SS 216 – Don’t Discriminate Against Fit Women

Episode 216 Show Notes

Finally, Grant and Heavey are back on the show — together! Today, they discuss the value of research and how women are being so poorly represented. Listen as they touch more on research bias, gender equality, how you should actually look at studies, and more!

[03:45] Blame It on the MSG!

Grant talks about an article he found on SeriousEats.com, which features mostly recipes, but also takes an analytical, science-based approach to cooking and making sure dishes turn out perfectly.

MSG stands for monosodium glutamate, which is basically a type of salt used for cooking to enhances flavors. In the late 60s or 70s, the term “Chinese restaurant syndrome” was circulating around where restaurants were popping up and people were getting all these headaches and upset stomachs. The author blamed it on MSG and this resulted in a study conducted about the effects of MSG.

They actually tested infant mice and showed that high doses of MSG injected under the skin caused retinal damage, brain damage, and obesity. Since then, over 20 different independent studies on MSG were conducted in either rodents or primates. Despite other publications trying to say there’s nothing bad about it, negative connotations continue to be spread about MSG.

It’s funny how people tend to skip Chinese restaurants or look for the “no MSG” sign when products like parmesan cheese, sardines, anchovies, tomatoes, pork, beef, chicken, mushroom, carrots, and soybeans all contain very high levels of naturally occurring MSG.

[09:29] Should More Home Chefs Be Adding More MSG in Food?

The author of the article also suggests that some studies that show negative effects are always short-lived and affects a very small percentage of the population. His point is to not worry about it. If you want to experiment with different flavors, try it and see if you like it. Don’t be afraid!

[11:11] Gender Differences Based on Science

During the last episode, Grant and his wife, Elizabeth, were talking about communication problems, and the whole AM/FM thing. Heavey wanted to bring this up to stress differences between genders, gender equality being a huge and controversial topic right now. One of the elements of gender equality and differences between genders is how it relates to scientific research.

Most scientific research is conducted on male populations. For example, the original research on the role of estrogen for the prevention of heart disease was conducted on a large group of men. No women were included in the study.

[14:55] The Underrepresentation of Women — Boohoo!

But the protocols developed to help women prevent heart disease used estrogen and hormone replacement therapy based on this data. They didn’t replicate the study on a large scale in women for 30 years. They learned they actually seriously fucked up people as they’ve been giving them bad advice for a very long time. In fact, the U.S. government is acknowledging this as a serious problem now that they established an office with the sole responsibility of advocating the inclusion of women as participants within scientific studies. This goes to show how women are very poorly represented.

Oftentimes too, in research, they’ll take people that have no training background whatsoever and then expose them to some training protocol or some nutrition protocol. Then they try to extrapolate that information out and recommend what elite athletes should do when it’s not really relevant to your subgroup per se. Scientific research has a lot of value but there are some very serious limitations that we should all have a strong respect for.

[17:22] Women’s Growing Interest in Fitness

Additionally, one of the largest gaps within research is having fit women as study participants. Even though there’s a greater emphasis on including women as participants within scientific research, it’s largely within the scope of overweight and obese populations. A number of studies conducted on fit women for outcomes that are of interest to fit women are almost non-existent. That being said, there’s really no time that’s more relevant than today because many women are deeply entrenched and interested in fitness.

[19:00] How You Should Look at a Study

Whenever you see a study come out, the first thing to do is realize that you’re reading a journalist’s interpretation of that study. Go back and take a look at the original paper and see if you’ve come to the same conclusion or if the authors even came to the same conclusion of the journalist. Then ask yourself what population was this study conducted on. It could be relevant to you — or not.

All the studies report what they used to select their research participants and then you can infer from that whether it’s relevant to you. Nevertheless, most researchers care deeply about what they’re doing. They’re not actively trying to deceive people. That said, don’t just listen to one source. As humans, we are all biased in some way.

For instance, women respond differently to intermittent fasting or they can have different tolerances for carbohydrate restriction. But it’s more relevant than using research that’s based on all men. Ultimately, if you feel like some research says their path is “the” path, know that it might not be the answer for you. You might belong to a different population than what was studied. You’re going to respond differently and that’s okay.

Grant adds that no study can ever be totally controlled because every single person is different. The more we try not to randomize control it, the more effective some of these prescriptions can be.

Plus, the more controlling and hyperspecific we are, oftentimes, we can totally miss the point. Interestingly, research shows that when you do fasted cardio, it acutely increases your fat oxidation. But whether that changes body composition is a completely different thing.