The Most Simple Lunch Recipe

I’d love to share my recipe for lunch on the weekdays.

My typical weekday consists of one-on-one work with clients from 7 to 11AM. At this point, I do my own workout for an hour or so and then eat. After a quick lunch, I have more clients until about 1PM, at which time I do administrative work at my gym. This lasts until 5:30PM, after which I finish the workday with a couple more clients.

I keep myself scheduled back-to-back for most of the day, meaning I don’t have time to spend 30 – 60 minutes preparing lunch. At the same time, I refuse to resort to snack bars, sugar drinks, or other meal-replacements.

Instead, my approach is to bake a few chicken breasts on the weekend and package them in microwave-safe containers. At the same time, I put a few avocados on the counter so they can ripen throughout the week.

By the time lunch rolls around, all I have to do is mash up the avocado with a little salsa or hot sauce, microwave the chicken for a couple minutes, and I have a perfectly balanced and satisfying lunch!

Below are instructions for the initial food preparation:

  1. Preheat oven to 400°F. While waiting, trim the chicken breast of fat if it is not locally and naturally raised. If it is from a local, humane source, the fat will be healthy and therefore, won’t need to be trimmed.
  2. Place chicken in oven when at temperature. No need to use any seasonings as these will go in the guacamole the day of the meal.
  3. Check chicken after 30 minutes. It will be done when the internal temperature reaches about 170°F.
  4. Remove and let cool. Separate into meal-sized portions and store in fridge.
  5. Pack chicken, seasonings, and avocado in the morning before leaving home. I usually use local salsa or hot sauce, but garlic, salt, honey, lemon, or herbs and spices may be used as well.
  6. When hungry, microwave chicken for 2 minutes. Mash avocado, with seasonings, while waiting.
  7. Voila – you have homemade guacamole and a healthy protein source in only a couple minutes!

I usually recommend that active individuals weighing over 150 pounds shoot for about 8 ounces of chicken and a full avocado. Smaller individuals may dial back to half an avocado and 4 to 6 ounces of chicken.

Even if you use the larger portion size (8 ounces of chicken and a full avocado) the entire meal will only come to about 600 calories while providing 50 grams of protein, 30 grams of healthy fats, and 14 grams of fiber.

The nutritional profile of this meal will fulfill the following daily requirements:

10% Vitamin A

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA90% Vitamin B6

16% Vitamin B12

33% Vitamin C

21% Vitamin E

53% Vitamin K

80% Selenium

20% Iron & Copper

30% Magnesium & Zinc

45% Potassium

Clearly this meal provides a significant amount of vitamins and minerals, but it is also very affordable. Avocados are usually $1 each (or less if you live where they grow), and chicken breast costs between $2 and $4 a pound. The maximum this meal will cost is $3!

The nutritional density of this meal, the affordable price of the ingredients, and the quick and easy preparation proves that there’s no longer an excuse to resort to meal replacement bars – frequently loaded with sugar, processed soy, and refined grains.

So, this weekend, pick up some avocados, put some chicken in the oven, and you’ll have the perfect lunch for the following week!

Epidemiological Studies

I spend hours every day reading studies, articles, and researching health-related matters. When I find a new publication or exploration of a topic, I get excited to dive in. That being said, some studies and articles are more useful than others.

One type of study that is used frequently to make health claims and guide public policy is an “epidemiological study”. Epidemiology is the study of a set population, or group of people, to develop correlations or inferences.

The problem is that these do not prove anything. When we find a strong correlation between factors, we should use that as a starting point to conduct further research. An epidemiological study, by itself, should never be the basis for making health policies.

Let me give some examples.

Epidemiology suggests that soy is a healthy incorporation in a diet. This is due to the fact that Asian countries consume high amounts of soy on a regular basis and don’t experience the same health problems as Western nations.

However, no other factors are taken into account.

The soy that Asians consume has not been genetically modified to the same extent as ours, nor has it been grown in soils depleted of minerals. Also, most Asian dishes use fermented soy or the bean in its natural state.

Asian cultures consume more wild-caught fish (high in anti-inflammatory omega-3s), sea vegetables (loaded with vitamins and minerals), and opt for white rice, with less anti-nutrients and gut-damaging proteins than typical “heart-healthy” whole grains such as wheat and oatmeal.

Historically, Asians don’t consume as much processed food as Americans. They don’t cook in corn or canola oil, they don’t have packaged foods at every meal, and they don’t go out to eat as often.

And finally, they are far more active – walking, biking, and taking the stairs as part of daily life.

Because of these factors, we cannot confidently say that the consumption of soy in Asian countries is the cause of their better health.

When we look at soy mechanistically, we find phytoestrogens that have the potential to skew hormone levels, leading to fat-storage and growth of cancer cells. It is extremely high in inflammatory omega-6s. Take into consideration our growing practices, extensive refinement process, and consumption of soy byproducts, and soy consumption in the US no longer seems as safe.

Another example of epidemiology lacking substance:

In March of this year, there was a headline stating: “Animal protein-rich diets could be as harmful to health as smoking”. These news reports were based upon two studies: one epidemiological study of over 6000 adults and one study of mice in a laboratory.

The results of these studies suggested that a high protein diet (over 20% of calories) was “positively associated with diabetes-related mortality”. When you look at the numbers, one person in the “high-protein” group (consisting of over 1000 individuals) died from diabetes.

The lead researcher running this study owns a plant-derived protein supplement company…explaining the claim that only animal-protein is dangerous.

Some other issues:

There was no way to control for protein quality. There has never been a study showing negative outcomes from consumption of wild-caught fish, grass-fed beef, or eggs from pasture-raised chickens.

The mice that experienced growth of cancer tumors were implanted with melanoma cells before the study began. Plus, the study found that high protein consumption was “not associated with all-cause, CVD, or cancer mortality”. Therefore, the protein-cancer correlation was in fact disproved.

Finally, diet was self-reported. The average participant reported consuming 1,800 calories a day…30% lower than the national average. This suggests major under-reporting.

So, even though the study was riddled with flaws, and actually found no increased risk from animal-protein consumption, the results were phrased to dissuade individuals from consuming meat.

To get back to my original point – epidemiology is used too often to prove a pre-existing belief, promote a political agenda, or increase profits.

By itself, epidemiology is no different than trying to claim that the number of birds flying over a particular region somehow determines cancer rates in that area.

Certainly we should use any research tactic available to ask questions and form a hypothesis…but ultimately, we need to examine issues in every way possible.

Once we’ve investigated mechanisms, done cohort studies and some “food-diary” studies with pictures, it’s time to form a hypothesis and conduct a blinded, crossover, metabolic ward trial to draw some real conclusions!
correlation

Review of New York Times Article

How has your sleep been in the past week? Any of the tactics from my last post help?

This week I’ll review an article I came across on the New York Times website.

Initially, I wanted to post a lot more news articles. I also wanted to include a lot more in-line citations and references. I tried this in earlier posts but, ultimately, scrapped those attempts. I found it led to biased cherry-picking of studies and data.

Obviously I have my opinion, and I’m sure that comes through at times but, ultimately, I want to provide reliable and verifiable information for everyone…not convince people that what I do is best.

The news article, titled “Dietary Report Card Disappoints”, discusses many of the shortcomings of our nation’s health. The real thing that stuck out to me (maybe because of my opinion! haha) was the following quote:

 “There’s been a huge increase in grains in the last 30 years — bread, cereal, pasta, rice, burritos, pizza crust, panini, muffins, scones — mostly made from white flour,” she said. “We’ve been blaming the obesity epidemic on sweets, and we are eating too much sugar, but we need to pay more attention to grains.

“It would not be great to simply replace refined grains like white flour and white rice with whole grains,” she added. “We need to cut back on grains, period.”

This is the first time I’ve seen a mainstream source acknowledge our nations over-consumption of grains.

This report also discusses over-consumption of sugars, primarily high-fructose corn syrup. The article recommends fruit which is a perfect, more nutritious alternative to fulfill a sweet-craving.

Early on in this piece, saturated fat is lumped into the same category as “heart-damaging trans fats” and lists margarine and shortening as sources of saturated fats. Fortunately, we all know that saturated fats may be the safest for the heart and that margarine is dangerous because of its trans-fat content (occurring through the process of hydrogenation).

Another flaw is when the nutritionist quoted in the article, Liebman, reports that consuming beef and pork, as opposed to chicken and fish, is a problem. Fish is certainly the best protein source but, believe it or not, beef is preferable to chicken. One ounce of chicken has 8 grams of fat (1500mg Omega 6 and 100mg Omega 3), while one ounce of grass-fed beef only has 3.6 grams of fat (120mg Omega 6 and 25mg Omega 3). Crunching these numbers, the O6/O3 ratio of chicken is 15/1 while beef is 5/1. Clearly beef is leaner and has an O6/O3 ratio closer to the optimal 2/1 range.

One protein source the article recommends is frozen fish and farm-raised mussels…a timely callback to my recipe post two weeks ago!

Dairy is discussed within this article but again, critical details are overlooked. Liebman approves of the “decline in whole milk consumption and the booming popularity of mostly low-fat yogurt”. However, dairy is problematic for many people due to lactose intolerance and the inflammatory nature of its primary protein – casein. Also, the majority of dairy in the U.S. is pasteurized and homogenized. This means that a raw food, with living enzymes, vitamins, and minerals, is heated and processed into a dead substance. Manufacturers must then add synthetic vitamins and minerals and stamp it with a short shelf life.

The final topic covered is portion sizes, particularly in restaurants. This is a very valid point. Restaurants, along with food processing companies, have increased the palatability of certain foods. By tinkering with man-made forms of sodium, sugar, and fat, they have found a way to completely override our bodies natural hunger signals. An interesting comparison: one 16-ounce soda contains the same amount of sugar as FOUR FEET of the sugarcane plant. Imagine how much fibrous and inedible plant matter you’d have to gnaw through to ingest that amount of fructose naturally.

To limit my intake of unhealthy portion sizes of processed food, I merely treat eating-out as an indulgence. Also, considering the cost of one meal at a restaurant, I cannot frequently justify going out to eat. By eating nutrient-dense, homemade meals 99% of the time, going out to eat every month or so is far more enjoyable and doesn’t negatively affect my health and performance.

Well, that’s all I have for my review of this New York Times article. If you ever see reports, studies, or anything else you’d like me to break-down for you, don’t hesitate to e-mail me directly…it’s always fun for me. Thanks!