We started a new "program" with our bootcamp, for those interested we will be losing three pounds a month, at a cost of $10 a pound. Lose three pounds, pay nothing. Lose nothing, pay $30. Pretty simple. To get everyone started I'm providing the diet I am using to get ripped for Maui in Sept. I have been using this for a three weeks and lost about 7 pounds, so I know it works. So here it is:
I eat a shake for breakfast following our workout
1 Scoop whey protein
1 cup frozen blueberries
2 Tbs Flax meal
1 cup milk
1 banana
1/2 cup oatmeal
I may also cook some whole eggs if I'm really feeling hungry.
I take 2 meals to work to eat around 11 and 3.
22 almonds
1 serving fruit
1 serving meat (usually leftover from dinner) or some more nuts
1 string cheese or another fruit.
Dinner is about 2 servings of protein, usually meat, but Chile, soy beans. etc would work. I also have all my vegetables at this meal, so a big salad, no nasty dressings, I like a little Parmesan cheese on top, or some soy sauce. I may have 1 serving or less of a good healthy carbohydrate, like Brown rice, or wheat bread, etc.
That's about it, pretty easy isn't it.
Now, I will say I'm pretty hungry by the time I go to bed, I think hunger is necessary for me to burn fat. I also notice my energy level can be pretty low during the day, but by morning it's usually pretty good again.
Now the FUN part.
I follow this diet pretty strictly Monday through Friday only. Sat/Sun is back to completely normal eating, in fact I go very high Carbs and some pretty unhealthy carbs on the weekend, however I do not stuff myself silly with this food. I go probably about 200 calories over my daily maintenance level. These days are great phschologically to be ably to stay on a tough diet, and they help regulate the Fat-burning hormones that tend to fall during the week. I find myself gaining 5,6,7 pounds on the weekend, but losing several pounds more by the following Friday.
Notice I do not count calories, I know from experience this is where I need to be to lose fat. I try to keep my food choices as natural as possible, no processed lunch meats, buy a turkey, cook it, cut it up and freeze it. I try to follow caveman type foods most the time. This diet is flexible though, I try to keep protein coming in all day and cut the carbohydrate back in the afternoon. I also take fish oil capsules and coq10 and a multivitamin with my dinner. Water is the only liquid I drink other than the milk in my shake.
Give it a try, it's worked for me better than anything else, I've never seen consistent results like I'm getting now. I'm sure you will too.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Peppers burn mouth and fat
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100602121202.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Article on heavy metals in protein drinks
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/july/food/protein-drinks/overview/index.htm
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Why diet and exercise fail
Why Diet and Exercise Fail
Autor: markyoung ~ 19/05/10
When it comes to treating shoulder pain most people would agree that instead of treating the shoulder itself, you might first investigate thoracic mobility, scapular stability, lower trap and serratus anterior strength, and any other root cause that might be related.
On the other hand, when it comes to excess body fat, the same trainer or coach might tell people to follow a nutrition plan and exercise to lose weight. In other words, they treat the symptom (excess body fat) with exercise and nutrition instead of addressing the possible barriers that were limiting people from doing these things in the first place.
To this end, I think it is absolutely critical that anyone who is overweight or working with anyone with body fat to lose address the real reasons the person is overweight to begin with. While a client may be able to stave their regular barriers for a short period of time (i.e., a 12 week commitment to a fad fat loss program), they will eventually have to face these issues or lose all the progress that has been made. Despite the fact that you’ve given a person your very best cutting edge training, nutrition, and supplement program, they’re bound to fail if these issues remain.
Moreover, (as an astute blog reader recently pointed out) people who have been particularly overweight since childhood will have more fat cells than the average person which might make it significantly harder for them to keep weight off so staying on target is absolutely key.
If you’re a regular reader of this blog you’ll know that I’m all about assessing people and knowing what these barriers are should be part of any fat loss client assessment. Below is a great chart produced by Dr. Arya Sharma demonstrating how one might assess for potential barriers for long term success. Of course, this isn’t nearly as sexy as saying “get ripped in 12 weeks” or “abs in hours”, but it is the reality and I’d be willing to bet that anyone reading this blog right now that doesn’t have the body they desire has yet to truly identify and troubleshoot each of their barriers.
Whether there is 100 pounds to be lost or 10, if you address the symptoms (like treating shoulder by taking Tylenol) you can eliminate them temporarily, but they will be back.
And by the way, never once have I come to the conclusion that a client is overweight because they haven’t purchased the latest supplement, exercise gadget, training program, or cleanse. Just sayin’.
Autor: markyoung ~ 19/05/10
When it comes to treating shoulder pain most people would agree that instead of treating the shoulder itself, you might first investigate thoracic mobility, scapular stability, lower trap and serratus anterior strength, and any other root cause that might be related.
On the other hand, when it comes to excess body fat, the same trainer or coach might tell people to follow a nutrition plan and exercise to lose weight. In other words, they treat the symptom (excess body fat) with exercise and nutrition instead of addressing the possible barriers that were limiting people from doing these things in the first place.
To this end, I think it is absolutely critical that anyone who is overweight or working with anyone with body fat to lose address the real reasons the person is overweight to begin with. While a client may be able to stave their regular barriers for a short period of time (i.e., a 12 week commitment to a fad fat loss program), they will eventually have to face these issues or lose all the progress that has been made. Despite the fact that you’ve given a person your very best cutting edge training, nutrition, and supplement program, they’re bound to fail if these issues remain.
Moreover, (as an astute blog reader recently pointed out) people who have been particularly overweight since childhood will have more fat cells than the average person which might make it significantly harder for them to keep weight off so staying on target is absolutely key.
If you’re a regular reader of this blog you’ll know that I’m all about assessing people and knowing what these barriers are should be part of any fat loss client assessment. Below is a great chart produced by Dr. Arya Sharma demonstrating how one might assess for potential barriers for long term success. Of course, this isn’t nearly as sexy as saying “get ripped in 12 weeks” or “abs in hours”, but it is the reality and I’d be willing to bet that anyone reading this blog right now that doesn’t have the body they desire has yet to truly identify and troubleshoot each of their barriers.
Whether there is 100 pounds to be lost or 10, if you address the symptoms (like treating shoulder by taking Tylenol) you can eliminate them temporarily, but they will be back.
And by the way, never once have I come to the conclusion that a client is overweight because they haven’t purchased the latest supplement, exercise gadget, training program, or cleanse. Just sayin’.
Monday, May 24, 2010
ARTICLE ON EATING FREQUENCY FROM PROGRADE NUTRITION
Q: I’ve heard that eating more frequently will increase my metabolism and help me lose weight? Is this true and how does this happen? I thought you had to eat less to lose weight.
A: You’ve probably heard this advice from many different places: personal trainers at your gym, online weight-loss websites, and popular diet books. Even though it has some merit, it may not be entirely correct, especially if your physical activity levels are low or non-existent.
The suggestion to increase your eating frequency, meaning going from eating three square meals a day to six smaller meals and snacks, stems from both research and anecdotal findings. Some of the benefits attributed to eating more often include reducing hunger and caloric intake, boosting your metabolic rate, and controlling hormones that increase your desire for food. For some people this is true, for others, not so much.
In the research world, scientists have shown certain benefits from eating more often compared to less:
• By eating the same amount of calories in several meals spread throughout the day there’s a suppression of free fatty acid release from adipose tissue, which enhances your ability to use glucose (from carbohydrate foods) as fuel
• The amount of insulin secreted from your pancreas to help you use the nutrients you’re eating is reduced, so there is less potential for those nutrients to be stored in fat cells. Instead, the insulin that is released sends those calories to your needy muscle cells where they’re used to provide energy for daily movement
• Your stomach is stretched less with smaller meals, which slows the rate at which food is delivered to your intestine, and in turn, your blood stream. This creates a consistent flow of energy to your body rather than one fast, large dump of nutrients
• Blood total and LDL-cholesterol levels in your body are decreased due to less cholesterol synthesis and increased cholesterol removal
Despite these findings, reviews of all the scientific investigations looking at the effect of increased eating on weight loss have not shown that eating more often reduces body weight. The recent review by Palmer and colleagues in 2009, and the ones by Bellisle and colleagues in 1997 both found this same result; eating more often does not seem to decrease body weight in every person. Explanations for this finding includes the fact that the energy density of our food has increased over the years, even though we’re evolutionarily meant to be “grazers”. Even with lower calories, eating more frequently does not help decrease the numbers on the scale by itself.
For body composition, some observations of people that eat more rather than less show that their body carries less fat. However, research investigations have not shown that just going from eating less to eating more magically lowers body fat. Those people that eat more may simply burn more calories naturally during the day, or expend more calories in movement. Then there are those people that never gain fat no matter how hard they try (not the norm nowadays though).
However, there are clear benefits to eating more often:
• You stave off hunger before it sets in and pushes you to overeat
• You give yourself more energy to exercise harder
• You prevent swings in your blood sugar levels which can make you cranky, unhappy and lethargic
As far as increasing your metabolism, eating more often can potentially increase the amount of calories you burn in a day, by a mechanism known as the “Thermic Effect of Feeding”. However, this effect is relatively small and can be made easily obsolete with poor food choices and excess caloric intake.
It is true though that when you eat more often rather than less, you’re more likely to meet your exercise goals instead of not having the energy to even begin to do anything. Then, when you exercise more, especially a combination of weight training and cardio, you can increase your muscle mass and lower your body fat, which makes your body look tighter and fit better in clothing. And who doesn’t want that?
However, eating more often doesn’t work for everyone: If you’re not exercising, eating more will definitely cause fat gain – those calories have no where else to go! And, when you eat more you still have to make good food choices and balance your intake of protein, carbohydrates and fat; eating more chocolate and soda will not help your metabolism at all. Considering that most “snack” foods are based off sugar and starchy carbohydrates (crackers, granola bars, etc), it’s really easy to over-consume carbs and miss out on important proteins and fats.
Bottom line: Eating more can help meet your body composition and weight goals if you’re selecting your nutrients wisely and using them to help you exercise consistently.
To Discover Even More About Healthy Weight Loss
Resources:
Palmer MA, Capra S, & Baines SK. Association between eating frequency, weight, and health. Review
Nutr Rev. 2009 Jul;67(7):379-90
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice A. Meal frequency and energy balance. Brit J Nutrition. 1997;77(Suppl 1):S57–S70
Jenkins D, Wolever T, Vuksan V, et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:929–934
Frequent Eating Associated with Lower Lipid Concentrations. JWatch General. 2002: 3-3
Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA. Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005;81:16-24
Ruidavets JB, Bongard V, Bataille V, et al. Eating frequency and body fatness in middle-aged men International Journal of Obesity. 2002; 26: 1476-1483
A: You’ve probably heard this advice from many different places: personal trainers at your gym, online weight-loss websites, and popular diet books. Even though it has some merit, it may not be entirely correct, especially if your physical activity levels are low or non-existent.
The suggestion to increase your eating frequency, meaning going from eating three square meals a day to six smaller meals and snacks, stems from both research and anecdotal findings. Some of the benefits attributed to eating more often include reducing hunger and caloric intake, boosting your metabolic rate, and controlling hormones that increase your desire for food. For some people this is true, for others, not so much.
In the research world, scientists have shown certain benefits from eating more often compared to less:
• By eating the same amount of calories in several meals spread throughout the day there’s a suppression of free fatty acid release from adipose tissue, which enhances your ability to use glucose (from carbohydrate foods) as fuel
• The amount of insulin secreted from your pancreas to help you use the nutrients you’re eating is reduced, so there is less potential for those nutrients to be stored in fat cells. Instead, the insulin that is released sends those calories to your needy muscle cells where they’re used to provide energy for daily movement
• Your stomach is stretched less with smaller meals, which slows the rate at which food is delivered to your intestine, and in turn, your blood stream. This creates a consistent flow of energy to your body rather than one fast, large dump of nutrients
• Blood total and LDL-cholesterol levels in your body are decreased due to less cholesterol synthesis and increased cholesterol removal
Despite these findings, reviews of all the scientific investigations looking at the effect of increased eating on weight loss have not shown that eating more often reduces body weight. The recent review by Palmer and colleagues in 2009, and the ones by Bellisle and colleagues in 1997 both found this same result; eating more often does not seem to decrease body weight in every person. Explanations for this finding includes the fact that the energy density of our food has increased over the years, even though we’re evolutionarily meant to be “grazers”. Even with lower calories, eating more frequently does not help decrease the numbers on the scale by itself.
For body composition, some observations of people that eat more rather than less show that their body carries less fat. However, research investigations have not shown that just going from eating less to eating more magically lowers body fat. Those people that eat more may simply burn more calories naturally during the day, or expend more calories in movement. Then there are those people that never gain fat no matter how hard they try (not the norm nowadays though).
However, there are clear benefits to eating more often:
• You stave off hunger before it sets in and pushes you to overeat
• You give yourself more energy to exercise harder
• You prevent swings in your blood sugar levels which can make you cranky, unhappy and lethargic
As far as increasing your metabolism, eating more often can potentially increase the amount of calories you burn in a day, by a mechanism known as the “Thermic Effect of Feeding”. However, this effect is relatively small and can be made easily obsolete with poor food choices and excess caloric intake.
It is true though that when you eat more often rather than less, you’re more likely to meet your exercise goals instead of not having the energy to even begin to do anything. Then, when you exercise more, especially a combination of weight training and cardio, you can increase your muscle mass and lower your body fat, which makes your body look tighter and fit better in clothing. And who doesn’t want that?
However, eating more often doesn’t work for everyone: If you’re not exercising, eating more will definitely cause fat gain – those calories have no where else to go! And, when you eat more you still have to make good food choices and balance your intake of protein, carbohydrates and fat; eating more chocolate and soda will not help your metabolism at all. Considering that most “snack” foods are based off sugar and starchy carbohydrates (crackers, granola bars, etc), it’s really easy to over-consume carbs and miss out on important proteins and fats.
Bottom line: Eating more can help meet your body composition and weight goals if you’re selecting your nutrients wisely and using them to help you exercise consistently.
To Discover Even More About Healthy Weight Loss
Resources:
Palmer MA, Capra S, & Baines SK. Association between eating frequency, weight, and health. Review
Nutr Rev. 2009 Jul;67(7):379-90
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice A. Meal frequency and energy balance. Brit J Nutrition. 1997;77(Suppl 1):S57–S70
Jenkins D, Wolever T, Vuksan V, et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:929–934
Frequent Eating Associated with Lower Lipid Concentrations. JWatch General. 2002: 3-3
Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA. Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005;81:16-24
Ruidavets JB, Bongard V, Bataille V, et al. Eating frequency and body fatness in middle-aged men International Journal of Obesity. 2002; 26: 1476-1483
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Mom, you should read this!
Sarcopenia, the undiagnosed epidemic
25 Jan || by Will Brink
Posted in Articles, General Health, Longevity, Mens Health, Women's Health
How To Prevent Age Related Muscle Mass
Is a loss of strength, mobility, and functionality an inevitable part of aging? No, it’s not. It’s a consequence of disuse, suboptimal hormone levels, dietary and nutrient considerations and other variables, all of which are compounded by aging. One of the greatest threats to an aging adult’s ability to stay healthy and functional is the steady loss of lean body mass – muscle and bone in particular.
The medical term for the loss of muscle is sarcopenia, and it’s starting to get the recognition it deserves by the medical and scientific community. For decades, that community has focused on the loss of bone mass (osteoporosis), but paid little attention to the loss of muscle mass commonly seen in aging populations. Sarcopenia is a serious healthcare and social problem that affects millions of aging adults. This is no exaggeration. As one researcher recently stated:
“Even before significant muscle wasting becomes apparent, ageing is associated with a slowing of movement and a gradual decline in muscle strength, factors that increase the risk of injury from sudden falls and the reliance of the frail elderly on assistance in accomplishing even basic tasks of independent living. Sarcopenia is recognized as one of the major public health problems now facing industrialized nations, and its effects are expected to place increasing demands on public healthcare systems worldwide” (Lynch, 2004)
Sarcopenia and osteoporosis are directly related conditions, one often following the other. Muscles generate the mechanical stress required to keep our bones healthy; when muscle activity is reduced it exacerbates the osteoporosis problem and a vicious circle is established, which accelerates the decline in health and functionality.
What defines sarcopenia from a clinical perspective? Sarcopenia is defined as the age-related loss of muscle mass, strength and functionality. Sarcopenia generally appears after age 40 and accelerates after the age of approximately 75. Although sarcopenia is mostly seen in physically inactive individuals, it is also commonly found in individuals who remain physically active throughout their lives. Thus, it’s clear that although physical activity is essential, physical inactivity is not the only contributing factor. Just as with osteoporosis, sarcopenia is a multifactorial process that may involve decreased hormone levels (in particular, GH, IGF-1, MGF, and testosterone), a lack of adequate protein and calories in the diet, oxidative stress, inflammatory processes, chronic, low level, diet-induced metabolic acidosis, as well as a loss of motor nerve cells.
A loss of muscle mass also has far ranging effects beyond the obvious loss of strength and functionality. Muscle is a metabolic reservoir. In times of emergency it produces the proteins and metabolites required for survival after a traumatic event. In practical terms, frail elderly people with decreased muscle mass often do not survive major surgeries or traumatic accidents, as they lack the metabolic reserves to supply their immune systems and other systems critical for recovery. There is no single cause of sarcopenia, as there is no single cause for many human afflictions. To prevent and/or treat it, a multi-faceted approach must be taken, which involve hormonal factors, dietary factors, supplemental nutrients, and exercise.
Dietary considerations The major dietary considerations that increase the risk of sarcopenia are: a lack of adequate protein, inadequate calorie intake, and low level, chronic, metabolic acidosis.
Although it’s generally believed the “average” American gets more protein then they require, the diets of older adults are often deficient. Compounding that are possible reductions in digestion and absorption of protein, with several studies concluding protein requirements for older adults are higher than for their younger counterparts (Young, 1990; Campbell et al., 1994; Campbell et al., 1996). These studies indicate that most older adults don’t get enough high quality protein to support and preserve their lean body mass.
There is an important caveat on increasing protein, which brings us to the topic of low level, diet-induced, metabolic acidosis. Typical Western diets are high in animal proteins and cereal grains, and low in fruits and vegetables. It’s been shown that such diets cause a low grade metabolic acidosis, which contributes to the decline in muscle and bone mass found in aging adults (Frassetto et al., 2001). One study found that by adding a buffering agent (potassium bicarbonate) to the diet of post-menopausal women the muscle wasting effects of a “normal” diet were prevented (Frassetto et al., 1997). The researchers concluded the use of the buffering agent was “… potentially sufficient to both prevent continuing age-related loss of muscle mass and restore previously accrued deficits.”
The take home lesson from this study is that – although older adults require adequate intakes of high quality proteins to maintain their muscle mass (as well as bone mass), it should come from a variety of sources and be accompanied by an increase in fruits and vegetables as well as a reduction of cereal grain-based foods. The use of supplemental buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate, although effective, does not replace fruits and vegetables for obvious reasons, but may be incorporated into a supplement regimen.
Hormonal considerations
As most are aware, with aging comes a general decline in many hormones, in particular, anabolic hormones such as Growth Hormone (GH), DHEA, and testosterone. In addition, researchers are looking at Insulin-like Growth factor one (IGF-1) and Mechano Growth factor (MGF) which are essential players in the hormonal milieu responsible for maintaining muscle mass as well as bone mass. Without adequate levels of these hormones, it’s essentially impossible to maintain lean body mass, regardless of diet or exercise.
It’s been shown, for example, that circulating GH declines dramatically with age. In old age, GH levels are only one-third of that in our teenage years. In addition, aging adults have a blunted GH response to exercise as well as reduced output of MGF (Hameed et al., 2003), which explains why older adults have a much more difficult time building muscle compared to their younger counterparts. However, when older adults are given GH, and then exposed to resistance exercise, their MGF response is markedly improved, as is their muscle mass (Hameed et al., 2004).
Another hormone essential for maintaining lean body mass is testosterone. Testosterone, especially when given to men low in this essential hormone, has a wide range of positive effects. One review looking at the use of testosterone in older men (Gruenewald et al., 2003) concluded:
“In healthy older men with low-normal to mildly decreased testosterone levels, testosterone supplementation increased lean body mass and decreased fat mass. Upper and lower body strength, functional performance, sexual functioning, and mood were improved or unchanged with testosterone replacement”
Contrary to popular belief, women also need testosterone! Although women produce less testosterone, it’s as essential to the health and well being of women as it is for men.
The above is a highly generalized summary and only the tip of the proverbial iceberg regarding various hormonal influences on sarcopenia. A full discussion on the role of hormones in sarcopenia is well beyond the scope of this article. Needless to state, yearly blood work after the age of 40 is essential to track your hormone levels, and if needed, to treat deficiencies via Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). Private organizations like the Life Extension Foundation offer comprehensive hormone testing packages, or your doctor can order the tests. However, HRT is not for everyone and may be contraindicated in some cases. Regular monitoring is required, so it’s essential to consult with a medical professional versed in the use of HRT, such as an endocrinologist.
Nutrient considerations:
There are several supplemental nutrients that should be especially helpful for combating sarcopenia, both directly and indirectly. Supplements that have shown promise for combating sarcopenia are creatine, vitamin D, whey protein, acetyl-L-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate.
Creatine
The muscle atrophy found in older adults comes predominantly from a loss of fast twitch (FT) type II fibers which are recruited during high-intensity, anaerobic movements (e.g., weight lifting, sprinting, etc.). Interestingly, these are exactly the fibers creatine has the most profound effects on. Various studies find creatine given to older adults increases strength and lean body mass (Chrusch et al., 2001; Gotshalk et al., 2002; Brose et al., 2003). One group concluded:
“Creatine supplementation may be a useful therapeutic strategy for older adults to attenuate loss in muscle strength and performance of functional living tasks.”
Vitamin D
It’s well established that vitamin D plays an essential role in bone health. However, recent studies suggest it’s also essential for maintaining muscle mass in aging populations. In muscle, vitamin D is essential for preserving type II muscle fibers, which, as mentioned above, are the very muscle fibers that atrophy most in aging people. Adequate vitamin D intakes could help reduce the rates of both osteoporosis and sarcopenia found in aging people (Montero-Odasso et al., 2005) leading the author of one recent review on the topic of vitamin D’s effects on bone and muscle to conclude:
“In both cases (muscle and bone tissue) vitamin D plays an important role since the low levels of this vitamin seen in senior people may be associated to a deficit in bone formation and muscle function”
and
“We expect that these new considerations about the importance of vitamin D in the elderly will stimulate an innovative approach to the problem of falls and fractures which constitutes a significant burden to public health budgets worldwide.”
Whey protein
As previously mentioned, many older adults fail to get enough high quality protein in their diets. Whey has an exceptionally high biological value (BV), with anti-cancer and immune enhancing properties among its many uses. As a rule, higher biological value proteins are superior for maintaining muscle mass compared to lower quality proteins, which may be of particular importance to older individuals. Finally, data suggests “fast” digesting proteins such as whey may be superior to other proteins for preserving lean body mass in older individuals (Dangin et al., 2002).
Additional Nutrients of interest
There are several additional nutrients worth considering when developing a comprehensive supplement regimen designed to prevent and or treat sarcopenia. In no particular order, they are: fish oils (EPA/DHA), acetyl-l-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate. There is good scientific reason to believe they would be beneficial for combating sarcopenia, but data specific to sarcopenia is lacking. For example, EPA/DHA has been found to preserve muscle mass (e.g. is anti-catabolic) under a wide range of physiological conditions. The anti-inflammatory effects of fish oils would also lead one to believe they should be of value in the prevention or treatment of sarcopenia. In general, fish oils have so many health benefits, it makes sense to recommend them here.
Acetyl-l-carnitine also offers many health benefits to aging people, and data suggests it should be useful in combating this condition. More research specific to sarcopenia is needed however.
Glutamine is another nutrient that should be useful in an overall plan to combat sarcopenia. Finally, data does suggest strongly that bicarbonate and citrate buffering agents containing minerals such as potassium, magnesium, and calcium can reverse the metabolic acidosis caused by unbalanced western diets. However, I hesitate to recommend this particular strategy as it does not address the root cause, which is the diet itself. Much greater health benefits will result from improving the diet over simply adding in this supplement. In addition, there are potential problems that could result from excessive intake of buffer salts, such as hyperkalemia and formation of kidney stones.
Exercise Considerations
Exercise is the lynchpin to the previous sections. Without it, none of the above will be an effective method of preventing/treating sarcopenia. Exercise is the essential stimulus for systemwide release of various hormones such as GH, as well as local growth factors in tissue, such as MGF. Exercise is the stimulus that increases protein and bone synthesis, and exerts other effects that combat the loss of essential muscle and bone as we age. Exercise optimizes the effects of HRT, diet and supplements, so if you think you can sit on the couch and follow the above recommendations…think again.
Although any exercise is generally better then no exercise, all forms of exercise are not created equal. You will note, for example, many of the studies listed at the end of this article have titles like: “GH and resistance exercise” or “creatine effects combined with resistance exercise” and so on. Aerobic exercise is great for the cardiovascular system and helps keep body fat low, but when scientists or athletes want to increase lean mass, resistance training is always the method. Aerobics does not build muscle and is only mildly effective at preserving the lean body mass you already have. Thus, some form of resistance training (via weights, machines, bands, etc.) is essential for preserving or increasing muscle mass. The CDC report on resistance exercise for older adults summarizes it as:
“In addition to building muscles, strength training can promote mobility, improve health-related fitness, and strengthen bones.”
Combined with HRT (if indicated), dietary modifications, and the supplements listed above, dramatic improvements in lean body mass can be achieved at virtually any age, with improvements in strength, functionality into advanced age, and improvements in overall health and general well being. Conclusion Hopefully, the reader will appreciate that I have attempted to cover a huge amount of territory with this topic. Each sub-section (nutrition, hormones, etc.) could easily be its own article if not its own book. This means each section is a general overview vs. anything close to an exhaustive discussion. Below is guide to web sites that offer additional information regarding the topics covered in this article and should (hopefully!) help fill in any gaps. To summarize, to prevent or treat sarcopenia:
• Get adequate high quality proteins from a variety of sources as well as adequate calories. Avoid excessive animal protein and cereal grain intakes while increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables.
• Get regular blood work on all major hormones after the age of 40 and discuss with a medical professional if HRT is indicated.
• Add supplements such as: creatine, vitamin D, whey protein, acetyl-l-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate.
• Exercise regularly – with an emphasis on resistance training - a minimum of 3 times per week.
I’m going to conclude this article the way most people would start it, with the good news and the bad news. The bad news is, millions of people will suffer from a mostly avoidable loss of functionality and will become weak and frail as they age from a severe loss of muscle mass. The good news is that you don’t have to be one of those people. One thing is very clear: it’s far easier, cheaper, and more effective to prevent sarcopenia – or at least greatly slow its progression – than it is to treat it later in life. Studies have found, however, that it’s never too late to start – so don’t be discouraged if you are starting your sarcopenia fighting program later in life. People following my programs for either weight loss or weight gain (in the form of muscle…) will be following the proper guidelines for avoiding sarcopenia.
Additional information:
Info on diet induced metabolic acidosis, recommended foods and more info on the topic in general, see Dr. Berardi’s web site:
http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/bases.htm
Discussion on the importance of regular blood work:
It’s in your blood!
25 Jan || by Will Brink
Posted in Articles, General Health, Longevity, Mens Health, Women's Health
How To Prevent Age Related Muscle Mass
Is a loss of strength, mobility, and functionality an inevitable part of aging? No, it’s not. It’s a consequence of disuse, suboptimal hormone levels, dietary and nutrient considerations and other variables, all of which are compounded by aging. One of the greatest threats to an aging adult’s ability to stay healthy and functional is the steady loss of lean body mass – muscle and bone in particular.
The medical term for the loss of muscle is sarcopenia, and it’s starting to get the recognition it deserves by the medical and scientific community. For decades, that community has focused on the loss of bone mass (osteoporosis), but paid little attention to the loss of muscle mass commonly seen in aging populations. Sarcopenia is a serious healthcare and social problem that affects millions of aging adults. This is no exaggeration. As one researcher recently stated:
“Even before significant muscle wasting becomes apparent, ageing is associated with a slowing of movement and a gradual decline in muscle strength, factors that increase the risk of injury from sudden falls and the reliance of the frail elderly on assistance in accomplishing even basic tasks of independent living. Sarcopenia is recognized as one of the major public health problems now facing industrialized nations, and its effects are expected to place increasing demands on public healthcare systems worldwide” (Lynch, 2004)
Sarcopenia and osteoporosis are directly related conditions, one often following the other. Muscles generate the mechanical stress required to keep our bones healthy; when muscle activity is reduced it exacerbates the osteoporosis problem and a vicious circle is established, which accelerates the decline in health and functionality.
What defines sarcopenia from a clinical perspective? Sarcopenia is defined as the age-related loss of muscle mass, strength and functionality. Sarcopenia generally appears after age 40 and accelerates after the age of approximately 75. Although sarcopenia is mostly seen in physically inactive individuals, it is also commonly found in individuals who remain physically active throughout their lives. Thus, it’s clear that although physical activity is essential, physical inactivity is not the only contributing factor. Just as with osteoporosis, sarcopenia is a multifactorial process that may involve decreased hormone levels (in particular, GH, IGF-1, MGF, and testosterone), a lack of adequate protein and calories in the diet, oxidative stress, inflammatory processes, chronic, low level, diet-induced metabolic acidosis, as well as a loss of motor nerve cells.
A loss of muscle mass also has far ranging effects beyond the obvious loss of strength and functionality. Muscle is a metabolic reservoir. In times of emergency it produces the proteins and metabolites required for survival after a traumatic event. In practical terms, frail elderly people with decreased muscle mass often do not survive major surgeries or traumatic accidents, as they lack the metabolic reserves to supply their immune systems and other systems critical for recovery. There is no single cause of sarcopenia, as there is no single cause for many human afflictions. To prevent and/or treat it, a multi-faceted approach must be taken, which involve hormonal factors, dietary factors, supplemental nutrients, and exercise.
Dietary considerations The major dietary considerations that increase the risk of sarcopenia are: a lack of adequate protein, inadequate calorie intake, and low level, chronic, metabolic acidosis.
Although it’s generally believed the “average” American gets more protein then they require, the diets of older adults are often deficient. Compounding that are possible reductions in digestion and absorption of protein, with several studies concluding protein requirements for older adults are higher than for their younger counterparts (Young, 1990; Campbell et al., 1994; Campbell et al., 1996). These studies indicate that most older adults don’t get enough high quality protein to support and preserve their lean body mass.
There is an important caveat on increasing protein, which brings us to the topic of low level, diet-induced, metabolic acidosis. Typical Western diets are high in animal proteins and cereal grains, and low in fruits and vegetables. It’s been shown that such diets cause a low grade metabolic acidosis, which contributes to the decline in muscle and bone mass found in aging adults (Frassetto et al., 2001). One study found that by adding a buffering agent (potassium bicarbonate) to the diet of post-menopausal women the muscle wasting effects of a “normal” diet were prevented (Frassetto et al., 1997). The researchers concluded the use of the buffering agent was “… potentially sufficient to both prevent continuing age-related loss of muscle mass and restore previously accrued deficits.”
The take home lesson from this study is that – although older adults require adequate intakes of high quality proteins to maintain their muscle mass (as well as bone mass), it should come from a variety of sources and be accompanied by an increase in fruits and vegetables as well as a reduction of cereal grain-based foods. The use of supplemental buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate, although effective, does not replace fruits and vegetables for obvious reasons, but may be incorporated into a supplement regimen.
Hormonal considerations
As most are aware, with aging comes a general decline in many hormones, in particular, anabolic hormones such as Growth Hormone (GH), DHEA, and testosterone. In addition, researchers are looking at Insulin-like Growth factor one (IGF-1) and Mechano Growth factor (MGF) which are essential players in the hormonal milieu responsible for maintaining muscle mass as well as bone mass. Without adequate levels of these hormones, it’s essentially impossible to maintain lean body mass, regardless of diet or exercise.
It’s been shown, for example, that circulating GH declines dramatically with age. In old age, GH levels are only one-third of that in our teenage years. In addition, aging adults have a blunted GH response to exercise as well as reduced output of MGF (Hameed et al., 2003), which explains why older adults have a much more difficult time building muscle compared to their younger counterparts. However, when older adults are given GH, and then exposed to resistance exercise, their MGF response is markedly improved, as is their muscle mass (Hameed et al., 2004).
Another hormone essential for maintaining lean body mass is testosterone. Testosterone, especially when given to men low in this essential hormone, has a wide range of positive effects. One review looking at the use of testosterone in older men (Gruenewald et al., 2003) concluded:
“In healthy older men with low-normal to mildly decreased testosterone levels, testosterone supplementation increased lean body mass and decreased fat mass. Upper and lower body strength, functional performance, sexual functioning, and mood were improved or unchanged with testosterone replacement”
Contrary to popular belief, women also need testosterone! Although women produce less testosterone, it’s as essential to the health and well being of women as it is for men.
The above is a highly generalized summary and only the tip of the proverbial iceberg regarding various hormonal influences on sarcopenia. A full discussion on the role of hormones in sarcopenia is well beyond the scope of this article. Needless to state, yearly blood work after the age of 40 is essential to track your hormone levels, and if needed, to treat deficiencies via Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). Private organizations like the Life Extension Foundation offer comprehensive hormone testing packages, or your doctor can order the tests. However, HRT is not for everyone and may be contraindicated in some cases. Regular monitoring is required, so it’s essential to consult with a medical professional versed in the use of HRT, such as an endocrinologist.
Nutrient considerations:
There are several supplemental nutrients that should be especially helpful for combating sarcopenia, both directly and indirectly. Supplements that have shown promise for combating sarcopenia are creatine, vitamin D, whey protein, acetyl-L-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate.
Creatine
The muscle atrophy found in older adults comes predominantly from a loss of fast twitch (FT) type II fibers which are recruited during high-intensity, anaerobic movements (e.g., weight lifting, sprinting, etc.). Interestingly, these are exactly the fibers creatine has the most profound effects on. Various studies find creatine given to older adults increases strength and lean body mass (Chrusch et al., 2001; Gotshalk et al., 2002; Brose et al., 2003). One group concluded:
“Creatine supplementation may be a useful therapeutic strategy for older adults to attenuate loss in muscle strength and performance of functional living tasks.”
Vitamin D
It’s well established that vitamin D plays an essential role in bone health. However, recent studies suggest it’s also essential for maintaining muscle mass in aging populations. In muscle, vitamin D is essential for preserving type II muscle fibers, which, as mentioned above, are the very muscle fibers that atrophy most in aging people. Adequate vitamin D intakes could help reduce the rates of both osteoporosis and sarcopenia found in aging people (Montero-Odasso et al., 2005) leading the author of one recent review on the topic of vitamin D’s effects on bone and muscle to conclude:
“In both cases (muscle and bone tissue) vitamin D plays an important role since the low levels of this vitamin seen in senior people may be associated to a deficit in bone formation and muscle function”
and
“We expect that these new considerations about the importance of vitamin D in the elderly will stimulate an innovative approach to the problem of falls and fractures which constitutes a significant burden to public health budgets worldwide.”
Whey protein
As previously mentioned, many older adults fail to get enough high quality protein in their diets. Whey has an exceptionally high biological value (BV), with anti-cancer and immune enhancing properties among its many uses. As a rule, higher biological value proteins are superior for maintaining muscle mass compared to lower quality proteins, which may be of particular importance to older individuals. Finally, data suggests “fast” digesting proteins such as whey may be superior to other proteins for preserving lean body mass in older individuals (Dangin et al., 2002).
Additional Nutrients of interest
There are several additional nutrients worth considering when developing a comprehensive supplement regimen designed to prevent and or treat sarcopenia. In no particular order, they are: fish oils (EPA/DHA), acetyl-l-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate. There is good scientific reason to believe they would be beneficial for combating sarcopenia, but data specific to sarcopenia is lacking. For example, EPA/DHA has been found to preserve muscle mass (e.g. is anti-catabolic) under a wide range of physiological conditions. The anti-inflammatory effects of fish oils would also lead one to believe they should be of value in the prevention or treatment of sarcopenia. In general, fish oils have so many health benefits, it makes sense to recommend them here.
Acetyl-l-carnitine also offers many health benefits to aging people, and data suggests it should be useful in combating this condition. More research specific to sarcopenia is needed however.
Glutamine is another nutrient that should be useful in an overall plan to combat sarcopenia. Finally, data does suggest strongly that bicarbonate and citrate buffering agents containing minerals such as potassium, magnesium, and calcium can reverse the metabolic acidosis caused by unbalanced western diets. However, I hesitate to recommend this particular strategy as it does not address the root cause, which is the diet itself. Much greater health benefits will result from improving the diet over simply adding in this supplement. In addition, there are potential problems that could result from excessive intake of buffer salts, such as hyperkalemia and formation of kidney stones.
Exercise Considerations
Exercise is the lynchpin to the previous sections. Without it, none of the above will be an effective method of preventing/treating sarcopenia. Exercise is the essential stimulus for systemwide release of various hormones such as GH, as well as local growth factors in tissue, such as MGF. Exercise is the stimulus that increases protein and bone synthesis, and exerts other effects that combat the loss of essential muscle and bone as we age. Exercise optimizes the effects of HRT, diet and supplements, so if you think you can sit on the couch and follow the above recommendations…think again.
Although any exercise is generally better then no exercise, all forms of exercise are not created equal. You will note, for example, many of the studies listed at the end of this article have titles like: “GH and resistance exercise” or “creatine effects combined with resistance exercise” and so on. Aerobic exercise is great for the cardiovascular system and helps keep body fat low, but when scientists or athletes want to increase lean mass, resistance training is always the method. Aerobics does not build muscle and is only mildly effective at preserving the lean body mass you already have. Thus, some form of resistance training (via weights, machines, bands, etc.) is essential for preserving or increasing muscle mass. The CDC report on resistance exercise for older adults summarizes it as:
“In addition to building muscles, strength training can promote mobility, improve health-related fitness, and strengthen bones.”
Combined with HRT (if indicated), dietary modifications, and the supplements listed above, dramatic improvements in lean body mass can be achieved at virtually any age, with improvements in strength, functionality into advanced age, and improvements in overall health and general well being. Conclusion Hopefully, the reader will appreciate that I have attempted to cover a huge amount of territory with this topic. Each sub-section (nutrition, hormones, etc.) could easily be its own article if not its own book. This means each section is a general overview vs. anything close to an exhaustive discussion. Below is guide to web sites that offer additional information regarding the topics covered in this article and should (hopefully!) help fill in any gaps. To summarize, to prevent or treat sarcopenia:
• Get adequate high quality proteins from a variety of sources as well as adequate calories. Avoid excessive animal protein and cereal grain intakes while increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables.
• Get regular blood work on all major hormones after the age of 40 and discuss with a medical professional if HRT is indicated.
• Add supplements such as: creatine, vitamin D, whey protein, acetyl-l-carnitine, glutamine, and buffering agents such as potassium bicarbonate.
• Exercise regularly – with an emphasis on resistance training - a minimum of 3 times per week.
I’m going to conclude this article the way most people would start it, with the good news and the bad news. The bad news is, millions of people will suffer from a mostly avoidable loss of functionality and will become weak and frail as they age from a severe loss of muscle mass. The good news is that you don’t have to be one of those people. One thing is very clear: it’s far easier, cheaper, and more effective to prevent sarcopenia – or at least greatly slow its progression – than it is to treat it later in life. Studies have found, however, that it’s never too late to start – so don’t be discouraged if you are starting your sarcopenia fighting program later in life. People following my programs for either weight loss or weight gain (in the form of muscle…) will be following the proper guidelines for avoiding sarcopenia.
Additional information:
Info on diet induced metabolic acidosis, recommended foods and more info on the topic in general, see Dr. Berardi’s web site:
http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/bases.htm
Discussion on the importance of regular blood work:
It’s in your blood!
Will Brink on Weights for Women!
Why Women Need Weight Training!
It’s nice to see that in 2010 the mainstream media is finally starting to “get it” when it comes to the benefits of resistance training (weight training baby!) for women. I wrote an extensive commentary on the topic a while back, that debunked the myths and covered some of the science of why women specifically benefit from weight training. For example, some of the benefits listed were:
◦Enhanced bone modeling to increase bone strength and reduce the risk of osteoporosis
◦Stronger connective tissues to increase joint stability and help prevent injury
◦Increased functional strength for sports and daily activity
◦Increased lean body mass and decreased nonfunctional body fat
◦Higher metabolic rate because of an increase in muscle and a decrease in fat
◦Improved self-esteem and confidenceA recent piece in The Sydney Morning Herald called “Anti-ageing – get with the strength” attempted a more cosmetic approach to why women benefit from weight training, and then add in some of the more physical/medical benefits of weight training for women:
Skin treatments like Botox and retinol might be high profile anti-agers, but they don’t tackle the pointy end of ageing that’s tucked away in nursing homes – the muscle wasting that leads to Zimmer frames and loss of independence. It’s not just the wrinkling of the outer skin that makes a 60 or 70 year old body look older than that of a 30-something. It’s also what’s happening to the stuffing inside – when muscles start shrinking, bodies sag and posture droops. This doesn’t just affect how a body looks, but how it functions – ever-weakening muscles make it harder to get up the stairs or out of your chair.
That’s the bad news. The good news is there’s an antidote – strength training. It was great to hear Professor Hal Kendig, head of the ageing, work and health unit at the University of Sydney, spruiking strength training in the Sydney Morning Herald last week when he said that if older women want to stay out of nursing homes, they should lift weights. He’s right. But wouldn’t it be better still if women got the strength message earlier, say, in their 40s when creeping muscle loss begins? It’s not like men don’t need this message too – they do. But women need it more because they generally have less muscle to begin with and get frailer faster than men. Women also put less value on strength. If you were to guess which physical feature would be high on most women’s wish lists, you can bet strong muscles wouldn’t be up there. All our lives we learn we need good hair, good skin, good boobs and good legs, but strength? Not really our department.
Yet muscle is a real asset and building it has anti-ageing benefits for women, in how they look and how they function. Let’s count the ways.
Regular strength training helps your body look younger. It fights the sagging, ageing effect of dwindling muscle and gravity, and makes it easier to stay at a healthy weight. Cardio exercise is important too for both general health and weight management, but it can’t boost muscle in the same way as strength training so you need a combination of both. And it’s a myth that working out with weights makes women bulky – women don’t produce enough of the male hormone testosterone to grow muscles like a man.
Strong muscles make you less accident prone. We hear a lot about preventing osteoporosis, but hands up who’s heard of sarcopenia? It’s the medical term for loss of muscle and preventing it is as important as preserving bone. After all, it’s the unsteadiness caused by dwindling muscle strength that leads to falls – that lead to fractures.
Regular strength training helps prevent diabetes. To get the link between muscle and diabetes, it helps to know that muscles soak up blood sugar to use as fuel, The more muscle you have, the more blood sugar they take up and the lower the risk of high blood sugar levels that lead to diabetes.
Stronger muscles give you more energy. How’s this for sad news? A study of 34 to 58-year old women by the University of Michigan found that those who’d lost around 2.5 kilos of lean muscle walked more slowly and had less strength in their leg muscles. These women were hardly ancient, yet muscle loss was already eroding their strength.
The Brink Bottom Line: Well, the above is at least a step in the right direction in that it pushes the benefits of weight training for women. That’s a good thing. Readers will note the mention of sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass. I have a full article on that topic for those interested in the details there. Although resistance training is a key player in preventing sarcopenia, it’s far more complicated then the above article would suggest. I’m happy to see weight training/resistance training is slowly but surely not being seen as a “manly” activity and the media getting with the program. Might take another 50 years until they figure out aerobics is overrated (read is close to worthless…), but that’s another blog…
It’s nice to see that in 2010 the mainstream media is finally starting to “get it” when it comes to the benefits of resistance training (weight training baby!) for women. I wrote an extensive commentary on the topic a while back, that debunked the myths and covered some of the science of why women specifically benefit from weight training. For example, some of the benefits listed were:
◦Enhanced bone modeling to increase bone strength and reduce the risk of osteoporosis
◦Stronger connective tissues to increase joint stability and help prevent injury
◦Increased functional strength for sports and daily activity
◦Increased lean body mass and decreased nonfunctional body fat
◦Higher metabolic rate because of an increase in muscle and a decrease in fat
◦Improved self-esteem and confidenceA recent piece in The Sydney Morning Herald called “Anti-ageing – get with the strength” attempted a more cosmetic approach to why women benefit from weight training, and then add in some of the more physical/medical benefits of weight training for women:
Skin treatments like Botox and retinol might be high profile anti-agers, but they don’t tackle the pointy end of ageing that’s tucked away in nursing homes – the muscle wasting that leads to Zimmer frames and loss of independence. It’s not just the wrinkling of the outer skin that makes a 60 or 70 year old body look older than that of a 30-something. It’s also what’s happening to the stuffing inside – when muscles start shrinking, bodies sag and posture droops. This doesn’t just affect how a body looks, but how it functions – ever-weakening muscles make it harder to get up the stairs or out of your chair.
That’s the bad news. The good news is there’s an antidote – strength training. It was great to hear Professor Hal Kendig, head of the ageing, work and health unit at the University of Sydney, spruiking strength training in the Sydney Morning Herald last week when he said that if older women want to stay out of nursing homes, they should lift weights. He’s right. But wouldn’t it be better still if women got the strength message earlier, say, in their 40s when creeping muscle loss begins? It’s not like men don’t need this message too – they do. But women need it more because they generally have less muscle to begin with and get frailer faster than men. Women also put less value on strength. If you were to guess which physical feature would be high on most women’s wish lists, you can bet strong muscles wouldn’t be up there. All our lives we learn we need good hair, good skin, good boobs and good legs, but strength? Not really our department.
Yet muscle is a real asset and building it has anti-ageing benefits for women, in how they look and how they function. Let’s count the ways.
Regular strength training helps your body look younger. It fights the sagging, ageing effect of dwindling muscle and gravity, and makes it easier to stay at a healthy weight. Cardio exercise is important too for both general health and weight management, but it can’t boost muscle in the same way as strength training so you need a combination of both. And it’s a myth that working out with weights makes women bulky – women don’t produce enough of the male hormone testosterone to grow muscles like a man.
Strong muscles make you less accident prone. We hear a lot about preventing osteoporosis, but hands up who’s heard of sarcopenia? It’s the medical term for loss of muscle and preventing it is as important as preserving bone. After all, it’s the unsteadiness caused by dwindling muscle strength that leads to falls – that lead to fractures.
Regular strength training helps prevent diabetes. To get the link between muscle and diabetes, it helps to know that muscles soak up blood sugar to use as fuel, The more muscle you have, the more blood sugar they take up and the lower the risk of high blood sugar levels that lead to diabetes.
Stronger muscles give you more energy. How’s this for sad news? A study of 34 to 58-year old women by the University of Michigan found that those who’d lost around 2.5 kilos of lean muscle walked more slowly and had less strength in their leg muscles. These women were hardly ancient, yet muscle loss was already eroding their strength.
The Brink Bottom Line: Well, the above is at least a step in the right direction in that it pushes the benefits of weight training for women. That’s a good thing. Readers will note the mention of sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass. I have a full article on that topic for those interested in the details there. Although resistance training is a key player in preventing sarcopenia, it’s far more complicated then the above article would suggest. I’m happy to see weight training/resistance training is slowly but surely not being seen as a “manly” activity and the media getting with the program. Might take another 50 years until they figure out aerobics is overrated (read is close to worthless…), but that’s another blog…
High Intensity Interval Training+
Here's a new post from Tom Venuto's website.
New HIIT Research: A Practical Model For High Intensity Interval Training
Tom Venuto
High intensity interval training, also known as HIIT, has become immensely popular in the last decade. HIIT involves alternating brief bursts of very high intensity exercise (work intervals) with brief segments of lower intensity exercise (recovery intervals). One problem with some types of HIIT is that they call for such high intensity bursts - literally all out sprints - that they’re not practical for everyone, and possibly not even safe for older or overweight individuals. A new study out of McMaster University has tested a protocol for HIIT that produces impressive results in a short period of time without the need for “all-out” sprints…
Many of the previous studies on HIIT used ALL-OUT intervals on a specialized cycle ergometer, pedaling against a high resistance.
This type of training takes a high level of commitment and motivation and can result in feelings of severe discomfort and even nausea.
One of my colleagues mentioned in our Burn the Fat Forums that he remembers exercise physiology class in college where they did all out cycle ergometer interval sprint testing and nearly everyone either puked or passed out.
The Tabata protocol for example, is a brief but brutal 4 minute HIIT workout often spoken of by trainers and trainees alike with both appreciation and dread. It’s no walk in the park.
The truth is, some HIIT protocols which have been tested in the lab to produce big improvements in cardiovascular function and conditioning in a short period of time, may not be practical or safe, especially for beginners, obese or older adults.
In this new study out of McMaster University, a HIIT protocol that was more practical and attainable for the general population was tested to see how the results would compare to the more “brutal” very short, but extremely intense types of HIIT.
Here’s what the new HIIT protocol looked like:
Study duration: 2 weeks
Frequency: 3 sessions per week (mon, wed, fri)
Work intervals: 60 seconds @ constant load
Recovery intervals: 75 seconds
Rounds: 8-12 intervals
Progression: 8 intervals 1st two workouts, 10 intervals second two workouts, 12 intervals last 2 workouts.
Warm up: 3 min:
Duration of work intervals: 8-12 minutes
Total time spent: 21-29 minutes.
Results: In just 2 weeks, there were significant improvements in functional exercise performance and skeletal muscle adaptations (mitochondrial biogenesis). Subjects did not report any dizziness, nausea, light headedness that is often reported with all-out intervals.
They concluded that HIIT does not have to be all-out to produce significant fitness improvements and yet the total weekly time investment could remain under 1 hour.
On a personal note, I REALLY like this kind of interval training: 60 second work intervals repeated 8-12 times. Here’s why:
Body composition was not measured in this study, but I believe that enough energy expenditure can be achieved with 20-30 minutes of this style of interval training to make significant body comp improvements in addition to all the cardiovascular conditioning improvements.
That’s another problem with super-brief and super intense HIIT programs: The cardio and heart benefits are amazing, but you can only burn so many calories per minute, no matter how intensely you work. To call a 4-minute workout a “good fat burner” in the absolute sense is ridiculous.
Somewhere in between long duration slow/moderate steady state cardio and super short super-intense HIIT lies a sweet spot for fat-burning benefits… a place where intensity X duration yield an optimal total calorie expenditure at a reasonable time investment. Perhaps this 20-30 minute HIIT workout is it?
If you’ve read any of my previous posts on cardio, you’ll know that I’m not against steady state cardio, walking or even light recreational exercise and miscellaneous activity as part of a fat loss program. All activity counts towards your total daily energy expenditure, and in fact, the little things often add up during the day more than you would imagine (just look up N.E.A.T. and see what you find).
But for your formal “cardio training” sessions, if you’re going to use traditional cardio modes (stationary cycle, etc) and if your goal includes fat burning, and if your time is limited, this type of HIIT is a great choice and you can now say it is research proven…
Not to mention… the excuse, “I don’t have enough time” has been officially busted!
Reference:
A practical model of low-volume high-intensity interval training induces mitochondrial biogenesis in human skeletal muscle: potential mechanisms. Little JP, Safdar A, Wilkin GP, Tarnopolsky MA, Gibala MJ. J Physiol. 2010 Mar 15;588(Pt 6):1011-22. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada [Pub Med]
New HIIT Research: A Practical Model For High Intensity Interval Training
Tom Venuto
High intensity interval training, also known as HIIT, has become immensely popular in the last decade. HIIT involves alternating brief bursts of very high intensity exercise (work intervals) with brief segments of lower intensity exercise (recovery intervals). One problem with some types of HIIT is that they call for such high intensity bursts - literally all out sprints - that they’re not practical for everyone, and possibly not even safe for older or overweight individuals. A new study out of McMaster University has tested a protocol for HIIT that produces impressive results in a short period of time without the need for “all-out” sprints…
Many of the previous studies on HIIT used ALL-OUT intervals on a specialized cycle ergometer, pedaling against a high resistance.
This type of training takes a high level of commitment and motivation and can result in feelings of severe discomfort and even nausea.
One of my colleagues mentioned in our Burn the Fat Forums that he remembers exercise physiology class in college where they did all out cycle ergometer interval sprint testing and nearly everyone either puked or passed out.
The Tabata protocol for example, is a brief but brutal 4 minute HIIT workout often spoken of by trainers and trainees alike with both appreciation and dread. It’s no walk in the park.
The truth is, some HIIT protocols which have been tested in the lab to produce big improvements in cardiovascular function and conditioning in a short period of time, may not be practical or safe, especially for beginners, obese or older adults.
In this new study out of McMaster University, a HIIT protocol that was more practical and attainable for the general population was tested to see how the results would compare to the more “brutal” very short, but extremely intense types of HIIT.
Here’s what the new HIIT protocol looked like:
Study duration: 2 weeks
Frequency: 3 sessions per week (mon, wed, fri)
Work intervals: 60 seconds @ constant load
Recovery intervals: 75 seconds
Rounds: 8-12 intervals
Progression: 8 intervals 1st two workouts, 10 intervals second two workouts, 12 intervals last 2 workouts.
Warm up: 3 min:
Duration of work intervals: 8-12 minutes
Total time spent: 21-29 minutes.
Results: In just 2 weeks, there were significant improvements in functional exercise performance and skeletal muscle adaptations (mitochondrial biogenesis). Subjects did not report any dizziness, nausea, light headedness that is often reported with all-out intervals.
They concluded that HIIT does not have to be all-out to produce significant fitness improvements and yet the total weekly time investment could remain under 1 hour.
On a personal note, I REALLY like this kind of interval training: 60 second work intervals repeated 8-12 times. Here’s why:
Body composition was not measured in this study, but I believe that enough energy expenditure can be achieved with 20-30 minutes of this style of interval training to make significant body comp improvements in addition to all the cardiovascular conditioning improvements.
That’s another problem with super-brief and super intense HIIT programs: The cardio and heart benefits are amazing, but you can only burn so many calories per minute, no matter how intensely you work. To call a 4-minute workout a “good fat burner” in the absolute sense is ridiculous.
Somewhere in between long duration slow/moderate steady state cardio and super short super-intense HIIT lies a sweet spot for fat-burning benefits… a place where intensity X duration yield an optimal total calorie expenditure at a reasonable time investment. Perhaps this 20-30 minute HIIT workout is it?
If you’ve read any of my previous posts on cardio, you’ll know that I’m not against steady state cardio, walking or even light recreational exercise and miscellaneous activity as part of a fat loss program. All activity counts towards your total daily energy expenditure, and in fact, the little things often add up during the day more than you would imagine (just look up N.E.A.T. and see what you find).
But for your formal “cardio training” sessions, if you’re going to use traditional cardio modes (stationary cycle, etc) and if your goal includes fat burning, and if your time is limited, this type of HIIT is a great choice and you can now say it is research proven…
Not to mention… the excuse, “I don’t have enough time” has been officially busted!
Reference:
A practical model of low-volume high-intensity interval training induces mitochondrial biogenesis in human skeletal muscle: potential mechanisms. Little JP, Safdar A, Wilkin GP, Tarnopolsky MA, Gibala MJ. J Physiol. 2010 Mar 15;588(Pt 6):1011-22. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada [Pub Med]
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Weight loss without dietary intervention
This was from an E-mail I received, it's nice to see studies that validate what we already know from experience. Diet makes the exercise work!
Make sure you read this ENTIRE email to see how average people
who workout 5 HOURS a week ONLY lost 1.5 lbs in 12 weeks!
==================================================
from Dr. John...
Sean, let me put this bluntly: exercise ALONE doesn't really work all
that well. Especially when looking at body composition related outcomes,
like fat loss, for example - far and away the most important outcome your
clients are asking for help with.
Now, this isn't just something I'm throwing out there.
Several recent studies, including one done at the University of Texas and
another done at the University of Oklahoma, have shown pretty conclusively
that in the absence of a sound nutrition intervention, exercise produces pretty
disappointing results.
Let's take a look at the data.
In this first investigation, done at the University of Texas, two sedentary
groups of people were studied. The first group of 50 was considered the
control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the entire 12 week study.
The second group of 50 was considered the exercise group. And this group
worked with a trainer to perform 3 strength and 2 interval training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis
showed that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't
changed at all.
What did the researchers find?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control
group, the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was a mere 1.5lbs!
So, in this study, if these 50 people would have hired personal trainers, they
would have spent about 60 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose a mere 1.5lbs
of fat. That's not good.
Now let's look at the Oklahoma study.
In this investigation, two additional groups were studied. The first group of 10 was
considered the control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the 10 week
study.
The second group of 14 was considered the exercise group. And this group worked
with a trainer to perform 2 strength and 3 steady state cardio training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis showed
that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't changed at all.
What did the researchers find here?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control group,
the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was just 1.5lbs - same as the Texas study.
So, in this study, just like the last, these 14 people would have hired personal trainers,
they would have spent about 50 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose just 1.5lbs of fat.
I could go on all day citing research showing that exercise alone - without a nutrition
intervention - isn't all that effective at helping your client achieve the #1 goal they're after.
==================================================
WOW! Even I was shocked that without following a proper nutrition system
people only lost 1.5 of fat after busting their butts exercising for 5 hours a week!
Make sure you read this ENTIRE email to see how average people
who workout 5 HOURS a week ONLY lost 1.5 lbs in 12 weeks!
==================================================
from Dr. John...
Sean, let me put this bluntly: exercise ALONE doesn't really work all
that well. Especially when looking at body composition related outcomes,
like fat loss, for example - far and away the most important outcome your
clients are asking for help with.
Now, this isn't just something I'm throwing out there.
Several recent studies, including one done at the University of Texas and
another done at the University of Oklahoma, have shown pretty conclusively
that in the absence of a sound nutrition intervention, exercise produces pretty
disappointing results.
Let's take a look at the data.
In this first investigation, done at the University of Texas, two sedentary
groups of people were studied. The first group of 50 was considered the
control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the entire 12 week study.
The second group of 50 was considered the exercise group. And this group
worked with a trainer to perform 3 strength and 2 interval training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis
showed that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't
changed at all.
What did the researchers find?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control
group, the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was a mere 1.5lbs!
So, in this study, if these 50 people would have hired personal trainers, they
would have spent about 60 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose a mere 1.5lbs
of fat. That's not good.
Now let's look at the Oklahoma study.
In this investigation, two additional groups were studied. The first group of 10 was
considered the control group. And they simply remained sedentary for the 10 week
study.
The second group of 14 was considered the exercise group. And this group worked
with a trainer to perform 2 strength and 3 steady state cardio training sessions
per week - about 5 total hours of exercise.
Both groups were instructed to keep their diets the same. And data analysis showed
that at the beginning and at the end of the study, their diets hadn't changed at all.
What did the researchers find here?
Well, although the exercise group did lose statistically more fat than the control group,
the total amount of fat lost in the exercise group was just 1.5lbs - same as the Texas study.
So, in this study, just like the last, these 14 people would have hired personal trainers,
they would have spent about 50 hours and 3-4 thousand dollars to lose just 1.5lbs of fat.
I could go on all day citing research showing that exercise alone - without a nutrition
intervention - isn't all that effective at helping your client achieve the #1 goal they're after.
==================================================
WOW! Even I was shocked that without following a proper nutrition system
people only lost 1.5 of fat after busting their butts exercising for 5 hours a week!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Eggs for Easter!
Here's some info on good old eggs, although not as good as the eggs I eat.
http://www.burnthefat.com/eat_the_egg_yolk_or_just_the_egg_white.html
http://www.burnthefat.com/eat_the_egg_yolk_or_just_the_egg_white.html
Monday, March 29, 2010
"High Intensity VS Steady State" from Tom Venuto
I got an email today from a reader who was told by a doctor/authorthat aerobics and running will "kill you"...(that was the gist of it,more or less). As a result, you should "avoid aerobics like the plague," says this MD. Since I've tolerated enough "steady state cardio is dead" and"aerobics doesn't work" nonsense over the last few years, despitethe success stories I keep churning out that clearly show otherwise,(http://www.burnthefat.com/testimonials.html), I thought I should not only answer my reader, but also make this the topic for today's newsletter to share with all of you. Here's the "killer cardio" question and my short response: --------------------------------------BURN THE FAT READER EMAIL:------------------------------------- "Tom, your articles are great. Here's the problem. More runners die from sudden heart attack and stroke than any other form of exerciseon the planet. It's because nothing is more foreign to human beingsthan getting their heart rate up and keeping it there for long periods of time. In fact recent studies have shown that while there are benefits to aerobics, (like weight loss), in the long term however, statisticsshow a direct increase in heart disease. Part of the reason for this is that in an effort to adapt to the unnatural demands being put on the body, to economize, the heart and lungs actually shrink. Just look at the long list of joint, bone, and muscle injuriesthat come along with running (it's right there in the magazines). As I know you know, a serious weight lifter, if he's paying attentionto form, should almost never suffer injury from weight training. The same is true for the following: Instead of unnatural, self-abusive aerobics, the best way to actually increase heart and lung capacity and size is to go beyond aerobics. In short, spurts of intense exercise, such as wind-sprints, you movepast your ability to produce ATP with oxygen as fast as you are usingit, causing your muscles to become ATP depleted. That's the point at which your anaerobic energy system kicks in. This is also known as crossing your aerobic threshold. Burst training, sprints, whatever you want to call it, it shouldn'tbe done in addition to aerobics, it should be done in place of aerobics. Incidentally, I am not saying that one shouldn't walk, jog, bicycle,swim, etc, just be reasonable. I had a heart condition that has been totally alleviated. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday of each week, I go through a 45 minuteweight training session, followed by a 20 minutes of the interval program. Check it out, I think this sort of thing would be a great addition to you already good program. -Jeff" ---------------------------------RESPONSE:-------------------------------- I agree with much of what you said about the benefits of intense "burst" exercise, but I find the anti running and anti aerobics arguments horribly dogmatic and, unlike what you suggested, totally unreasonable. I also find the argument that traditional cardio or aerobics is"unhealthy" to be wholly unconvincing. That doctor isn't giving the full picture. I subscribe to many sports medicine and exercise science journalsand I've certainly seen research papers looking at sudden death inelite runners, etc. But there's more than one side to the story. Marathon running is a highly publicized sport, and the media lovesbad news, so the oxymoron of a runner dying of a heart attack makes a great story, which means greater visibility for what is actuallya very rare occurrence. It's also easy to cherry pick case studies on just about anythingand start up a big scare. This comes from the American Journal of cardiology: "The overall prevalence of sudden cardiac death during the marathonwas only 0.002%, strikingly lower than for several other variablesof risk for premature death calculated for the general U.S. population." "Although highly trained athletes such as marathon runners may harborunderlying and potentially lethal cardiovascular disease, the risk for sudden cardiac death associated with such intense physical effort was exceedingly small." I also find comparing serious endurance athletes pushing theirphysical limits to regular cardio for general fitness trainingto be an inappropriate comparison. What does a rare cardiac event during a 26 mile run have to do with you doing 30 or 45 minutes of jogging or me doing 40 minutesof moderate work on the stairmaster to get cut for a bodybuildingcontest? Even sillier are the people who keep using the late marathon runnerand running author Jim Fixx as an example of anything but a guy who had a genetic predisposition for heart disease (gun was loaded).Word on the street is that he was a former smoker too. Please note, I'm saying all this as a strength/physique athlete(bodybuilder), who understands full well that excessive aerobics iscounterproductive to my goals and that weight training is priority #1. But in the right amounts, balanced with proper recovery (as you said,"reasonable"), regular cardio can be instrumental in helping yourlower your body fat and it can benefit you in many other ways, physically and mentally. There are MANY ways to do cardio and all of them have their place at certain times for certain people. What you're talking about with sprints or "burst" training is also known as High Intensity Interval Training or HIIT for short. HIIT can be a great way to get cardiovascular conditioning andburn a lot of calories in a very time efficient manner. Furthermore, a paper just published recently in the ACSM's Exerciseand Sport Sciences Review (July 2009) discussed the research suggesting that intense aerobic interval training provides greater benefits for the heart than low or moderate intensity exercise. The benefits discussed included: * Increased maximal oxygen uptake* Improved heart muscle contractile function* Improved heart muscle calcium handling* reduced cardiac dysfunction in metabolic syndrome* Reversed pathological cardiac hypertrophy* Increased physiological hypertrophy of the heart muscle* Overall: improved quality of life and length of life by avoidingfatal heart attacks. This is not an argument AGAINST regular cardio, it is evidence in favor of intense cardio. I like it HIIT!I don't need to add it to my program because it'salready a part of my program My first book about fat loss, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle(www.burnthefat.com) was first published in 2002 and I recommended HIIT way back then - as well as to regular cardio, not one or theother. I Still do! There were also people promoting HIIT long before me. It's not anyrevolutionary idea - people just keep putting new names and spinson it for marketing. The problem is, to argue in favor of HIIT should not be construed asarguing against conventional aerobics. Many of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models usedslow, steady state cardio exclusively prior to competitions andthey got ripped right down to the six pack abs. They didn't dieof a heart attack and they didn't lose muscle either. In fact, many bodybuilders opt for low intensity cardio specificallyfor muscle retention when they get to the tail end of contest prepwhere body fat stores are getting low and food intake is low. morehigh intensity training on top of all the weight training is oftencatabolic in that situation. Listen, HIIT and other types of intense cardio are great. It's time efficient, making it ideal for the busy person, and its very effective for both fat loss and cardiovascular conditioning. It's also more engaging, as many people find longer, slower sessions ofcardio boring. If you have a history of heart disease and you smoke like a chimneyand at the same time you decide you want to take up marathon running,ok, I'll concede to some caution. But, "Aerobics is going to kill you!"?????? GIVE ME A FRIGGEN BREAK! Perfect marketing hook for a cultish HIIT-based program... little more. Bottom line: sure, do your HIIT, do your sprints, do your Tabatas.... OR... do your regular steady state aerobics or running too... Or, do a little bit of everything! I do. Be sure weight training is your foremost training priority and thendo whatever type of cardio you enjoy and whatever type gets you thebest results. If someone likes to run, I say RUN, and tell the "experts" who sayotherwise to BUZZ OFF and take their sensationalistic journalismand marketing with them. Train hard and expect success, Tom VenutoFat Loss Coach
Friday, March 26, 2010
Good article on Low Carb dieting
Low Carb Dogma
By Jamie HalePublished: March 23, 2010
Posted in: Nutrition
Tags: calories, carb, fat loss, hale, low carb, metabolic advantage, Nutrition
Low carb diet enthusiasts claim their diet is supreme to other methods. They claim their diet offers a metabolic advantage—“metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many or more calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches” (Atkins, 1992). In addition, advocates claim that the overproduction of insulin stimulated by high CHO intake is the cause of obesity. Others claim that low carb diets result in weight loss, fat loss, improved body composition, and improved health. Simply put, according to many low carb advocates, low carb dieting is superior to other forms of dieting.
Low carb diets have been shown to improve the conditions previously mentioned, but isn’t it true that other diets offer some of the same benefits? And in some cases, aren’t low carb diets successful due to calorie manipulation, not some metabolic advantage? Or are low carb diets simply the way to go across the board?
Low carbs and weight loss
Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition (Hill, 1993). In all cases, individuals on high fat, low CHO diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories (Freedman, 2001). Alford and colleagues (1990) manipulated CHO content of low calorie diets (1200 kcal/d) to determine the possible effects on body weight and body fat reduction over ten weeks. Women in each diet group consumed a low, medium, or high CHO diet. The low CHO diet was 15–25 percent CHO (75 g/d) (30 percent protein, 45 percent fat), the moderate CHO diet was 45 percent CHO (10 percent protein, 35 percent fat), and the high CHO diet was 75 percent CHO (15 percent protein, 10 percent fat).
Weight loss occurred in all groups, but there was no significant difference in weight loss among the groups. Based on underwater weighing, the percentage of body fat lost was similar among the groups. Alford and colleagues concluded that “there is no statistically significant effect derived in an overweight adult female population from manipulation of percentage of CHO in a 1200-kcal diet. Weight loss is the result of reduction in caloric intake in proportion to caloric requirements” (Freedman, 2001).
Golay and colleagues (1996) followed 43 obese patients for six weeks, who received a low cal diet (1000 kcal) and participated in a structured, multidisciplinary program that included physical activity (2 h/d), nutritional education, and behavioral modification. The diet contained either 15 percent CHO (37.5 g) or 45 percent CHO. The protein content of the diets was similar (approximately 30 percent) and fat made up the difference. After six weeks, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the different diet groups. Significant and similar decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratios were seen in both groups. In another study, Wing and colleagues (1995) confined 21 severely obese women to a metabolic ward for 31 days. They were randomly assigned to a non-ketogenic or ketogenic (10 g CHO) liquid formula diet (600 kcals) for 28 days. At the end of the study, weight losses were similar.
A portion of weight loss in the early stages of low carb dieting is due to water losses (Bell, 1969; Van Itallie, 1975). However, the majority of weight loss in the early stages of a mixed diet is primarily due to loss in body fat (Yang and Van Itallie, 1976). Other studies support this finding. Losses of protein and fat are about the same when following a ketogenic or isocaloric, non-ketogenic diet (Golay, 1996).
“In the short-term, low CHO ketogenic diets cause a greater loss of body water than body fat” (Freedman, 2001). “Low CHO diets are high in fat, especially saturated fat, and cholesterol. They are also high in protein (mainly animal) and provide lower than recommended intakes of vitamin E, vitamin A, thiamin, vitamin B6, folate, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium, and dietary fiber” (Freedman, 2001). In these instances, supplementation is required for proper nutrition.
Do low carbohydrate diets decrease hunger?
Low carb advocates claim that no hunger is experienced when following a low carb diet. Various studies support this claim. However, not all studies do. Baron and colleagues (1986) found similar complaints of hunger in low CHO and low fat dieters. Rosen and colleagues (1985) found no support for the claim that a minimal CHO, protein supplemented fast decreased appetite in comparison with an isocaloric CHO containing diet that minimized ketosis. The idea that eating an ad lib low carb diet leads to decreased calorie consumption in everyone is a logical fallacy—hasty generalization.
Do other diets decrease hunger?
Studies indicate subjects consuming an ad lib, low fat diet don’t complain of hunger but complain there is too much food (Freedman 2001). Siggaard (1996) reported a high degree of satisfaction when Danish workers consumed a low fat, ad lib diet.
“Stubbs et al. (1995) provided normal weight male subjects ad libitum access to one of three covertly manipulated diets: low fat (20 percent energy as fat, 67 percent as CHO), medium fat (40 percent energy as fat, 47 percent as CHO), or high fat (60 percent energy as fat, 27 percent as CHO). They reported that energy intake increased with percent fat and that lower fat, lower energy diets were more satiating than higher fat, higher energy diets” (Freedman, 2001).
Is overproduction of insulin driven by CHO consumption the primary cause of obesity?
Carbohydrates and protein stimulate insulin release. Holt and colleagues (1997) found that “protein rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrates) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses [blood sugar responses].”
Golay and colleagues (1996) showed that subjects consuming 15 percent CHO had significantly lower insulin levels compared with those consuming 45 percent CHO, yet there was no difference in weight loss between the groups. “Grey and Kipnis [1971] studied ten obese patients who were fed hypocaloric (1500 kcal/d) liquid formula diets containing either 72 percent or 0 percent CHO for four weeks before switching to the other diet. A significant reduction in basal plasma insulin levels was noted when subjects ingested the hypocaloric formula devoid of CHO. Refeeding the hypocaloric, high CHO formula resulted in a marked increase in the basal plasma insulin. However, patients lost 0.75–2.0 kg/week irrespective of caloric distribution” (Freedman, 2001).
This is what nutritionist and author, Anthony Colpo, had to say (Colpo, 2007):
“[T]ake a close look at the studies in which the low carb diet caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al, Miyashita et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the isocaloric, low carb diets—but no difference in fat loss … Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al, Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the low carb diets—but again, no difference in fat loss… The participants in these free living studies were given dietary advice intended to make the high and low carbs isocaloric. If insulin and not calories was the key factor in fat loss, then there should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower carb group every single time. There wasn’t. The reason for this is that the ‘insulin makes you fat’ theory is rubbish. It is calories, not insulin, that determine whether or not you will lose fat.”
“Insulin, in addition to its effects in the central nervous system to inhibit food intake, acts in the periphery to ensure the efficient storage of incoming nutrients. The role for insulin in the synthesis and storage of fat has obscured its important effects in the central nervous system where it acts to prevent weight gain and has led to the misconception that insulin causes obesity [Schwartz 2000]. It has recently been shown that selective genetic disruption of insulin signaling in the brain leads to increased food intake and obesity in animals [Bruning et al. 2000], demonstrating that intact insulin signaling in the central nervous system is required for normal body weight regulation” (Freedman, 2001).
Furthermore, insulin plays an indirect role in body regulation through leptin stimulation. Both of these hormones are transported in the central nervous system where they may interact with neuropeptides that affect food intake. Decreased leptin levels have been shown to be related to increased hunger sensations (Keim, 1998). Freedman and colleagues (2001) said, “Increased insulin secretion has been suggested to protect against weight gain in humans [Schwartz 1995]. Because insulin also stimulates leptin production, which acts centrally to reduce energy intake and increase energy expenditure, decreased insulin and leptin production during the consumption of high fat diets could help contribute to the obesity promoting effects of dietary fat [Astrup, 2000].”
Do other diets affect health parameters?
The following excerpts are taken from “Popular Diets: A Scientific Review” (Freedman, 2001).
“Blood lipid levels (e.g. total cholesterol [TC], low density lipoprotein [LDL], high density lipoprotein [HDL] and triglycerides [TGs]) decrease as body weight decreases [Yu-poth, 1999]. Moderate fat, balanced nutrient, reduction diets reduce LDL cholesterol and normalize the ratio of HDL/TC.”
“Plasma TG levels also decrease with weight loss. Although they increase in response to short-term consumption of a VLF, high CHO diet [Lichtenstein & Van Horn, 1998], the type of CHO consumed must be considered. High-fiber foods, including vegetables and legumes, do not lead to hypertriglyceridemia [Anderson, 1980] and may easily be incorporated into moderate fat, balanced nutrient, reduction diets to help normalize plasma TG levels.”
“Energy restriction independent of diet composition improves glycemic control.”
In addition, when body weight decreases so do insulin and leptin levels. Blood pressure drops with weight loss, regardless of diet composition. Sports nutritionist, Alan Aragon, had this to say:
“A key point that must be made is that the research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low carbing in the first place. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (i.e. LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it isn’t lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage. It’s the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage.
Furthermore, the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high carb/low fat/low protein versus low carb/high fat/moderate protein). The funny part is the majority of long-term trials (12 months or more) still fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.
There’s a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the ‘metabolic advantage’ folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It’s always ‘either or’ for them when in fact individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low carb is warranted. For others, it isn’t. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low carb absolutists.
What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes. The minute someone says that everyone should severely restrict carbohydrate, it’s obvious that you’re dealing with a cherry-picking, low carb zealot who is unfamiliar with the totality of research evidence and has limited field experience.”
Conclusion
A low carb diet isn’t necessarily the best diet. Research has found low carb diets to be successful for many people, but other diets have also proven successful. This article isn’t meant to suggest that low carb dieting is inferior or bad. It is meant to dispel some of the common dogma often perpetuated by low carb dogmatists. The idea that low carb dieting offers unique benefits that can’t be acquired by other diets is true in some cases (i.e. possibly treatment for some forms of cancer and specific neurodegenarative disorders). However, the idea of low carb diets being the panacea of diets is false.
This was a short review of some of the scientific data concerning low carb dieting. To reiterate, my intent was not to provide an in-depth discussion of the various issues surrounding dieting but to give readers a brief glimpse of some of the popular misconceptions associated with low carb dieting. There is a plethora of scientific literature showing the benefits of low carb dieting. There is also a plethora of data showing benefits from other types of diets. Which is better? It depends.
References
•Alford BB, et al. (1990) The effects of variation in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. J AM Diet Assoc 90:534–40.
•Atkins RC (1992) Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. New York: Avon Books, Inc.
•Baron JA, et al. (1986) A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. AM J Public Health 76:1293–6.
•Bell JD, et al. (1969) Ketosis, weight loss, uric acid, and nitrogen balance in obese women fed single nutrients at low calorie levels. Metabolism 18:193–208.
•Colpo A (2007) They’re All Mad. Anthony Colpo.
•Freedman MR, et al. (2001) Popular Diets A Scientific Review. Obesity Research 9(1).
•Golay A, et al. (1996) Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 20:1067–72.
•Golay A, et al. (1996) Similar weight loss with low or high carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 63:174–8.
•Hill JO, et al. (1993) Obesity treatment: can diet composition play a role? Ann Intern Med 119:694–7.
•Holt S, et al. (1997) The insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. AM J Clin Nutr 66:1264–76.
•Keim NL, et al. (1998) Relation between circulating Leptin concentrations and appetite during a prolonged, moderate energy deficit in women. Am J Clin Nutr 68:794–801.
•Rosen JC, et al. (1985) Mood and appetite during minimal-carbohydrate and carbohydrate-supplemented hypocaloric diets. AM J Clin Nutr 42:371–9.
•Siggaard R, et al. (1996) Weight loss during 12 weeks carbohydrate-rich diet in overweight and normal-weight subjects at a Danish work site. Obes Res 4:347–56.
•Stubbs RJ, et al. (1995) Covert manipulation of dietary fat and energy density: effect on substrate flux and food intake in men eating ad libitum. AM J Clin Nutr 62:316–29.
•Van Itallie TB, et al. (1975) Dietary Approaches to obesity: metabolic and appetitive considerations. In: Recent Advances in Obesity Research. London: Newman Publishing, pg. 256–69.
•Wing RR, et al. (1995) Cognitive effects of ketogenic weight-reducing diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 19:811–6.
•Yang MU, Van Itallie TB (1976) Composition of weight loss during short term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets. J Clin Invest 58:722–30.
Elite Fitness Systems strives to be a recognized leader in the strength training industry by providing the highest quality strength training products and services while providing the highest level of customer service in the industry. For the best training equipment, information, and accessories, visit us at www.EliteFTS.com
By Jamie HalePublished: March 23, 2010
Posted in: Nutrition
Tags: calories, carb, fat loss, hale, low carb, metabolic advantage, Nutrition
Low carb diet enthusiasts claim their diet is supreme to other methods. They claim their diet offers a metabolic advantage—“metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many or more calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches” (Atkins, 1992). In addition, advocates claim that the overproduction of insulin stimulated by high CHO intake is the cause of obesity. Others claim that low carb diets result in weight loss, fat loss, improved body composition, and improved health. Simply put, according to many low carb advocates, low carb dieting is superior to other forms of dieting.
Low carb diets have been shown to improve the conditions previously mentioned, but isn’t it true that other diets offer some of the same benefits? And in some cases, aren’t low carb diets successful due to calorie manipulation, not some metabolic advantage? Or are low carb diets simply the way to go across the board?
Low carbs and weight loss
Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition (Hill, 1993). In all cases, individuals on high fat, low CHO diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories (Freedman, 2001). Alford and colleagues (1990) manipulated CHO content of low calorie diets (1200 kcal/d) to determine the possible effects on body weight and body fat reduction over ten weeks. Women in each diet group consumed a low, medium, or high CHO diet. The low CHO diet was 15–25 percent CHO (75 g/d) (30 percent protein, 45 percent fat), the moderate CHO diet was 45 percent CHO (10 percent protein, 35 percent fat), and the high CHO diet was 75 percent CHO (15 percent protein, 10 percent fat).
Weight loss occurred in all groups, but there was no significant difference in weight loss among the groups. Based on underwater weighing, the percentage of body fat lost was similar among the groups. Alford and colleagues concluded that “there is no statistically significant effect derived in an overweight adult female population from manipulation of percentage of CHO in a 1200-kcal diet. Weight loss is the result of reduction in caloric intake in proportion to caloric requirements” (Freedman, 2001).
Golay and colleagues (1996) followed 43 obese patients for six weeks, who received a low cal diet (1000 kcal) and participated in a structured, multidisciplinary program that included physical activity (2 h/d), nutritional education, and behavioral modification. The diet contained either 15 percent CHO (37.5 g) or 45 percent CHO. The protein content of the diets was similar (approximately 30 percent) and fat made up the difference. After six weeks, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the different diet groups. Significant and similar decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratios were seen in both groups. In another study, Wing and colleagues (1995) confined 21 severely obese women to a metabolic ward for 31 days. They were randomly assigned to a non-ketogenic or ketogenic (10 g CHO) liquid formula diet (600 kcals) for 28 days. At the end of the study, weight losses were similar.
A portion of weight loss in the early stages of low carb dieting is due to water losses (Bell, 1969; Van Itallie, 1975). However, the majority of weight loss in the early stages of a mixed diet is primarily due to loss in body fat (Yang and Van Itallie, 1976). Other studies support this finding. Losses of protein and fat are about the same when following a ketogenic or isocaloric, non-ketogenic diet (Golay, 1996).
“In the short-term, low CHO ketogenic diets cause a greater loss of body water than body fat” (Freedman, 2001). “Low CHO diets are high in fat, especially saturated fat, and cholesterol. They are also high in protein (mainly animal) and provide lower than recommended intakes of vitamin E, vitamin A, thiamin, vitamin B6, folate, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium, and dietary fiber” (Freedman, 2001). In these instances, supplementation is required for proper nutrition.
Do low carbohydrate diets decrease hunger?
Low carb advocates claim that no hunger is experienced when following a low carb diet. Various studies support this claim. However, not all studies do. Baron and colleagues (1986) found similar complaints of hunger in low CHO and low fat dieters. Rosen and colleagues (1985) found no support for the claim that a minimal CHO, protein supplemented fast decreased appetite in comparison with an isocaloric CHO containing diet that minimized ketosis. The idea that eating an ad lib low carb diet leads to decreased calorie consumption in everyone is a logical fallacy—hasty generalization.
Do other diets decrease hunger?
Studies indicate subjects consuming an ad lib, low fat diet don’t complain of hunger but complain there is too much food (Freedman 2001). Siggaard (1996) reported a high degree of satisfaction when Danish workers consumed a low fat, ad lib diet.
“Stubbs et al. (1995) provided normal weight male subjects ad libitum access to one of three covertly manipulated diets: low fat (20 percent energy as fat, 67 percent as CHO), medium fat (40 percent energy as fat, 47 percent as CHO), or high fat (60 percent energy as fat, 27 percent as CHO). They reported that energy intake increased with percent fat and that lower fat, lower energy diets were more satiating than higher fat, higher energy diets” (Freedman, 2001).
Is overproduction of insulin driven by CHO consumption the primary cause of obesity?
Carbohydrates and protein stimulate insulin release. Holt and colleagues (1997) found that “protein rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrates) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses [blood sugar responses].”
Golay and colleagues (1996) showed that subjects consuming 15 percent CHO had significantly lower insulin levels compared with those consuming 45 percent CHO, yet there was no difference in weight loss between the groups. “Grey and Kipnis [1971] studied ten obese patients who were fed hypocaloric (1500 kcal/d) liquid formula diets containing either 72 percent or 0 percent CHO for four weeks before switching to the other diet. A significant reduction in basal plasma insulin levels was noted when subjects ingested the hypocaloric formula devoid of CHO. Refeeding the hypocaloric, high CHO formula resulted in a marked increase in the basal plasma insulin. However, patients lost 0.75–2.0 kg/week irrespective of caloric distribution” (Freedman, 2001).
This is what nutritionist and author, Anthony Colpo, had to say (Colpo, 2007):
“[T]ake a close look at the studies in which the low carb diet caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al, Miyashita et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the isocaloric, low carb diets—but no difference in fat loss … Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al, Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the low carb diets—but again, no difference in fat loss… The participants in these free living studies were given dietary advice intended to make the high and low carbs isocaloric. If insulin and not calories was the key factor in fat loss, then there should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower carb group every single time. There wasn’t. The reason for this is that the ‘insulin makes you fat’ theory is rubbish. It is calories, not insulin, that determine whether or not you will lose fat.”
“Insulin, in addition to its effects in the central nervous system to inhibit food intake, acts in the periphery to ensure the efficient storage of incoming nutrients. The role for insulin in the synthesis and storage of fat has obscured its important effects in the central nervous system where it acts to prevent weight gain and has led to the misconception that insulin causes obesity [Schwartz 2000]. It has recently been shown that selective genetic disruption of insulin signaling in the brain leads to increased food intake and obesity in animals [Bruning et al. 2000], demonstrating that intact insulin signaling in the central nervous system is required for normal body weight regulation” (Freedman, 2001).
Furthermore, insulin plays an indirect role in body regulation through leptin stimulation. Both of these hormones are transported in the central nervous system where they may interact with neuropeptides that affect food intake. Decreased leptin levels have been shown to be related to increased hunger sensations (Keim, 1998). Freedman and colleagues (2001) said, “Increased insulin secretion has been suggested to protect against weight gain in humans [Schwartz 1995]. Because insulin also stimulates leptin production, which acts centrally to reduce energy intake and increase energy expenditure, decreased insulin and leptin production during the consumption of high fat diets could help contribute to the obesity promoting effects of dietary fat [Astrup, 2000].”
Do other diets affect health parameters?
The following excerpts are taken from “Popular Diets: A Scientific Review” (Freedman, 2001).
“Blood lipid levels (e.g. total cholesterol [TC], low density lipoprotein [LDL], high density lipoprotein [HDL] and triglycerides [TGs]) decrease as body weight decreases [Yu-poth, 1999]. Moderate fat, balanced nutrient, reduction diets reduce LDL cholesterol and normalize the ratio of HDL/TC.”
“Plasma TG levels also decrease with weight loss. Although they increase in response to short-term consumption of a VLF, high CHO diet [Lichtenstein & Van Horn, 1998], the type of CHO consumed must be considered. High-fiber foods, including vegetables and legumes, do not lead to hypertriglyceridemia [Anderson, 1980] and may easily be incorporated into moderate fat, balanced nutrient, reduction diets to help normalize plasma TG levels.”
“Energy restriction independent of diet composition improves glycemic control.”
In addition, when body weight decreases so do insulin and leptin levels. Blood pressure drops with weight loss, regardless of diet composition. Sports nutritionist, Alan Aragon, had this to say:
“A key point that must be made is that the research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low carbing in the first place. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (i.e. LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it isn’t lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage. It’s the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage.
Furthermore, the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high carb/low fat/low protein versus low carb/high fat/moderate protein). The funny part is the majority of long-term trials (12 months or more) still fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.
There’s a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the ‘metabolic advantage’ folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It’s always ‘either or’ for them when in fact individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low carb is warranted. For others, it isn’t. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low carb absolutists.
What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes. The minute someone says that everyone should severely restrict carbohydrate, it’s obvious that you’re dealing with a cherry-picking, low carb zealot who is unfamiliar with the totality of research evidence and has limited field experience.”
Conclusion
A low carb diet isn’t necessarily the best diet. Research has found low carb diets to be successful for many people, but other diets have also proven successful. This article isn’t meant to suggest that low carb dieting is inferior or bad. It is meant to dispel some of the common dogma often perpetuated by low carb dogmatists. The idea that low carb dieting offers unique benefits that can’t be acquired by other diets is true in some cases (i.e. possibly treatment for some forms of cancer and specific neurodegenarative disorders). However, the idea of low carb diets being the panacea of diets is false.
This was a short review of some of the scientific data concerning low carb dieting. To reiterate, my intent was not to provide an in-depth discussion of the various issues surrounding dieting but to give readers a brief glimpse of some of the popular misconceptions associated with low carb dieting. There is a plethora of scientific literature showing the benefits of low carb dieting. There is also a plethora of data showing benefits from other types of diets. Which is better? It depends.
References
•Alford BB, et al. (1990) The effects of variation in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. J AM Diet Assoc 90:534–40.
•Atkins RC (1992) Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. New York: Avon Books, Inc.
•Baron JA, et al. (1986) A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. AM J Public Health 76:1293–6.
•Bell JD, et al. (1969) Ketosis, weight loss, uric acid, and nitrogen balance in obese women fed single nutrients at low calorie levels. Metabolism 18:193–208.
•Colpo A (2007) They’re All Mad. Anthony Colpo.
•Freedman MR, et al. (2001) Popular Diets A Scientific Review. Obesity Research 9(1).
•Golay A, et al. (1996) Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 20:1067–72.
•Golay A, et al. (1996) Similar weight loss with low or high carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 63:174–8.
•Hill JO, et al. (1993) Obesity treatment: can diet composition play a role? Ann Intern Med 119:694–7.
•Holt S, et al. (1997) The insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. AM J Clin Nutr 66:1264–76.
•Keim NL, et al. (1998) Relation between circulating Leptin concentrations and appetite during a prolonged, moderate energy deficit in women. Am J Clin Nutr 68:794–801.
•Rosen JC, et al. (1985) Mood and appetite during minimal-carbohydrate and carbohydrate-supplemented hypocaloric diets. AM J Clin Nutr 42:371–9.
•Siggaard R, et al. (1996) Weight loss during 12 weeks carbohydrate-rich diet in overweight and normal-weight subjects at a Danish work site. Obes Res 4:347–56.
•Stubbs RJ, et al. (1995) Covert manipulation of dietary fat and energy density: effect on substrate flux and food intake in men eating ad libitum. AM J Clin Nutr 62:316–29.
•Van Itallie TB, et al. (1975) Dietary Approaches to obesity: metabolic and appetitive considerations. In: Recent Advances in Obesity Research. London: Newman Publishing, pg. 256–69.
•Wing RR, et al. (1995) Cognitive effects of ketogenic weight-reducing diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 19:811–6.
•Yang MU, Van Itallie TB (1976) Composition of weight loss during short term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets. J Clin Invest 58:722–30.
Elite Fitness Systems strives to be a recognized leader in the strength training industry by providing the highest quality strength training products and services while providing the highest level of customer service in the industry. For the best training equipment, information, and accessories, visit us at www.EliteFTS.com
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Tuesday 14th March
We started P90X this week for a change of pace, just following Tony's recommended progression of workouts. We'll do this for two weeks or so, just for fun.
Monday: Chest and Back
Thuesday: Plyo.
Monday: Chest and Back
Thuesday: Plyo.
"healthy" Fast Food?
The Double-Edged Sword of “Healthy” Fast Food
Tom Venuto
What’s on the menu at fast food restaurants lately? Ironically enough, the answer increasingly is… “health food!” Even more incongruous, many fast food joints are advertising their food for weight loss. Healthy weight loss food at Taco Bell and McDonalds? Is this a positive move to be applauded, is it a big corporate money grab or is it a double edged sword? Here’s my two cents:
Almost everyone remembers the Jared weight loss campaign for Subway. He was the guy who lost 245 pounds during which time he ate at Subway regularly. He simply picked the lower calorie items on the menu. Jared later became a spokesperson for Subway in their nationwide advertising campaigns which became known as the Subway Diet.
During that campaign, Subway sales doubled to 8.2 billion. How much the increase came from the weight loss ads is unknown, but there’s little doubt that using weight loss as a marketing platform was a boon for Subway.
Subway has since moved on to $5 footlong subs, which worked wonders for their bottom line in the recent recession. But other fast food chains picked up the weight loss torch where subway left off.
The most recent talk of the blogosphere this year is the Taco Bell drive through diet. With its own dedicated website and advertising campaign, the drive through diet flaunts their own “Jared”: Christine!
The restaurant seems to be walking on FTC-strewn egg… er… taco shells, being very conservative with their claims. They say Christine’s results aren’t typical, she lost the weight (54 lbs) over 2 years by reducing her calories to 1250 a day, and part of her success was simply from choosing Taco Bell’s new lower calorie “Fresco” items.
These include “7 diet items with 150 to 240 calories and under 9 grams of fat.” For example, there’s a chicken soft taco with only 170 calories, 4 grams of fat, 22 grams of carbs and 12 grams of protein.
By swapping some of these items with their regular (and higher calorie) menu items, you’d take in fewer calories and less fat. If all else remained equal, this could help you lose weight. For people who refuse to give up eating at fast food restaurants, this is arguably a positive thing.
Take my brother for example, He’s not a total junk food junkie, thanks partly to my influence and the influence of our parents. I have vague memories of my health-nut mom feeding us wheat germ and cod liver oil (by the spoonful) when we were candy-munching kids in California. She once tried to feed us eggplant pizza as a sneaky way to get us to eat vegetables. That ploy didn’t work – we were young but we weren’t stupid – we knew it wasn’t Pizza Hut! (I hate eggplant to this day).
Many years ago, I even managed to get my brother going to the gym and whaddya know, he’s been going ever since. But despite the positive role models he has, left to his own devices, he WILL make a beeline to Taco Bell and McDonalds and so will the friends he hangs out with.
I went to McDonalds with him a few months ago (I was trapped in the car with no choice), and he was about to order a bacon cheeseburger. I glanced at the menu and said, “That’s 790 calories!” I glanced down at his belly, then continued, “Look, they have chicken wraps. Why don’t you have one of those?” Without questioning me he said, “Ok,” apparently happy just to get any McDonalds fix. I couldn’t talk him out of the soda, but I’m working on it okay? At least I got him to stop getting refills.
Right there at the counter they had the nutrition information sheets:
McDonald’s honey mustard grilled chicken wrap: 260 calories, 9 grams fat, 27 grams of carbs, 18 grams of protein.
That saved him 530 calories. Am I happy there is something with 260 calories on the menu and not just 700 calories across the board? Absolutely. And DO I applaud the fast food restaurants for offering lower calorie choices? You bet, although I’d like to see more one-ingredient choices like baked potatoes, baked sweet potatoes and whole fruit…plus some decent salads).
The big mistake almost everyone is making, even fitness and nutrition professionals who have been blogging about this lately, is that while they are agreeing that it’s nice to have low calorie items on the menu (especially with calories posted), they are calling these low calorie fast food items “healthy choices.”
Some journalists and bloggers have jumped into the fray and cleverly countered…
“These new fast food menu items are NOT healthy, they’re only ‘healthi-ER.’”
I think they are both mistaken.
This food is not healthy nor is it healthier. It’s only lower in calories.
The only way you could say these lower calorie fast food items are healthier choices is in the sense that they can help to reduce total daily caloric intake, if all else remains equal. That could help people lose weight and if they lose weight the weight loss could improve their health. Eating smaller portions of refined carbohydrates or sugars might also be healthier, from a glycemic point of view.
But what if your definition of healthy food is dependent on nutrition, nutrient density and absence of artificial ingredients?
Let’s take a look at that very low calorie chicken wrap. Do you really think it’s healthier just because it’s got 1/3 the calories of a bacon cheeseburger?
Here’s the ingredients straight from McDonald’s website:
McDonald’s Grilled Chicken Breast Filet (wrap): Chicken breast filets with rib meat, water, seasoning (salt, sugar, food starch-modified, maltodextrin, spices, dextrose, autolyzed yeast extract, hydrolyzed [corn gluten, soy, wheat gluten] proteins, garlic powder, paprika, chicken fat, chicken broth, natural flavors (plant and animal source), caramel color, polysorbate 80, xanthan gum, onion powder, extractives of paprika), modified potato starch, and sodium phosphates. CONTAINS: SOY AND WHEAT. Prepared with Liquid Margarine: Liquid soybean oil, water, partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oils, salt, hydrogenated cottonseed oil, soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate (preservative), artificial flavor, citric acid, vitamin A palmitate, beta carotene (color). (and don’t forget the 800 mg of sodium).
HOLY CRAP! Shouldn’t chicken breast be just one ingredient… chicken breast?! Isn’t that generally what healthy, whole food is – one ingredient?
This is not food. It’s more like what Michael Pollan would call an “edible food-like substance.”
What about the honey mustard sauce? First ingredient after water is… SUGAR!
The flour tortilla ingredients? Enriched bleached wheat flour, also made with vegetable shortening (may contain one or more of the following: hydrogenated soybean oil, soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, hydrogenated cottonseed oil with mono- and diglycerides added), contains 2% or less of the following: sugar, leavening (sodium aluminum sulfate, calcium sulfate, sodium phosphate, baking soda, corn starch, monocalcium phosphate), salt, wheat gluten, dough conditioners, sodium metabisulfite, distilled monoglycerides.
Trans fats? Sugar? Aluminum? Stuff you can’t pronounce and have to look up to find out it’s preservatives and disinfectants?
Don’t confuse the issues: weight loss and health…. Calories and nutrition. There IS a difference!
This my friends, makes “healthy” fast food a double edged sword.
There are people I care about, not just my clients, but my own family, and I want the best for them all. But my brother, and many other people, aren’t going to completely give up fast food. If I can get him to make better bad choices that could help him keep his weight under control. If that works, then I’m pleased that the fast food restaurants have such choices to offer.
But if you wanted to make a good choice - a healthy choice - you’d forget about “driving through” anywhere on a daily basis, and you’d save the junk for your planned cheat meals (although, frankly, I can think of far better ways to spend my “free” calories).
The Subway diet, the Drive Through diet, The Cookie Diet, Kentucky grilled chicken or the Weight Watchers approved McDonalds menu (yes its true, what a pair that is!) Don’t kid yourself - it’s not only not healthy, it’s not healthier – it’s lower calorie junk food.
“Welcome to our restaurant sir. Would you like a large plate of dog poo or a small plate of dog poo?”
“No thank you, I will take neither. No matter what the serving size, crap is still crap.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Venuto
What’s on the menu at fast food restaurants lately? Ironically enough, the answer increasingly is… “health food!” Even more incongruous, many fast food joints are advertising their food for weight loss. Healthy weight loss food at Taco Bell and McDonalds? Is this a positive move to be applauded, is it a big corporate money grab or is it a double edged sword? Here’s my two cents:
Almost everyone remembers the Jared weight loss campaign for Subway. He was the guy who lost 245 pounds during which time he ate at Subway regularly. He simply picked the lower calorie items on the menu. Jared later became a spokesperson for Subway in their nationwide advertising campaigns which became known as the Subway Diet.
During that campaign, Subway sales doubled to 8.2 billion. How much the increase came from the weight loss ads is unknown, but there’s little doubt that using weight loss as a marketing platform was a boon for Subway.
Subway has since moved on to $5 footlong subs, which worked wonders for their bottom line in the recent recession. But other fast food chains picked up the weight loss torch where subway left off.
The most recent talk of the blogosphere this year is the Taco Bell drive through diet. With its own dedicated website and advertising campaign, the drive through diet flaunts their own “Jared”: Christine!
The restaurant seems to be walking on FTC-strewn egg… er… taco shells, being very conservative with their claims. They say Christine’s results aren’t typical, she lost the weight (54 lbs) over 2 years by reducing her calories to 1250 a day, and part of her success was simply from choosing Taco Bell’s new lower calorie “Fresco” items.
These include “7 diet items with 150 to 240 calories and under 9 grams of fat.” For example, there’s a chicken soft taco with only 170 calories, 4 grams of fat, 22 grams of carbs and 12 grams of protein.
By swapping some of these items with their regular (and higher calorie) menu items, you’d take in fewer calories and less fat. If all else remained equal, this could help you lose weight. For people who refuse to give up eating at fast food restaurants, this is arguably a positive thing.
Take my brother for example, He’s not a total junk food junkie, thanks partly to my influence and the influence of our parents. I have vague memories of my health-nut mom feeding us wheat germ and cod liver oil (by the spoonful) when we were candy-munching kids in California. She once tried to feed us eggplant pizza as a sneaky way to get us to eat vegetables. That ploy didn’t work – we were young but we weren’t stupid – we knew it wasn’t Pizza Hut! (I hate eggplant to this day).
Many years ago, I even managed to get my brother going to the gym and whaddya know, he’s been going ever since. But despite the positive role models he has, left to his own devices, he WILL make a beeline to Taco Bell and McDonalds and so will the friends he hangs out with.
I went to McDonalds with him a few months ago (I was trapped in the car with no choice), and he was about to order a bacon cheeseburger. I glanced at the menu and said, “That’s 790 calories!” I glanced down at his belly, then continued, “Look, they have chicken wraps. Why don’t you have one of those?” Without questioning me he said, “Ok,” apparently happy just to get any McDonalds fix. I couldn’t talk him out of the soda, but I’m working on it okay? At least I got him to stop getting refills.
Right there at the counter they had the nutrition information sheets:
McDonald’s honey mustard grilled chicken wrap: 260 calories, 9 grams fat, 27 grams of carbs, 18 grams of protein.
That saved him 530 calories. Am I happy there is something with 260 calories on the menu and not just 700 calories across the board? Absolutely. And DO I applaud the fast food restaurants for offering lower calorie choices? You bet, although I’d like to see more one-ingredient choices like baked potatoes, baked sweet potatoes and whole fruit…plus some decent salads).
The big mistake almost everyone is making, even fitness and nutrition professionals who have been blogging about this lately, is that while they are agreeing that it’s nice to have low calorie items on the menu (especially with calories posted), they are calling these low calorie fast food items “healthy choices.”
Some journalists and bloggers have jumped into the fray and cleverly countered…
“These new fast food menu items are NOT healthy, they’re only ‘healthi-ER.’”
I think they are both mistaken.
This food is not healthy nor is it healthier. It’s only lower in calories.
The only way you could say these lower calorie fast food items are healthier choices is in the sense that they can help to reduce total daily caloric intake, if all else remains equal. That could help people lose weight and if they lose weight the weight loss could improve their health. Eating smaller portions of refined carbohydrates or sugars might also be healthier, from a glycemic point of view.
But what if your definition of healthy food is dependent on nutrition, nutrient density and absence of artificial ingredients?
Let’s take a look at that very low calorie chicken wrap. Do you really think it’s healthier just because it’s got 1/3 the calories of a bacon cheeseburger?
Here’s the ingredients straight from McDonald’s website:
McDonald’s Grilled Chicken Breast Filet (wrap): Chicken breast filets with rib meat, water, seasoning (salt, sugar, food starch-modified, maltodextrin, spices, dextrose, autolyzed yeast extract, hydrolyzed [corn gluten, soy, wheat gluten] proteins, garlic powder, paprika, chicken fat, chicken broth, natural flavors (plant and animal source), caramel color, polysorbate 80, xanthan gum, onion powder, extractives of paprika), modified potato starch, and sodium phosphates. CONTAINS: SOY AND WHEAT. Prepared with Liquid Margarine: Liquid soybean oil, water, partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oils, salt, hydrogenated cottonseed oil, soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate (preservative), artificial flavor, citric acid, vitamin A palmitate, beta carotene (color). (and don’t forget the 800 mg of sodium).
HOLY CRAP! Shouldn’t chicken breast be just one ingredient… chicken breast?! Isn’t that generally what healthy, whole food is – one ingredient?
This is not food. It’s more like what Michael Pollan would call an “edible food-like substance.”
What about the honey mustard sauce? First ingredient after water is… SUGAR!
The flour tortilla ingredients? Enriched bleached wheat flour, also made with vegetable shortening (may contain one or more of the following: hydrogenated soybean oil, soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, hydrogenated cottonseed oil with mono- and diglycerides added), contains 2% or less of the following: sugar, leavening (sodium aluminum sulfate, calcium sulfate, sodium phosphate, baking soda, corn starch, monocalcium phosphate), salt, wheat gluten, dough conditioners, sodium metabisulfite, distilled monoglycerides.
Trans fats? Sugar? Aluminum? Stuff you can’t pronounce and have to look up to find out it’s preservatives and disinfectants?
Don’t confuse the issues: weight loss and health…. Calories and nutrition. There IS a difference!
This my friends, makes “healthy” fast food a double edged sword.
There are people I care about, not just my clients, but my own family, and I want the best for them all. But my brother, and many other people, aren’t going to completely give up fast food. If I can get him to make better bad choices that could help him keep his weight under control. If that works, then I’m pleased that the fast food restaurants have such choices to offer.
But if you wanted to make a good choice - a healthy choice - you’d forget about “driving through” anywhere on a daily basis, and you’d save the junk for your planned cheat meals (although, frankly, I can think of far better ways to spend my “free” calories).
The Subway diet, the Drive Through diet, The Cookie Diet, Kentucky grilled chicken or the Weight Watchers approved McDonalds menu (yes its true, what a pair that is!) Don’t kid yourself - it’s not only not healthy, it’s not healthier – it’s lower calorie junk food.
“Welcome to our restaurant sir. Would you like a large plate of dog poo or a small plate of dog poo?”
“No thank you, I will take neither. No matter what the serving size, crap is still crap.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Bodyfat measurement formula
How Can I Accurately Calculate
and Measure Body Fat Percentage?
Article care of mybodycomp.com
More than 50 years ago Dr. Albert Behnke discovered a phenomenal method for finding the composition of a body (measuring body fat) by weighing people while they were submerged underwater. This method, called hydrostatic weighing, has become the standard by which all other methods of measuring body fat are compared. Unfortunately, hydrostatic weighing requires specialized, expensive equipment that most people don't have access to.
Other methods to measure body fat do exist, such as Bioelectrical Impedence, Near-Infrared and X-Ray. However these other methods also require expensive equipment or skilled technicians to properly administer. Plus, many of these methods of measuring body fat can have large errors due to clients exercising, eating or drinking, and in women, due to the menstrual cycle. Even when properly administered, the accuraccy of these othe methods has been questionable.
The most popular method of measuring body fat is the use of skin fold calipers. Skin fold calipers are inexpensive and seem simple to use, but actually require extensive training to use properly. There is often much error in making the measurements, even among trained scientists.
During his research with hydrostatic weighing Dr. Behnke made an astonishing discovery. He noticed a strong connection between measurements of the circumference of certain areas of the body and a person's body fat levels.
In fact, he was able to determine body fat with the same accuraccy as hydrostatic weighing using nothing more than these circumference measurements.
For the first time there was a simple to use, highly accurate, reproducible method of measuring body fat. Known as the "body circumference technique", the method also measures where the body's muscle and fat is out of proportion - something no other method was able to do (including hydrostatic weighing).
This test reqires a scale and a tape mesure. Do the following
calculations:
FOR MEN
Lean body weight (%) = 94.42 + 1.082 (nude weight in pounds)
- 4.15 (waist girth around bellybutton in inches)
Then:
Body fat (%) = bodyweight - lean bodyweight x 100
__________________________________
bodyweight
FOR WOMEN
Lean body weight = 8.987 + 0.732 (weigth in kilograms)
+ 3.786 (wrist diameter in centimeters)
+ 0.434 (forearm circumference in centimeters)
Then:
Body fat (%) = bodyweight - lean bodyweight x 100
__________________________________
bodyweight
Notes:
To convert pounds to kilograms devide by 2.2
To convert inches to centimeters devide by 0.394
Devide circumference by 3.14 (pi) to get diameter.
and Measure Body Fat Percentage?
Article care of mybodycomp.com
More than 50 years ago Dr. Albert Behnke discovered a phenomenal method for finding the composition of a body (measuring body fat) by weighing people while they were submerged underwater. This method, called hydrostatic weighing, has become the standard by which all other methods of measuring body fat are compared. Unfortunately, hydrostatic weighing requires specialized, expensive equipment that most people don't have access to.
Other methods to measure body fat do exist, such as Bioelectrical Impedence, Near-Infrared and X-Ray. However these other methods also require expensive equipment or skilled technicians to properly administer. Plus, many of these methods of measuring body fat can have large errors due to clients exercising, eating or drinking, and in women, due to the menstrual cycle. Even when properly administered, the accuraccy of these othe methods has been questionable.
The most popular method of measuring body fat is the use of skin fold calipers. Skin fold calipers are inexpensive and seem simple to use, but actually require extensive training to use properly. There is often much error in making the measurements, even among trained scientists.
During his research with hydrostatic weighing Dr. Behnke made an astonishing discovery. He noticed a strong connection between measurements of the circumference of certain areas of the body and a person's body fat levels.
In fact, he was able to determine body fat with the same accuraccy as hydrostatic weighing using nothing more than these circumference measurements.
For the first time there was a simple to use, highly accurate, reproducible method of measuring body fat. Known as the "body circumference technique", the method also measures where the body's muscle and fat is out of proportion - something no other method was able to do (including hydrostatic weighing).
This test reqires a scale and a tape mesure. Do the following
calculations:
FOR MEN
Lean body weight (%) = 94.42 + 1.082 (nude weight in pounds)
- 4.15 (waist girth around bellybutton in inches)
Then:
Body fat (%) = bodyweight - lean bodyweight x 100
__________________________________
bodyweight
FOR WOMEN
Lean body weight = 8.987 + 0.732 (weigth in kilograms)
+ 3.786 (wrist diameter in centimeters)
+ 0.434 (forearm circumference in centimeters)
Then:
Body fat (%) = bodyweight - lean bodyweight x 100
__________________________________
bodyweight
Notes:
To convert pounds to kilograms devide by 2.2
To convert inches to centimeters devide by 0.394
Devide circumference by 3.14 (pi) to get diameter.
Female fat loss article from Tom Venuto
BURN THE FAT - Fat Burning Tips NewsletterBrought to you by Tom Venuto & www.burnthefat.com============================================= In this issue: 1 Reason for Slow Female Fat Loss & 5 Tips to Fix It(Guys may find this interesting too) Hi Josh, You may have heard (or realized!), that it's more difficult for women to lose fat than men. Differences in male and female hormonesare certainly involved - both in the fat loss process as well as in the patterns of fat storage on the body. But the biggest obstacle is NOT hormonal issues, it's one little fat loss relativity factor that almost all women overlook... That factor is the simple fact that women are usually smaller and lighter than men, yet they err by setting their goals and designingtheir nutrition plans like men or larger women. Case in point: Last week I received an email from a female reader who told me she was doing 4 weight training and 6 cardio sessions per week and the cardio was 45 minutes at a clip. She said she weighed 101 lbs (46 kg) at 4 feet 11 inches tall, buteven though she was petite, she had "several pounds of flab" she wanted to lose and just felt kind of "mushy." She had been really inspired by the success stories on the Burn the Fat websites, especially the finalists in our Burn the Fattransformation challenge. But she said she was starting to get discouraged because she was losing so much slower than everyone else, it seemed. Some weeks thescale didn't move at all. I told her that when you have a smaller body, you have lower calorie needs. When you have lower calorie needs, your relative deficit (20%, 30% etc) gives you a smaller absolute deficit and therefore you lose fat more slowly than someone who is larger and can create a larger deficit more easily. For example, I'm a guy, 5' 8" 192 lbs and very active: Daily calorie maintenance level: 3300 calories a day 20% calorie deficit = cut out 660 caloriesOptimal calorie intake for fat loss: 2640 calories a day On paper predicted fat loss: 1.3 lbs of wt loss per week At 2640 calories per day, I'd drop fat rather painlessly. If I bumped up my calorie burn or decreased my intake by another 340 a day, that would be enough to give me 2 lbs per week wt loss. Either way, that's hardly a starvation diet (Ah, the joys of being a man). For smaller women, the math equation is very different. At only 4 foot 11 inches tall and 101 lbs, a female's numbers would look like this: Daily maintenance level 1970 calories (even at a VERY active exercise level). 20% deficit would = 394 calories Optimal intake for fat loss 1576 calories a day On paper predicted fat loss only 8/10th of a lb of fat loss/wk. If you took a more aggressive calorie deficit of 30%, that's a591 calorie deficit which would now drop the calorie intake to 1382 calories/day. That's pretty low in calories. However, you would still have a fairly small calorie deficit. In fact, I would get to eat almost twice as many calories (2600 vs 1300 per day) and I'd still get almost twice the weekly rate of fat loss! I know, this isn't "fair," but it doesn't mean women can't get as lean as they want to be. It means that on average, women will drop fat slower than men. It also means women with small bodies will lose fat more slowly than larger women. What to do about it? ---------------------------5 tips for female fat loss:--------------------------- #1 Set a goal that's realistic relative to your gender, body size and weight. ONE POUND a week of fat loss is much more in line with a realistic goal for a small-framed female. Overweight people can lose it faster. Men can drop it faster. #2: Weigh and measure all your food any time you feel you're stuckat a plateau, just to be sure. When your calorie expenditure is on the low side, you don't have much margin for error. One extra pastry, muffin or handful of cookies and ZAP, your little 20% caloriedeficit is GONE! #3: Remember that body fat and body weight are NOT the same thing. Judge your progress on body composition. (I teach how to measure your body fat and lean body mass in the privacy of your own home in my burn the fat program at www.burnthefat.com) #4: Keep a weekly progress chart for weight, body fat percentage, pounds of fat and pounds of lean body mass. Water weight and lean body mass gains can mask fat loss so it's possible to make progress even though the scale isn't moving. Pay special attention to theprogress trend over time. #5: Burn more calories from the time you already spend in the gym. Suggestions: Make 2 or 3 of your long cardio sessions higher in intensity so you burn more calories in the same or less time. Set up your weight training with big compound exercise and brief rest intervals so you burn more calories from strength training as well Dropping only ONE pound per week (or less) may seem excruciatingly slow, but even if you get a HALF a pound a week fat loss, that's still progress. Celebrate it. Keep that up over time, and you will reach your goal. Persistence pays. Train hard and expect success! Tom Venuto Author of Burn the Fat, Feed the Musclehttp://www.BurnTheFat.com
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
We all love sugar
Here's a list of the great things sugar can do for you. By the way, your body processes white flour much the same way.
Nancy Appleton, author of “Lick the sugar habit,” has compiled a list of over 100 reasons that sugar is disastrous to your health and fitness endeavors. Here’s a shortened version:
1) Refined sugar can be a contributing factor to gaining body fat
2) Refined sugar can increase the bad LDL cholesterol
3) Refined sugar can decrease the good LDL cholesterol
4) Refined sugar can increase triglycerides
5) Refined sugar can suppress your immune system
6) Refined sugar can deplete your body of important minerals
7) Refined sugar can contribute to the development of numerous types of cancer
8) Refined sugar can cause hypoglycemia
9) Refined sugar can decrease growth hormone
10) Refined sugar can contribute to diabetes
11) Refined sugar can cause food allergies
12) Refined sugar can increase serum insulin
If you made only one change to your nutritional habits today… that is, to reduce your sugar intake… the difference in your health, energy levels and body composition would absolutely blow your mind. Get the sugar out!
Nancy Appleton, author of “Lick the sugar habit,” has compiled a list of over 100 reasons that sugar is disastrous to your health and fitness endeavors. Here’s a shortened version:
1) Refined sugar can be a contributing factor to gaining body fat
2) Refined sugar can increase the bad LDL cholesterol
3) Refined sugar can decrease the good LDL cholesterol
4) Refined sugar can increase triglycerides
5) Refined sugar can suppress your immune system
6) Refined sugar can deplete your body of important minerals
7) Refined sugar can contribute to the development of numerous types of cancer
8) Refined sugar can cause hypoglycemia
9) Refined sugar can decrease growth hormone
10) Refined sugar can contribute to diabetes
11) Refined sugar can cause food allergies
12) Refined sugar can increase serum insulin
If you made only one change to your nutritional habits today… that is, to reduce your sugar intake… the difference in your health, energy levels and body composition would absolutely blow your mind. Get the sugar out!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Monday March 8
Today was lower body weight training, it took the whole time to finish
Box squats
Romanian Deadlifts
calf raises
lunges
deadlifts
knee raises
Three rounds of increased weight each round.
Box squats
Romanian Deadlifts
calf raises
lunges
deadlifts
knee raises
Three rounds of increased weight each round.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Fridays barbell complex
I've been sick for a few days so the girls have been on their own.
I decided to try something new today, Barbell Complex's
A complex is a series of lifts you complete with no rest and without putting the weight down, they go quick and really get your heart and lungs going. Not quite as much as our hill sprints though.
We started with a simple set of eight moves, 6 reps a piece, for 4 rounds
90 sec. rest between rounds. I was afraid the girls would struggle with an olympic bar, but they handled it pretty well. We'll be adding weight in no time!
Deadlift
Romanian Deadlift
Bent-over Rows
Hang-cleans
Front Squat
Push-press
Back sguat
Good-mornings
We followed the 4 rounds with 4 hill sprints with jogging rest.
Finished early but definitely felt worked.
I decided to try something new today, Barbell Complex's
A complex is a series of lifts you complete with no rest and without putting the weight down, they go quick and really get your heart and lungs going. Not quite as much as our hill sprints though.
We started with a simple set of eight moves, 6 reps a piece, for 4 rounds
90 sec. rest between rounds. I was afraid the girls would struggle with an olympic bar, but they handled it pretty well. We'll be adding weight in no time!
Deadlift
Romanian Deadlift
Bent-over Rows
Hang-cleans
Front Squat
Push-press
Back sguat
Good-mornings
We followed the 4 rounds with 4 hill sprints with jogging rest.
Finished early but definitely felt worked.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Saturated Fat Article by Mike Geary
Is Saturated Fat Evil, or Not So Bad After All?
The myths, lies, and misconceptions about saturated fat and your health.
by Mike Geary, Certified Nutrition Specialist, Certified Personal Trainer
I've written many times in the last couple years about the mistaken beliefs in society about saturated fat and the false perception in the media AND with MOST health professionals that saturated fat is bad for you.
If you've seen in some of my articles, I've even showed you why saturated fat can even be GOOD for you in some cases, despite every health/fitness professional in the world just accepting the false belief that it's bad for you.
Note - I'm NOT saying that an "Atkins style" diet is good for you! Atkins is NOT a healthy or balanced way to eat! Atkins typically promotes processed meats full of nitrates, nitrites, excess salt, and imbalanced omega-6 to omega-3 ratios (since most grocery store meats are grain fed and not raised in a healthy manner). Also, Atkins plans typically have a lack of many other important food groups, nutrients, and antioxidants.
Rather, what you'll see in this article, is that saturated fat is a perfectly natural part of the human diet and has been for eternity... it is NOT the evil demon it has been made out to be!
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised to FINALLY see a big name publisher have some guts to publish an article about why everyone in the world may be wrong about their beliefs about saturated fat.
I picked up a new issue of Men's Health magazine over the weekend, and they have a huge 6-page article in there about the faulty research in the past about saturated fat, and some new emerging research that is showing why it may actually be more good for you than you would believe.
I've got to give them credit... the article was VERY well researched and put together beautifully to summarize where the studies in the past have gone wrong, and why recent studies are showing that everyone may have been wrong for the last 5 decades about saturated fat.
I'd highly suggest you read the entire article if you can. If not, I'm going to try to give you a quick summary of the findings here since it was a long article...
The "Fact" that saturated fat is bad for your health has never been proven by legitimate studies
First of all, did you realize that although doctors, nutritionists, fitness professionals, and the media all have told you that it's a FACT that saturated fats are bad for you, this "FACT" has actually never been proven!
It's actually not a "fact" at all. It was a hypothesis! This goes all the way back to a flawed research study from the 1950's where a guy named Ancel Keys published a paper that laid the blame on dietary fat intake for the increasing heart disease phenomenon.
However, there were major flaws to his study. For one, in his conclusions he only used data from a small portion of the countries where data was available on fat consumption vs heart disease death rate. When researches have gone back in and looked at the data from all of the countries, there actually was no link between fat consumption and heart disease deaths. So his conclusions were actually false.
Second, his blaming of fat intake for heart disease was only one factor that was considered. There was no consideration of other factors such as smoking rates, stress factors, sugar intake, exercise frequency, or other lifestyle factors.
Basically, his conclusions which blamed heart disease deaths on fat intake were really just a shot in the dark about what a possible cause may have been, even though all of those other factors I just mentioned, plus many others, may be the bigger cause.
Unfortunately, Keys study has been cited for over 5 decades now as "fact" that saturated fat is bad for you. As you can see, there certainly is nothing factual about it.
Since that time, numerous other studies have been conducted trying to link saturated fat intake to heart disease. The majority of these studies have failed to correlate ANY risk at all from saturated fat. A couple of them made feeble attempts at linking saturated fat to heart disease, however, it was later shown that in those studies, the data was flawed as well.
Another issue with flawed studies is that many studies have lumped artificial trans fat intake together with saturated fat intake, and mistakenly laid the blame on saturated fat despite the overwhelming evidence that artificial trans fat is the REAL health risk. This is a HUGE mistake as there is a vast difference in how your body processes nasty artificially created trans fats vs the perfectly natural saturated fats that have been part of the human diet since the beginning of man.
Do we actually have evidence that saturated fat may actually be good for you instead?
Well, let's consider a few examples...
Did you know that there are several well known tribes in Africa... the Masai, Samburu, and Fulani tribes... where their diet consists mostly of raw (unpasteurized) whole milk, tons of red meat, and cows blood? The typical members of these tribes eat 5x the average amount of saturated fat compared to overweight, disease-ridden Americans.
Despite their very high saturated fat intake, they display extremely low body fat levels, and heart disease to natives of the tribe is virtually non-existant.
Now most critics of this example will say that it must be related to superior genetics... however this is false, as when they studied tribesman who had moved out of their native lands and started eating more modern day diets, their blood chemistry skyrocketed with heart disease risk factors.
This is true of certain pacific island countries inhabitants as well. Several studies have shown that certain pacific island nations had VERY high intakes of total fat as well as saturated fat from tropical fats such as palm, coconut, and cocoa. Tropical plants in general have naturally higher levels of saturated fats in their tissues due to the warmer climate.
Despite super-high intakes of saturated fat, these island natives were typically very lean and heart disease was virtually non-existant. However, when researchers followed up with islanders that had moved away from their native island and adopted a typical western diet, the heart disease risk factors were through the roof. Hmm, once again, another example of people that started eating LESS saturated fat and more processed western foods and INCREASED their heart disease factors.
In fact, did you know that although saturated fat intake does increase your LDL bad cholesterol, it actually increases your HDL good cholesterol even further, hence improving your overall cholesterol ratio, which has been proven to be more important that just total cholesterol level (actually total cholesterol is an almost useless number... inflammation is the REAL problem, but that's a whole different topic).
Another fact worth noting in favor of saturated fat...
Saturated fat is comprised of various different types... the 3 most common types are stearic acid, palmitic acid, and lauric acid.
Stearic acid is found in animal fat and cocoa in higher levels. Research continues to show that stearic acid has no negative impacts on heart disease risks. If anything, it's either neutral or beneficial. In fact, your liver breaks down stearic acid into a monounsaturated fat called oleic acid, which is the same type of fat that makes up most of heart-healthy olive oil. Bet you didn't know that!
Lauric acid is beneficial as well. Not only has it been shown to increase your HDL good cholesterol levels significantly, but it is also lacking in most Americans diet and has even been shown to have some powerful immune-boosting effects potentially. It is even being studied currently in HIV/AIDS research to help improve immune function in patients.
Tropical oils such as coconut and palm are the best sources of the healthy saturated fat - lauric acid.
Palmitic acid is the other main component of saturated fat and has also been shown to increase HDL good cholesterol to the same, if not greater extent than LDL bad cholesterol, thereby making it either neutral or beneficial, but certainly not bad for you.
So, if all of these researchers have tried so hard over the years to point the finger at saturated fat, but have continued to fail to show a correlation between saturated fat and heart disease risk, what are the REAL culprits for heart disease?
Well, here are the REAL causes of heart disease risk:
•Trans fats (artificially hydrogenated oils)... see my previous Trans Fats article here for a full explanation
•Heavily refined vegetable oils such as soy, cottonseed, corn oil, etc. (inflammatory inside the body, and typically throw the omega-6/omega-3 balance out of whack...remember, inflammation is the REAL cause of heart disease, NOT dietary saturated fat or cholesterol). Read more about healthy cooking oils vs unhealthy cooking oil
•Too much refined sugar in the diet (including high fructose corn syrup)
•Too much refined carbohydrates such as white bread, low fiber cereals, etc
•Smoking
•Stressful lifestyle
•Lack of exercise
•Other lifestyle factors
So why does it seem that so many attempts over the years have tried to lay the blame on saturated fat... do you think it might have anything to do with the muli-billion dollar vegetable oil industry, which has taken over for cooking oils for what used to be mostly animal fats and tropical oils in decades past...
hmm... do multi-billion dollar industries really have an influence on the way data is portrayed to the public? Of course they do! And don't even get me started on the cholesterol meds industry! Again, I digress.
I hope this article has opened your eyes about the truth about saturated fat and how you've been misled over the years.
The true FACT is that saturated fat is a neutral substance in your body, and even beneficial at times, not a deadly risk factor for disease. The REAL risk factors are what I listed above.
Here are 2 more articles that are must reads about this topic if you haven't read them before...
Dietary Fat Surprises
Truth about Saturated Fat
Til next Ezine issue... Don't be lazy... be lean.
Mike Geary
Certified Nutrition Specialist
Certified Personal Trainer
Founder - http://TruthAboutAbs.com & Busy Man Fitness .com
The myths, lies, and misconceptions about saturated fat and your health.
by Mike Geary, Certified Nutrition Specialist, Certified Personal Trainer
I've written many times in the last couple years about the mistaken beliefs in society about saturated fat and the false perception in the media AND with MOST health professionals that saturated fat is bad for you.
If you've seen in some of my articles, I've even showed you why saturated fat can even be GOOD for you in some cases, despite every health/fitness professional in the world just accepting the false belief that it's bad for you.
Note - I'm NOT saying that an "Atkins style" diet is good for you! Atkins is NOT a healthy or balanced way to eat! Atkins typically promotes processed meats full of nitrates, nitrites, excess salt, and imbalanced omega-6 to omega-3 ratios (since most grocery store meats are grain fed and not raised in a healthy manner). Also, Atkins plans typically have a lack of many other important food groups, nutrients, and antioxidants.
Rather, what you'll see in this article, is that saturated fat is a perfectly natural part of the human diet and has been for eternity... it is NOT the evil demon it has been made out to be!
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised to FINALLY see a big name publisher have some guts to publish an article about why everyone in the world may be wrong about their beliefs about saturated fat.
I picked up a new issue of Men's Health magazine over the weekend, and they have a huge 6-page article in there about the faulty research in the past about saturated fat, and some new emerging research that is showing why it may actually be more good for you than you would believe.
I've got to give them credit... the article was VERY well researched and put together beautifully to summarize where the studies in the past have gone wrong, and why recent studies are showing that everyone may have been wrong for the last 5 decades about saturated fat.
I'd highly suggest you read the entire article if you can. If not, I'm going to try to give you a quick summary of the findings here since it was a long article...
The "Fact" that saturated fat is bad for your health has never been proven by legitimate studies
First of all, did you realize that although doctors, nutritionists, fitness professionals, and the media all have told you that it's a FACT that saturated fats are bad for you, this "FACT" has actually never been proven!
It's actually not a "fact" at all. It was a hypothesis! This goes all the way back to a flawed research study from the 1950's where a guy named Ancel Keys published a paper that laid the blame on dietary fat intake for the increasing heart disease phenomenon.
However, there were major flaws to his study. For one, in his conclusions he only used data from a small portion of the countries where data was available on fat consumption vs heart disease death rate. When researches have gone back in and looked at the data from all of the countries, there actually was no link between fat consumption and heart disease deaths. So his conclusions were actually false.
Second, his blaming of fat intake for heart disease was only one factor that was considered. There was no consideration of other factors such as smoking rates, stress factors, sugar intake, exercise frequency, or other lifestyle factors.
Basically, his conclusions which blamed heart disease deaths on fat intake were really just a shot in the dark about what a possible cause may have been, even though all of those other factors I just mentioned, plus many others, may be the bigger cause.
Unfortunately, Keys study has been cited for over 5 decades now as "fact" that saturated fat is bad for you. As you can see, there certainly is nothing factual about it.
Since that time, numerous other studies have been conducted trying to link saturated fat intake to heart disease. The majority of these studies have failed to correlate ANY risk at all from saturated fat. A couple of them made feeble attempts at linking saturated fat to heart disease, however, it was later shown that in those studies, the data was flawed as well.
Another issue with flawed studies is that many studies have lumped artificial trans fat intake together with saturated fat intake, and mistakenly laid the blame on saturated fat despite the overwhelming evidence that artificial trans fat is the REAL health risk. This is a HUGE mistake as there is a vast difference in how your body processes nasty artificially created trans fats vs the perfectly natural saturated fats that have been part of the human diet since the beginning of man.
Do we actually have evidence that saturated fat may actually be good for you instead?
Well, let's consider a few examples...
Did you know that there are several well known tribes in Africa... the Masai, Samburu, and Fulani tribes... where their diet consists mostly of raw (unpasteurized) whole milk, tons of red meat, and cows blood? The typical members of these tribes eat 5x the average amount of saturated fat compared to overweight, disease-ridden Americans.
Despite their very high saturated fat intake, they display extremely low body fat levels, and heart disease to natives of the tribe is virtually non-existant.
Now most critics of this example will say that it must be related to superior genetics... however this is false, as when they studied tribesman who had moved out of their native lands and started eating more modern day diets, their blood chemistry skyrocketed with heart disease risk factors.
This is true of certain pacific island countries inhabitants as well. Several studies have shown that certain pacific island nations had VERY high intakes of total fat as well as saturated fat from tropical fats such as palm, coconut, and cocoa. Tropical plants in general have naturally higher levels of saturated fats in their tissues due to the warmer climate.
Despite super-high intakes of saturated fat, these island natives were typically very lean and heart disease was virtually non-existant. However, when researchers followed up with islanders that had moved away from their native island and adopted a typical western diet, the heart disease risk factors were through the roof. Hmm, once again, another example of people that started eating LESS saturated fat and more processed western foods and INCREASED their heart disease factors.
In fact, did you know that although saturated fat intake does increase your LDL bad cholesterol, it actually increases your HDL good cholesterol even further, hence improving your overall cholesterol ratio, which has been proven to be more important that just total cholesterol level (actually total cholesterol is an almost useless number... inflammation is the REAL problem, but that's a whole different topic).
Another fact worth noting in favor of saturated fat...
Saturated fat is comprised of various different types... the 3 most common types are stearic acid, palmitic acid, and lauric acid.
Stearic acid is found in animal fat and cocoa in higher levels. Research continues to show that stearic acid has no negative impacts on heart disease risks. If anything, it's either neutral or beneficial. In fact, your liver breaks down stearic acid into a monounsaturated fat called oleic acid, which is the same type of fat that makes up most of heart-healthy olive oil. Bet you didn't know that!
Lauric acid is beneficial as well. Not only has it been shown to increase your HDL good cholesterol levels significantly, but it is also lacking in most Americans diet and has even been shown to have some powerful immune-boosting effects potentially. It is even being studied currently in HIV/AIDS research to help improve immune function in patients.
Tropical oils such as coconut and palm are the best sources of the healthy saturated fat - lauric acid.
Palmitic acid is the other main component of saturated fat and has also been shown to increase HDL good cholesterol to the same, if not greater extent than LDL bad cholesterol, thereby making it either neutral or beneficial, but certainly not bad for you.
So, if all of these researchers have tried so hard over the years to point the finger at saturated fat, but have continued to fail to show a correlation between saturated fat and heart disease risk, what are the REAL culprits for heart disease?
Well, here are the REAL causes of heart disease risk:
•Trans fats (artificially hydrogenated oils)... see my previous Trans Fats article here for a full explanation
•Heavily refined vegetable oils such as soy, cottonseed, corn oil, etc. (inflammatory inside the body, and typically throw the omega-6/omega-3 balance out of whack...remember, inflammation is the REAL cause of heart disease, NOT dietary saturated fat or cholesterol). Read more about healthy cooking oils vs unhealthy cooking oil
•Too much refined sugar in the diet (including high fructose corn syrup)
•Too much refined carbohydrates such as white bread, low fiber cereals, etc
•Smoking
•Stressful lifestyle
•Lack of exercise
•Other lifestyle factors
So why does it seem that so many attempts over the years have tried to lay the blame on saturated fat... do you think it might have anything to do with the muli-billion dollar vegetable oil industry, which has taken over for cooking oils for what used to be mostly animal fats and tropical oils in decades past...
hmm... do multi-billion dollar industries really have an influence on the way data is portrayed to the public? Of course they do! And don't even get me started on the cholesterol meds industry! Again, I digress.
I hope this article has opened your eyes about the truth about saturated fat and how you've been misled over the years.
The true FACT is that saturated fat is a neutral substance in your body, and even beneficial at times, not a deadly risk factor for disease. The REAL risk factors are what I listed above.
Here are 2 more articles that are must reads about this topic if you haven't read them before...
Dietary Fat Surprises
Truth about Saturated Fat
Til next Ezine issue... Don't be lazy... be lean.
Mike Geary
Certified Nutrition Specialist
Certified Personal Trainer
Founder - http://TruthAboutAbs.com & Busy Man Fitness .com
Friday, February 19, 2010
Friday Feb 19th
Three rounds of:
Situps on the Roman Chair
turkish get-ups with dumbbell
rope waves
elbow to full-extension front plank
Three sprints up the hill, jogging back down.(everyone hated these)
Pull-ups and Push-ups, Monday is test day!
Josh has set a new goal for a one-armed pull-up in two weeks!
I'm also on a quest for 10% bodyfat(according to the instant bodyfat scale) by April.
I'm at 16%-18% right now. I'm sure that will be the leanest I've ever been.
Situps on the Roman Chair
turkish get-ups with dumbbell
rope waves
elbow to full-extension front plank
Three sprints up the hill, jogging back down.(everyone hated these)
Pull-ups and Push-ups, Monday is test day!
Josh has set a new goal for a one-armed pull-up in two weeks!
I'm also on a quest for 10% bodyfat(according to the instant bodyfat scale) by April.
I'm at 16%-18% right now. I'm sure that will be the leanest I've ever been.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Goal setting by Brian Grasso
Here's a good description of how to set your goals.
My talk at this past weekend's IYCA International Summit was a true
reflection of me, Josh.
The way I think and how I take information from resources outside this
industry and use it to become a better Coach.
While the Summit DVD's are in production, I thought I would give you a
brief run-down on the section of my presentation I called 'Goal Setting'.
It was a system I first learned about in a book called 'In Pursuit of
Excellence' and have used successfully in my own life, as well as the
lives of my young athletes over the past decade.
Over the years, I tweaked and altered things a bit until it became a system
that worked beautifully -- every time it's applied.
The whole crux of this system is reversing the direction of obtaining your
goals.
That is, reversing the direction that most of us try to travel.
Rather than creating a goal and then establishing an objective or task list
that moves forward, start with the end in mind and travel backwards.
Establish your goal and assign it a 'due date'.
Next, itemize where you need to be in production of that goal by one month
previous to its end point.
Then, do the same for one month previous to that.
Keep traveling backwards until you end at your current day.
What you will have established is a literal path that takes you from where you
are to where you want to be in a successive manner.
The key is to understand where you have to be in one month in order to
obtain your goal by the target date you initially set forth.
This 'backwards chaining model' allows you to create those markers quite
easily and removes the burden of developing a giant 'to do' list without
cause or reason for how or when each of the separate tasks will be completed.
This is worked for me in business, in my personal life and for hundreds of
my young athletes who were working towards performance goals.
Read and re-read this email carefully and try to apply this strategy for yourself.
It is and has been, one of the most powerful goal attainment systems I have
ever seen or used.
I recently created an entire audio instructional of this system for all IYCA
Members and placed it on the www.IYCAMembers.com website.
If you are not already a Member of the IYCA, you can become one by
clicking the link below -
http://www.iycamembers.com/public/5.cfm
'Til next time,
Brian
My talk at this past weekend's IYCA International Summit was a true
reflection of me, Josh.
The way I think and how I take information from resources outside this
industry and use it to become a better Coach.
While the Summit DVD's are in production, I thought I would give you a
brief run-down on the section of my presentation I called 'Goal Setting'.
It was a system I first learned about in a book called 'In Pursuit of
Excellence' and have used successfully in my own life, as well as the
lives of my young athletes over the past decade.
Over the years, I tweaked and altered things a bit until it became a system
that worked beautifully -- every time it's applied.
The whole crux of this system is reversing the direction of obtaining your
goals.
That is, reversing the direction that most of us try to travel.
Rather than creating a goal and then establishing an objective or task list
that moves forward, start with the end in mind and travel backwards.
Establish your goal and assign it a 'due date'.
Next, itemize where you need to be in production of that goal by one month
previous to its end point.
Then, do the same for one month previous to that.
Keep traveling backwards until you end at your current day.
What you will have established is a literal path that takes you from where you
are to where you want to be in a successive manner.
The key is to understand where you have to be in one month in order to
obtain your goal by the target date you initially set forth.
This 'backwards chaining model' allows you to create those markers quite
easily and removes the burden of developing a giant 'to do' list without
cause or reason for how or when each of the separate tasks will be completed.
This is worked for me in business, in my personal life and for hundreds of
my young athletes who were working towards performance goals.
Read and re-read this email carefully and try to apply this strategy for yourself.
It is and has been, one of the most powerful goal attainment systems I have
ever seen or used.
I recently created an entire audio instructional of this system for all IYCA
Members and placed it on the www.IYCAMembers.com website.
If you are not already a Member of the IYCA, you can become one by
clicking the link below -
http://www.iycamembers.com/public/5.cfm
'Til next time,
Brian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
