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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
