I know that many of you struggle to tailor our nutritional philosophy to your specific needs. In the past, I was able to work 1-on-1 with everyone to help them figure it out.

As we continued to grow and the number of people seeking guidance increased, my time quickly disappeared. It has become so bad lately that some of you have had the awful experience of waiting a week or more for me to answer a single nutrition question.

To remedy this problem, we have begun offering Eat to Achieve services. I am excited to be able to once again prioritize your individual success.

[Read more →]

Many of you know the term “muscle confusion” from the incredibly popular P90X training system. Is there really such a thing as “muscle confusion” or is this simply another great marketing ploy?

Confusion is a term that applies only to the act of thought and thus, the brain. Muscles are unable to be confused because they can’t think. Instead, muscles respond precisely to the demands imposed on them.

That should end the debate of whether or not “muscle confusion” is real.

A related problem I have come across a lot, is something I refer to as exercise ADD. I use this term to describe the individual who is unable to stick to a single training plan long enough to progress beyond the beginner level. Sure, anything will work in the short term. Simply expose your muscles to a new stimulus and you’re pretty much guaranteed to see a new adaptation occur. The quick results experienced in the first few weeks or months of a training program can be very satisfying. P90X is a great example of this.

As with any other skill though, progressing from beginner to intermediate is quicker and easier than progressing from intermediate to advanced and from advanced to elite. This can be compared to losing weight. The first 10 or 20 pounds are relatively easy compared to the final 5 or 10. Just because progress slows down though doesn’t mean the method is not working. All it really means is that progressing to the next level is going to take more time and effort: Maybe even a lot more of both.

With that being said, the principle of accommodation is very real. This means that progress will come to a halt and maybe even begin to regress if a muscle is exposed to the same stimulus for a long period of time. For example, if you back squat 200kg for 5 sets of 5 reps every week, you will eventually stop getting stronger and probably begin to regress. This is because the muscles involved will adapt to the given stimulus over time. Once adapted, the muscles will require a new, more demanding, stimulus. This doesn’t necessarily mean you have to change movements though. Changing the number of reps or amount of weight used is generally enough.

The gradual increase of said stimulus (amount of weight lifted in this example) is known as progressive overload. To make strength gains, you need to continuously expose the muscle to a stimulus that is greater than the one it has already adapted to.

The most basic form of progressive overload is called linear progression. With linear progression, you use the same volume (ex. 5 x 5) for a given movement (ex. back squat), but increase the weight a little every workout. A beginner should be able to make gains with linear progression for at least a year before needing more advanced methods (undulating, concurrent, and conjugate methods to name a few).

How does this apply to what we do at CrossFit Fire?

We are currently using a hybrid pendulum method composed of max effort and speed-strength days to avoid accommodation. No confusion necessary.

[Read more →]

When most people adopt a Paleo eating style, they inherently start eating low-carb even though this isn't a requirement of Paleo or of good health. There are multiple examples throughout history of non-westernized cultures who have thrived on a very high-carb (starchy) diet. However, if you are already insulin resistant (i.e. overweight), your body will be unable to handle a high-carb approach and you must go low-carb to regain your health.

Converting to low-carb is far from easy for most of us though. Learning a new way to eat while feeling nauseous, lightheaded, fatigued, or irritable makes it very difficult to avoid giving in to those delicious tasting carbs. Here are a few tips and tricks to make the conversion more tolerable:

• Drink plenty of water, but be sure to add electrolytes. This will help fight lightheadedness as well as headaches. Drinking homemade bone broth is another option, but a lot less feasible for most.
• Take a magnesium supplement. This is a good idea even if you aren't a low-carb eater. Natural water sources used to provide us with plenty of magnesium, but now that we drink bottled or filtered tap water, everyone is deficient in this important mineral.
• Have your vitamin D levels checked and supplement if necessary. A good place to be is 60-80 ng/ml.
• Eat a single jelly bean or a single orange slice if you are feeling hypoglycemic. If you are truly hypoglycemic, the small amount of sugar provided should have you feeling better almost immediately.
• Avoid coffee, tea, alcohol, and over-the-counter medications. All of these things contain toxins (yes, caffeine and alcohol are toxins) that tax the liver. While your liver is taxed from detoxifying your blood, your adaptation to a low-carb diet is being slowed down.
• Eat more fat! If you are going to eat low-carb, you MUST eat high fat. I've seen a lot of people who think they are eating high fat, but instead they are eating high protein with moderate fat.

There you have it. 6 tips to help you fight those nasty carb cravings so that you can enjoy the longterm benefits of a low-carb lifestyle.

[Read more →]

When it comes to nutrition, especially Paleo, a lot of you can relate to this picture. There are so many variations and interpretations floating around out there that the entire notion of Paleo has become very confusing.

Go back several years though and Paleo was easy. It included limitless amounts of meat, fish, eggs, nuts, seeds, vegetables, and fruits. There were absolutely zero exceptions for any grains, dairy products, legumes (including soy), or starches. Fish oil was drank by the bottle. Life was simple. Life was good.

Fast forward back to today and you'll notice that the nutritional approach at the Fort has changed slightly over the years. The reason being that as research into human nutrition grows, so does our understanding and knowledge of what the optimal human diet should look like. And as long as we can keep an open mind, this should continue as we strive to eat as healthily as possible.

Why then hasn't everyone's definition of Paleo evolved along the same line as ours? Why are there countless interpretations of Paleo? It could be because others are afraid to admit that what they were doing before was essentially 'wrong'. Or maybe said person(s) has a financial stake in the previous model of Paleo. Or maybe they simply haven't studied the same research and drawn the same conclusions that we have. We all have to remember that nobody can say with 100% certainty what the optimal human diet is. Instead, we must analyze the research, pay attention to the past, and make hypothesis' going forward, but they will still be just that; educated guesses.

That brings me to the title of this post: When Paleo isn't really Paleo.

Based on that title, some of you may have assumed that this post was going to be a rant about the Paleofication of poor food choices (i.e. Paleo margaritas, Paleo cookies, Paleo pancakes, etc.), but I am saving that for another day. Instead, this post is intended to clear up any confusion surrounding the classification of the nutritional philosophy at the Fort.

The nutritional philosophy shared at the Fort is still referred to as Paleo even though it differs from our original definition as well as the definition of others. The reason we choose to still call what we do Paleo is quite simple: It makes life easier for all of us. When using a naming classification such as Paleo, it provides newcomers with an entry point to this nutritional revolution. It makes it possible for any John Smith to hear about how we eat and to then go home and type 'Paleo' into his favorite search engine, coming up with millions of results. Sure, he may be inundated with texts naysaying what we do, but the basic premise, the foundation, will still be provided.

[Read more →]

Now that I have your attention, let's talk about CrossFit Fire's next weight loss challenge.

In the past, we have hosted an in-house Better Body Challenge (BBC). Participants each paid $40 into a pot (to be split by the male and female winners) and had their success (or lack thereof) judged solely on before and after photos.

Believe it or not, the BBC was never as successful as we would have liked. Therefore, we tried shortening the contest length as well as increasing it. Neither option helped. We also created a forum where participants could keep a daily food log, share recipes, ask questions, and offer support and encouragement to one another. Monitoring food logs became a problem though due to there being 30 participants, but only 24 hours in my day. Jennie and I simply didn't have the resources needed to monitor every participant to that degree.

The good news is, we think we might have finally found a solution; Enter HealthyWage.

HealthyWage is an online company that organizes weight loss challenges. Their next challenge, The Matchup, pits team vs team in a weight loss showdown. The way it works is that teams of 5 sign-up online, with each person paying a $60 entry fee. From there, each person on your team will have an initial weigh-in at the Fort or another official weigh-in station. Your team then has 12 weeks to lose weight. There is one caveat: each member on your team is restricted to losing a maximum of 16.7% of their starting body weight. Anything above that amount will not be counted. They do this to prevent unhealthy weight loss and to keep 1 person from carrying the entire team.

At the end of the 12 weeks, the team with the highest average percentage of weight loss will take home $10,000. That's right, $10,000! The second place team wins $5,000 and the third place team wins $3,000.

What we like about this challenge is that you will be part of a 5 person team with a large monetary incentive to do well. This means that the 5 of you will be accountable to one another. Not only will you want to do well, but your 4 teammates will want you to do well. This will increase the daily accountability that Jennie and I were never able to sustain on our own.

Our private forums will also remain open. This will provide each team with a way to communicate with one another. We can even setup forum groups for each individual team.

If you are interested, find 4 other CrossForters and sign-up at HealthyWage.com. If you don't have 4 other people from the Fort, write your name on the list on the extra whiteboard at the Fort to let others know you are interested. Be sure not to wait though. The challenge starts Friday, August 26th!

[Read more →]

What's unhealthier, 2 small apples or a 12 oz can of Coca-Cola?

I think we all agree that the can of Coke is unhealthier.

If I were to ask you why drinking pop is unhealthy, you would probably mention something about high-fructose corn syrup. This leads me to my next question:

Which of these contains more fructose: 2 small apples or a 12 oz can of Coca-Cola?

2 Small Apples - 21.222g of Fructose

12 oz can of Coca-Cola - 22.449g of Fructose

As you can see, the amount of fructose is staggeringly close and if just one of those apples was even a little bit bigger, the apples would have surpassed the can of Coke in fructose content.

The point I'm trying to make is that we all see a can of pop and know that it is unhealthy because of it's fructose content. At the same time, we see a couple of apples and think we would be making a wise decision by eating them, never questioning their fructose content. At the end of the day though, total fructose consumption is what matters to your liver, regardless of where it came from.

[Read more →]

It must be said and I have no problem saying it again. Fructose will destroy your liver. And now, fructose has been found to damage the liver of your unborn baby as well.

Fruit juice, apples linked to fetus harm

"It could be that consuming fructose during pregnancy didn't give the mother any particular indicators ... so women may be unaware that their diet could be compromising the development of their fetus."

The study's other major finding was that at birth, female babies were more vulnerable to impaired development from a sugar-rich diet.

The investigators observed that the females had lighter placentas, which supply nutrients to the fetus.

However, post-natally, the males also showed adverse changes, such as higher levels of hormones.

Don't think you are in the clear simply because you aren't pregnant. Consumption of fructose is similar to alcohol in the damage it does to everyone's liver. Yet everyone is in agreement that heavy drinking is unhealthy while most everyone continues to pound the fructose. Do yourself, your fetus, and your nursing child all a favor and stay as far away from fructose as possible. If I had to place an upper limit on fructose I would go with 20g per day. Remember, that is the UPPER limit and less will always be more in terms of a healthy liver.

[Read more →]