Appendix C:
The Top Four Most Frequently Asked Questions

1. IS MORE EXERCISE BAD FOR ME?

The quick answer is that it depends.

The complete answer involves clarifying what we are talking about when we say “exercise.” To do this, let’s think about the intensity (number of muscle fibers worked) and impact (amount of bad stress put on our joints etc.). For example, consider the simplified table below:

	Lower-Impact	Higher-Impact
Higher-Intensity	Smarter Exercise	Explosive Athletics
	Eccentric Training	Power Lifting
	Smarter Interval Training	Boxing
	Resistance Training	Sprinting
Lower-Intensity	Restorative Activities	Traditional Exercise
	Yoga	Extreme Aerobics
	Walking	Jogging
	Gardening	Aerobics

We already know that we want to do a little higher-intensity/lower-impact smarter exercise to help us burn fat and boost health long term. Research is also clear that lower-intensity/lower-impact restorative activities are wonderful for our health. However, everything else can cause more harm than good. Explosive athletics expose you to a high risk of injury. Traditional exercise drives you to eat inSANE foods; injures you; takes up your time and money; suppresses the production of the thyroid hormone, T3 (a key hormone in determining whether your body “burns more” or “stores more” when faced with excess calories), especially in women; and compromises your ability to exercise smarter. Additionally, whatever the net metabolic and health benefits explosive and traditional exercises provide, they are dwarfed by those offered by smarter exercise and restorative activity.

Back to the question at hand. Is more traditional exercise bad for long-term health and fat loss? Yes. Is it a good idea to enjoy as much restorative activity as you can while exercising less—but smarter? Yes.

P.S.: If you share this with people and they immediately and violently disagree, ask yourself if they have a vested interest in your doing more traditional exercise.

2. DOESN’T OBESITY DISPRTOVE THE SET-POINT?

Some individuals who are not familiar with the science of the set-point will tell you that it is obviously incorrect. Why? Their response: “If the body automatically kept us at a healthy weight, then nobody would be obese. That’s the whole point of a ‘set-point,’ right? It’s a weight that doesn’t change.”

The short answer: “Does the fact that your home is too warm prove that you don’t have a thermostat?” No. Given modern architecture, it’s more likely that you have a thermostat which is turned up, broken, or overwhelmed. Similarly, the fact that your body is too fat doesn’t prove that you don’t have a set-point. Given modern science, it’s more likely that you have a set-point which is turned up, broken, or overwhelmed.

The longer answer: The confusion here is similar to the confusion around whether more exercise is bad for us. It’s easily cleared up when we speak a bit more precisely. Set-point skeptics are defining the set-point like this: “The body automatically keeps us at a healthy weight.” The set-point is actually defined like this: “The body works to automatically keep us at a particular weight given a particular hormonal balance.” This distinction is key because it makes the difference between a definition that is false—the set-point makes it impossible to gain fat—and a definition that has been proved: the set-point tries to maintain a particular level of body fat given the quality of our eating and exercise.

To demonstrate the importance of this distinction, it’s helpful to compare obesity to diabetes. For example, it is an undisputed fact that the body works to automatically regulate blood sugar. In other words, everyone accepts that we have a blood-sugar set-point. At the same time we all know that the wrong quality of foods (inSANE starches and sweets) can cause this blood sugar set-point to rise. We call this type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. Do the one in four Americans who are diabetic or prediabetic disprove the blood-sugar set-point? No. They prove that the wrong quality of food can raise the blood-sugar set-point via these foods’ negative impact on our hormones.

Similarly, do the two out of three Americans who are overweight disprove the body-fat set-point? No. They prove that the wrong quality of food can raise the blood-sugar set-point via these foods’ negative impact on our hormones.

3. WHAT DO YOU EAT AND HOW DO YOU EXERCISE?

The short answer: In terms of volume, I eat . . .

        •  nonstarchy green vegetables such as spinach, kale, and romaine lettuce

        •  other nonstarchy vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, mushrooms, cabbage, onions, garlic, and carrots

        •  wild nutrient-dense sources of protein such as salmon, clams, grass-fed beef and beef liver, and egg whites

        •  fibrous and whole-food fats such as coconut, cocoa, macadamia nuts, avocado, flax, chia, etc.

        •  all-natural marinara sauce and salsa as a delicious complement to nutrient-dense protein and nonstarchy vegetables

        •  lemons in the form of lemon water with my green tea

        •  berries before and after eccentric exercise

        •  pickles and olives when I’m in the mood for a salty snack

        •  low-sugar casein and whey protein powders

I exercise once a week, eccentrically. I also do fifteen minutes of yoga stretching afterward.

The longer answer is that I have found my SANEity. I eat in a way that is rooted in proven science, practical history, and common sense; that is simple and enjoyable; and that enables me to reach all my goals (i.e., not just looking a certain way) over the long term. Why am I getting philosophical? Borrowing an analogy from Stephen Covey, think of my diet and exercise routine as being a bit like my eyeglass prescription. All eyes and eyeglasses follow the same basic set of proven biological principles. However, if your vision is not clear, putting my glasses on may not clear things up. That doesn’t mean that my glasses are ineffective; it just means that they are not your glasses. There is a pair of glasses that will clear things up for you, and your glasses will share the same underlying characteristics as mine, but until you take ownership for finding your personal perfect prescription, things are going to remain blurry.

When it comes to finding our individual prescription for eating and exercise, the underlying biological principles are uncontroversial and universal, but since we all have different goals, histories, and circumstances, the practices are personal.*

4. WHAT ABOUT DIET, EXERCISE ROUTINE, OR SUPPLEMENT X?

If people find out that you are going SANE and getting eccentric and they get defensive with questions in this general format, the response is simple: If whatever they are doing is working for them, excellent! Keep it up. On the other hand, if they are dissatisfied with their long-term results or the amount of time and effort they are spending, they may enjoy eating a lot of the most nutrient-dense food and doing a little of the most hormonally healing exercise. There are too many real problems in life to spend energy arguing about diets, workouts, or supplements.

If you are considering trying a diet, exercise routine, or supplement that we haven’t discussed, it is a good idea to the extent that it brings you closer to the universal principles discussed in the third FAQ. For example, should you become a vegetarian purely for health reasons? If it means eating less processed junk food, then it would be helpful. If it means eating dramatically more nonstarchy vegetables while finding SANE sources of plant-based nutrient-dense protein and enjoying whole-food fats and low-fructose fruits, then it would be helpful. However, if it means eating a lot more plant-based inSANE starches and sweets, then it would be harmful.

There is enough complexity in life. Simplify. Let the little things go, stick with proven biological principles, and go enjoy your new life.