starches and sweets are not satisfying – they take a lot of calories to fill us up. The “A” stands for aggression. This is very similar to glycemic load /glycemic index. It’s just how quickly food is converted in to sugar – it spikes our insulin levels. We want to eat unaggresive foods. “N” stands for nutrition-we’re all familiar with that. But, the key thing is to think about nutrition per calorie. Like, are whole grains a good source of fiber? If you look at it per calorie, they’re not at all. Compare whole grain flour, or whole wheat flour, to spinach – and it’s anemic.
Jade- Yeah, no comparison.
Jonathan- There’s no comparison at all, you gotta look at it per calorie. Finally, efficiency -which is the least well known- has to do with how easily our body can convert this substance in to triglyceride, or body fat. For example, protein takes twice as many calories to go through all of the chemical processes that need to take place to turn it in to triglyceride than carbohydrate. Doesn’t mean carbohydrate is bad for you. It just means our body stores carbohydrate as fat more efficiently than it does protein. So, if you add this stuff all up, there’s three things in common – foods that are high in water, fiber, and protein. Those are the cornerstones of eating SANE foods. They’re rich in water, they’re rich in fiber, they’re rich in protein. They’re non-starchy vegetables, high-quality proteins, and natural whole food fats. Making it all make a lot of sense, those are the only foods that were available to us up until about 100 years ago. So, it probably makes sense that our bodies run best on them, considering that there were no other options available while our bodies were evolving.
Jade- Yeah, you know that’s fantastic the way you put that. I would say the same thing to these people that say, “Ok, Jade, Jonathan, tell us what to do.” It’s exactly the same- Jonathan’s SANE foods are what I call my “fat-loss” foods. Foods that really balance hunger, keep you satisfied for longer, decrease cravings, and balance energy. They’re the exact same foods – foods high in lean protein, good fats, water, and fiber —-really- protein, water, fiber; protein, water, fiber; protein, water, fiber. It’s really interesting because you can say that until you’re blue in the face and people still will ask you, “Well, Jonathan, Jade…” -I don’t know if you get that question, but I assume you do, “…What about whole grains? What about this-and-that?” I mean, really, it’s protein, water and fiber. When you look at it from that point of view, really that to me means: all non-starchy vegetables, pretty much all fruits -but especially the low sugar fruits, the other thing that fruits and vegetables have is a ton of water- and then good quality protein sources. Now, like you said, it’s not about the fact that carbohydrates are necessarily these evil foods, or that some of these foods that people label are all evil and you should never eat them. It’s just about what you said, that our bodies are built for that. If you fill up on those foods, you are going to have a hormonally balanced metabolism and you’re automatically going to eat less. If you sit down and eat four cups of broccoli and two chicken breasts, you are not going to have room, or the desire, to sit down and try to have a cheesecake after that . You know, for most people, that’s just not going to happen. One of the things I like to make the comparison between -you probably heard this, I don’t know if you have, Jonathan- the world-famous Kashi Go Lean cereal, which everyone sees as the epitome of the dieting health-and-fitness world. Two cups of Kashi Go Lean and a glass of orange juice has more calories, and is less food, than an eight-egg-white omelette with three cups of vegetables and a side of blueberries. I’m a big eater, and I couldn’t even eat that 8-egg-white omelette. When people ask what to do, I think it’s pretty simple – we just want to make it more complicated.
Jonathan- I would agree with you, it is very simple. Another way I like to say it too is: always be too full for dessert. Because, in many ways what you’re eating for your meal, can’t possibly be as bad for you as dessert will be. So, if all you literally do is double up on your main dish -assuming your main dish isn’t fettucini alfredo- and have an extra serving of vegetables on the side, just eat so much dinner that you’re too full for dessert. Ironically, you will feel better. Psychologically, you’ll feel better. Because it’s a psychological fact that if you tell a person, “Don’t do (this)…” or, “You can’t have (this)…” and you tell them negative things – that is treated much differently than if you say, “I want you, tomorrow, to eat as much egg whites, non-starchy vegetables, and blueberries for breakfast -they’re vibrant in color and they’re fresh- I want you to try to eat as much of that as you possibly can.” That is a completely different mindset than, “Alright, you’ve got ‘X’ points, don’t spend them too inappropriately or you’re gonna be hungry.” You know, it’s totally empowering. Mother Teresa once said something that I love. Someone said, “Mother Teresa will you come march with us against the war in Vietnam?” This was back when the Vietnam war was taking place. She said, “I will never march against the war in Vietnam, but if you have a march for peace, I’ll lead the way.” And I think that’s what we’re saying Jade. We’re saying pursue the positive. Just eat more nutritious foods and do more higher-quality exercise. In doing that you will actually have to exercise less because you’ll be too sore to exercise more. Pursue the positive rather than this idea of dieting, depravation, and starving yourself. Because that doesn’t work psychologically and that’s why it doesn’t work long term.
Jade- Yeah, I think that’s great. I basically talk about this whole idea of – eat more of the right foods more often – and I know people get confused on those “right” foods. One other thing -I just want to get your sense on this because I know people will ask about this- they hear us make examples of this eight-egg-white omelette, and of course people will jump on us and say, “Wait a second, what’s wrong with the yolks?” …and things like that. I want to hear your answer to this too, but my answer would be – there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the yolks at all. The point that we’re just trying to make is: that if you load up on protein, fiber, and water based foods, you are not going to necessarily be hungry. Adding the yolks in there is absolutely fine -they’re healthy, they’re good fats- it’s not going to be a huge issue. I guess one of the things that I would say is that if you have a very obese individual, who already has insulin resistance and all these blood fats floating around in their body, then even healthy fats – you don’t necessarily want to overdue those. But, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the yolks. I just wanted to see your thoughts on that in terms of when we talk about this idea of “lean” proteins. Oftentimes the people in the world of the primal nutrition, and things like that, get in an uproar.
Jonathan- Yeah, I’m so happy you brought this up because this is definitely where I get the most flack. There’s, I think, at least three chapters in The Smarter Science of Slim just extolling the virtues of fat and completely debunking the whole low-fat message. My key thing is that there are fats that are incredibly healthy -just phenomenally healthy. Seafood, for example, plant fats -chia seeds, flax seeds, avocados, things like that. Then there are fats which are neutral, or pretty-good, such as natural saturated fats – like from coconuts, from nuts, high-quality grass-fed meats. Then there are fats which are terrible. Those are artificial fats, things like trans-fats. My research suggests that those high-quality fats like seafood, plant fats -such as the chia seeds, the omega-3 fats- are so important for your health that I actually want people to go out of their way to consume those foods. I want you to eat fatty fish. I want you to eat chia seeds and flax seeds. I want you to eat coconut and I want you to eat avocado. If you do that, AND you eat bacon AND you eat a bunch of egg yolks, now you’re going to be getting 50-60% of your calories from fat. Which is not necessarily bad. But, if you want to load up also on vegetables and lean protein, what you’ll find is that, if you’re eating those SUPER high-quality fats and you’re eating the water, fiber, and protein heavy foods – you won’t have enough room for the other kinds of fats. What I say is just be intentional about the fats you’re eating. I often eat egg yolks, but I often don’t, simply because I’m too full from all of the seafood and all of the plant fats I ate earlier in the day. So, it’s not about avoiding them – it’s just like there are some vegetables that are healthier than other vegetables, there are fruits that are healthier than other fruits, and there’s some fats and there’s some meats… I mean, certainly, I think organic grass-fed beef is better for us than pink slime. They’re both meat. But I don’t think anyone is going to say, “Eat some more pink slime.” So I’m saying, I want you to stuff yourself with these optimal fats. When you do that, you aren’t going to have room for the other fat.
Jade- Yeah, I would agree with that 100%. I mean, for me, it’s the same thing. I don’t label fat as evil, and just like you said, I really don’t label starch as evil either. I just think that given for most people where they want to get to, given the natural life-style we all live as Americans -and most of the people you and I are talking to are individuals who want to lose fat- who have metabolisms that already have high amounts of fat on the body, high resting blood sugars, and things like that. I think all we’re both saying, is – that if you eat higher protein, higher water foods, higher fiber foods, supplement in the very healthy fats, and minimize your starch intake – fat loss is going to happen really, really easily. There are certainly those in my clinical experience, those in their 20’s and 30’s, with healthy metabolisms who can gorge themselves on fat -and lose a ton of fat in the process. I see way more of those people than I do of people gorging on carbohydrates. I would just say for the very obese, and those who are diabetic, and things like that – they really do want to stick to water, fiber, protein, and the good fats. I’m glad to have that discussion because I often times get blowback from people on the whole fat issue, and I just want to hear your take on that.
Jonathan- Jade, Do you mind if I add one more thing?
Jonathan- Just ‘cause I’m going to get blowback if I don’t say this. People go crazy about this kind of stuff. The other way I like to phrase what I just said, which is echoing what you said, is I say be intentional about the fat you’re eating.
Jonathan- Just like I would say be intentional of the carbohydrates you’re eating and be intentional of the protein you’re eating. Which, I think, some people have lost sight of. It becomes a religious issue, right? There was this “anti” fat movement, so now people are “pro” fat. So it’s like, if you’re gonna eat eggs -eat the whole egg. If you’re gonna eat steak -eat a fatty steak. Wait, wait, wait – that’s not being intentional.
Jonathan- Being intentional is saying: I’m going to choose where I get my fats. I personally love egg-white omelets. I actually like them better than whole-egg omelets. So, I’m just choosing -not because I’m anti egg yolks- it’s because I would much rather have a tablespoon of peanut butter or some almonds after I eat. I would much rather get my fat from those sources than getting my fat from eggs. Just like the Paleo community chooses organic grass-fed beef versus pink slime. It’s not because they’re anti-protein, it’s because they want the highest quality protein. They’re intentional about the protein they’re eating. So, for people just to say, “Jonathan, you go anti-fat and then in your book you say low-fat Greek yogurt/non-fat Greek yogurt or low-fat cottage cheese/non-fat cottage cheese.” That’s because, in my experience, there is very little taste difference. So, I would much rather be able to add a bunch of peanut butter to my Greek yogurt, and enjoy that, rather than not be able to add anything to it because it’s already got a bunch of fat in it.
Jonathan- I’m being as intentional as everyone thinks we should be with carbohydrate and as we should be with protein. Let’s also be that intentional with fats.
Jade- Yeah, I did a blog on this, on the Metabolic Effect blog. When I look at this, obviously I’m in the camp of, like you say, the SANE foods and the “fat-loss” foods. Starch is probably the most troubling. There’s certainly people, probably more like yourself -compared to me- who can eat a ton of starch and still remain lean. There are those people out there. There are certainly those people who can eat a ton of fat and still remain lean. I think what we’re looking at is we’re looking at an obesity epidemic – ultimately fat can still make some people fat – starch can still make some people fat. I guess, technically, if you could eat enough broccoli and chicken breast, perhaps that would get you fat. The problem is, you simply cannot – for 99.99% of the population. So, I agree with you -fat and starch- I look at it as Metabolic Effect – the acronym for that is ME. Meaning YOU, as an individual, have to be intentional and pay attention to your metabolic expression, your personal preferences. For instance, if you have a moral thing against meat, then obviously, your personal preference is gonna be to go to the vegetarian/vegan side of the equation. I think that stuff’s important, your psychological sensitivities as well -all goes in to this. So, certainly there are those people who gravitate more towards a high fat diet. Ultimately it’s about -and I’m sure you’d say the same thing- if your hunger is balanced, your cravings are balanced, your energy is balanced, and you are losing fat and getting the results you want – then obviously whatever you’re doing, you’re doing correctly.
Jonathan- I would agree with that whole-heartedly. What I’m trying to do and what you’re trying to do is simply – let’s try to lay down some science so we have a common vocabulary. We can all agree it is better to get your fat from some salmon than it is from some french fries.
Jonathan- We can agree on that and we can just be intentional. Basically, if what you’re doing is working – keep it up! Awesome!
Jade- Yeah, yeah.
Jonathan- If you’re eating less and exercising more – and you’re having success, good for you! That’s awesome!
Jade- Yeah, I love the way you say that. I would even say, me being a natural health care provider too – I would prefer you get your fat from salmon versus a fish oil supplement.
Jade- We really do want to get people focusing on food. It’s interesting, man, we have to do this again. I want to pass this conversation out to our listeners, if you’re cool with that. The other thing is, I’m sure they’re gonna want to hear our take on exercise as well, but I’m basically out of time and I don’t want to keep you any longer. Let’s do this again, man, this is a whole lot of fun and just a ton of great information.
Jonathan- I appreciate it, Jade. If you don’t mind, can I leave you and your listeners with one tidbit of information I discovered recently, which I think you’ll love, that has to do with calories in/calories out?
Jade- Absolutely, man, please.
Jonathan- Alright, so I recently was doing some additional research. I did discover that, according to some data, we are -on average- eating more than we were in the 1970’s. We are, on average, consuming 425 more calories per person/per day than we were in the 1970’s . But here’s what’s interesting, Jade. Let’s do some math. Real quick here – 425 more calories per person/per day. Per day for 10 years, if it’s just calorie math, equals 440 pounds of fat. Ok, we’re certainly heavier today than we were in the 1970’s…But, 440 pounds in ten years, it’s been about 40 years – we’re not 1600 pounds heavier per person. So, there has to be something else metabolically going on. Yes, we are eating more. Why are we eating more? Why aren’t we gaining 2000 pounds from eating all of that food? That’s why I think your work is so interesting and hopefully why folks think my work is interesting as well.
Jade- Yeah, it really is amazing when you put it in those terms, isn’t it? There is absolutely something else going on. Definitely, I ‘m going to tell all my people to go out and get The Smarter Science of Slim, check out Jonathan’s work. Jonathan, you’re the man, let’s do this again soon, my man.
Jonathan- Sounds wonderful, Jade, I look forward to it.
Jade- Alright, take good care, bro.
Jonathan- Alright, buh-bye.