Putnam Athletic Performance

08/28/2026

01/01/2022

Here's to nutritional nuance in 2022! 🥂🎉 The second sentence doesn't work as well in a headline nor does it offer that black and white thinking that theoretically would make things easier. I say "theoretically" because ultimately the black and white thinking usually ends up being too restrictive in the long-term.

Carbs aren't bad, sugar isn't bad. Let's leave that dogma in 2021 along with the unsustainability and neuroses that come with them. It's all about understanding 1) how much are you eating? and 2) what does the rest of your diet look like? These take longer to understand and untangle, but usually lead to the "balance" we are so often trying to achieve.

#

12/02/2021

I noticed this restaurant brand, single-serve, pre-made mac & cheese product at the grocery store the other day, and could not believe the caloric density of it. The 10-ounce container (little bigger than a cup) has 600 calories!! I wanted to compare it to a serving of one of the more common meals I make for myself at home. The chili jumble was right at 500 calories, which means that the single-serve mac & cheese portion had to be REDUCED to that shown here.

I get it. Mac & cheese is known to be calorically dense, but restaurant versions of most everything have way, way more calories than any food you would prepare at home. Even if you were to make mac & cheese. Why?

Fat. This is how they make things taste good and keep you coming back. Salad dressings, sauces, cheeses, cooking fats, watch out! I guarantee you, even items you think are “healthy” somehow pack a lot of calories and even in small portions. And, to make it worse, portions are not kept small. Do you think you’d only eat a cup of this mac & cheese when served at the actual restaurant?

Particularly if you eat out frequently, I encourage you to take a look at nutrition information online at some of your favorite restaurants. For reference, 500 calories can get you 35g of protein and at least ~300 of fruits and veggies (like the chili plate shown here); it represents a good meal size for many. And, many restaurant meals will fail this standard catastrophically (more calories for less protein and maybe no fruits or veggies).

11/09/2021

Stop focusing on calories burned in a workout! I know if can “feel good” to see those numbers click by, but it is perhaps the most dead-end thinking related to making progress.

Number of calories burned in a workout is a small piece of the overall puzzle most people are after. First of all, it doesn’t account for calories burned after the workout. Intensity may not burn as many calories during, but the effect of the longer elevated metabolism is that more calories are burned as an overall result. Calories burned also doesn’t account for the adaptations during that may be more favorable to muscle growth or just even just technique that will allow the athlete to push harder in future sessions. Improving your running technique at slower speeds eventually pays off at higher speeds, for example. Burning fewer calories in today’s session may allow you to burn more calories in future sessions.

And of course, the other limitation is calories burned in a workout is one of the calories “out” components. And it’s the difference of calories “in” (diet) and all the “out” components that determine your weight. A more accurate way to track all these factors is to use your current weight (that’s the net balance) and your diet (calories in). This means calories burned as reported on devices and trackers are generally more of a distraction than useful.

The results we are after always come down to getting a collection of variables right. But that also means it is harder to implement than a simple directive of “burn more calories.” The best broad recommendation I can give is: challenge yourself. That is: workout with intent. If you aren’t at the goals you want, look at your current regime. How can you change the volume, intensity, or activity to challenge yourself? Then track times, activities, and weights to demonstrate progress. (And of course, have to eat enough protein and keep calories in check to really get this right).

10/11/2021

Is this perfect? No. But perfect implies precision, and precision requires weighing & measuring in units relevant to our outcomes (calories and macros for weight). Without that, we have to set simple rules as guides knowing full well they don't perfectly describe the physiology accurately for everyone. This is a pretty darn good "eyeball" guide for the recreational athlete with a relatively sedentary job.

Fruits and veggies form the base of meals (2 cups+) and can be eaten liberally in between meals, too. Grains should be used to fill meals to satiety. While, yes, of course, grains CAN be eaten as snacks... this is a slippery slope if "grains" are interpreted as a loaf of pumpkin swirl cinnamon bread. That's not a grain. Instead, it belongs in the processed bucket. (some nuts may be added here too, but chocolate-covered or honey-dipped whatever almonds belong in the third bucket of processed).

The 10% guide usually means we get 1-2 servings of processed goodies each day. Not much. This can be a good way to quantity control our processed choices without W&M everything. But.... the more of an outlier you are (very muscular, very tall , very active, already very lean, etc.), the less relevant this is and the more leeway you have with both grains and processed food (though never absolved from a healthy daily dose of fruit and veg). How much leeway? The precise answer requires measurement.

10/08/2021

Ugggggh, ??? The first one is particularly frustrating.

📌 You stick perfectly to the diet during the week and come Saturday you just want a break and say "oh heck with it." I am not about diet perfection, but the "oh heck with it days" often come with a ton of unintended calories. The burger, dessert, and a couple drinks can add enough calories undoing the work you did Monday thru Friday. This means you could adhere to a diet for 6 days out of the 7 or for 160 hours of the 168 in a week... and still make no progress. It all comes down to the balance between calories consumed versus used.

📈 Our weight fluctuates 1-2% which means the scale will shift by a couple to three pounds due to water weight changes regardless of any weight loss attempts. In addition, I don't often recommend a 500 cal/day deficit that would allow people to lose 1 pound a week. 500 calorie daily deficits work if you are starting with an intake north of 2,500 calories, but once you get closer to 2,000 - it gets harder for people to then instill that type of deficit. They are too hungry. This means that sustainable weight loss is often NOT 1 lb/week. Add in natural weight fluctuations, and you could adhere perfectly to the diet for two weeks+ and the scale might not show a clear decrease.

🔐 Generally, we are motivated to do the things where we have some level of proficiency or at least see progress. See #2. Because of that, we end up having to put in a good amount of work without confirmation our efforts are worth it. We will inevitably have the days we are unmotivated about the diet plan, and those are the days it is most important to stick to it. It will help build the confidence you CAN do it, and ultimately help you see progress more quickly... which then steamrolls into motivation for longer adherence.

05/18/2021

People may view eating the same thing every day as too boring or overly restrictive. The flip side is - it can be very freeing. Get and maintain the goals you need without logging in the app all. the. things. Figure out the calories/macros you need, divide into meals or snacks you like and just stick to the plan. This is why people who meal prep can be wildly successful without all the data.

And no, you don’t have to eat exactly the same thing at every meal. Once you have the basic template, switching out proteins and fruits or veggies options can make things interesting enough. You also figure out your budget for cookies, chips, chocolate, etc.

05/17/2021

05/14/2021

My Principle 7 is that sustainability is the most important factor in diet selection. But, the rub is that what you are currently sustaining might not align with your goals. We all know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we want different results, we have to do something different.... and different is always more difficult than same.

So, it's walking the line of a big enough of a challenge to drive change without causing the wheels to come off the bus. And generally, the degree of change can increase as the individual gains motivation with progress.

05/13/2021

Like most things, the organic discussion raises multiple competing issues, including:
• Human health effects from pesticide, hormone, or antibiotic use (animals),
• Nutrient quality of the food itself (e.g., more protein, more Vitamin A),
• Environmental effects from agriculture,
• Issues related to supporting certain companies (“Big Ag” vs. local), and
• Socioeconomic factors like food accessibility via supply & cost.

And even within each of these issues, blanket consensus statements are difficult. For example, the idea that organic is always "healthier" based on nutrient composition is debatable (PMID: 31861431; PMID: 22944875). Especially once you look across all nutrients or calories. While some nutrients may be higher, scientists also acknowledge the lack of consistency and influence of factors like geographical area, crop type/species, and fertilization or tillage practices on their study findings (PMID: 24968103). As an example, the selenium content of corn in the United States can vary as much as 200-fold due to differences in soil levels (Willett, 2013 - Nutritional Epidemiology, 3rd Ed).

And of course, when we are talking about one's overall health - the influence of the whole diet matters. If your meat has more omega-3s, but you are eating too much fat overall, does it matter? If your grapes have more phenolics (anti-oxidants), but you are eating too many chips, does it matter? Likely not.