Wednesday, September 30, 2009

I caN Haz Cheezburger now?




As I’ve learned a bit more about the “total picture” regarding weight loss and diet, I’ve refined my recommendations a bit.

During a calorie deficit (in order to experience weight loss, you have to expend more calories than you’re putting in, duh!!), it’s important that protein intake be kept high if for no other reason than that protein has a high satiety vs. carbs, which take longer to create that full feeling we’re after and rapidly lead to feelings of hunger again due to the dramatic spike in insulin and subsequent drop in blood sugar you get from consuming them alone or in large quantities. Protein will also help stave off muscle loss when coupled with (relatively) heavy resistance training in the vicinity of 75-85% of your 1 RM for your lifts. Many sources recommend as much as 1-2 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight, but I think this might be extreme. A gram of protein per pound of bodyweight should do for most people, just to be safe.

To estimate maintenance calories, multiply bodyweight times 14-16 calories. Only use sixteen if you’re highly active, fourteen if you’re less so. In order to generate weight loss, subtract no more than 500 calories daily from this number. As little as 200 to 300 calories will probably be enough. I would rather see a slow and steady weight loss of 1 lb.-1 lb. ½ a week than three-five pounds, due to the tendency for folks who lose weight rapidly to gain it back rapidly.

I say no more than 500 calories less daily because any dramatic change that you subject you’re body to will be perceived by it as a stress. Stress generally is bad when it’s high and unrelenting, and stress leads to a catabolic state (state of breakdown rather than build-up) in which cortisol levels remain high. Elevated cortisol means an increased likelihood for the storage of fat and a stunted ability to enhance and/or maintain muscular bodyweight. That’s why I say no more than a 500-calorie deficit daily.

That last point is important and bears repeating since people tend to think more is better when it comes to calorie restriction. There are several important reasons that this just isn’t the case, one of which I’ve already described. Probably the most important is a little thing called basal calories. Your basal calorie limit is the amount of energy that must be consumed in order for your body to carry on its basic functioning even at rest. If those calories aren’t covered, your body will become even stingier with its fat stores, saving them up for a potential crisis. Since we WANT to lose fat, it is important that we reduce calories ENOUGH while still maintaining calories ABOVE that basal limit.

A second but still important reason to keep calorie restriction moderate is that the psychological toll that too few calories takes is too much for some people. The idea of keeping calories dramatically restricted for an indefinite period is overwhelming. Not to mention there are physiological things that happen within the body separate from the psychology involved that can literally make or break your ability to adhere to a diet for the long-term. Extreme calorie restriction coupled with the wrong attitude can and probably will lead to ravenous, overwhelming hunger at some point. This isn’t just a matter of “willpower” only: the body itself sends out impulses that are difficult to deny in cases like these.

A related but different issue is whether to take a diet break every so often. In light of what I’ve said, you should see why taking a break is recommended if you’re going to adhere to your diet for the long-haul. You can experience “burn-out” from extreme dieting, or from dieting too long without breaks, much as you can when exercising at intensities and/or frequencies too high to sustain for periods long enough to see substantial improvement. In fact, if you want to succeed at reaching your weight-loss goals, I’d recommend taking a one-week break from your diet every couple of months.

This last piece of advice may fall on deaf ears since folks who’ve been overweight forever will fear that a diet break may lead to their adopting old habits again. But I’d encourage everyone to allow reason to be the more powerful voice here over fear. Clear, rational thinking coupled with education about the how and why of diet and nutrition should be encouraged in place of self-doubt. Easier said than done, I know.

On a final note, its common practice for diet and nutrition “gurus” to demonize one macronutrient or the other depending on which sort of diet happens to be en vogue among the self-appointed priests of fitness at the moment. Neither the low-fat/high-carb or the low-or-no-carb/high fat camps have it exactly right as they’d have you believe. Suffice it to say, a moderate approach that includes a balance of fat and carbohydrates will suit the majority of people; putting aside variations between individuals for the moment, a diet with enough fat to help keep you satiated (most of it coming from non-saturated sources) and your cells and intestinal tract healthy and happy on the one hand, and with enough carbs to cover the demands of your daily activities on the other, is key. For the sake of ease, a diet that equally divides the fat and carbohydrate calories left over after protein requirements have been met down the middle will work. This is an oversimplification, since variations between individuals could mean that you feel better on a slightly lower or higher carb diet, depending. Also, individuals who engage in regular, prolonged endurance exercise will need more carbohydrates, with the rest of us needing considerably less.

Finally, let’s consider fiber intake for a moment. Fiber is a carbohydrate, but it functions differently than other carbohydrates and has special ramifications for dieters. One type of fiber when consumed becomes like gel in your stomach, slowing gastric emptying. Slowed gastric emptying means you’ll feel fuller longer. Also, fiber is a high-bulk food: it stretches the stomach with the amount of room that it takes up, signaling to you that you’re full. And like protein and fat, fiber slows the rate at which refined carbs are digested and absorbed and how fast they enter the bloodstream, thus preventing that dreaded insulin spike that grabs the sugar from your blood and leaves you feeling sluggish and hungry again. The upshot of all of this is that when you eat fiber, you eat less of other stuff, get fuller sooner and stay fuller longer. And if you’re trying to lose weight, that’s a good thing.

In short keep protein intake high, take in the correct number of calories (neither too many nor too few), don’t be a fat or carb nazi, and eat lots of fiber-containing ruffage, a.k.a. veggies.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

"Teach a man to fish..."




The following is quoted from Matthew Perryman's ebook Maximum Muscle: the Science Of Intelligent Physique Training. Also, please visit Matthew's website at ampedtraining.com.

“Most research into exercise deals with either aerobic exercise or with rehabilitation. As you might gather, this isn't terribly useful for generalizing into strength-training concepts, let alone something specialized like bodybuilding. Although the West is starting to catch up, a lot of what you read about is actually taken from older Soviet-era information, which, while not bad necessarily, can be hard to corroborate.

Once we start to look at the Western research into actual strength exercise, we start to see a common theme: 'untrained subjects'. Now, in some ways this is good because at least it's done in humans. However we run into some potentially major issues because we've seen it demonstrated repeatedly that an untrained person just doesn't respond the same way as someone with years of experience. Lots of strength-training studies will
demonstrate amazing results in untrained subjects, but comparatively few of them account for this so-called 'newbie effect'. Beginners can get away with lots of things; often they will still improve in spite of what they do, not because of it. When we're trying to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, this can throw a huge wrench into things.

It gets worse. The bulk of the research into the actual biochemistry and physiology is done in rats. While there's a lot of similarities in humans and rats, there's a lot of differences too. There's plenty of examples where things that happened in rats didn't pan out in humans; that's a big weakness.

This is a favorite tactic of the supplement industry, actually. They love taking some rat research or weakly applicable research in humans and then claiming it supports their new magic product. They conveniently ignore the fact that not only is that data not applicable, but they also have exactly nothing showing their claimed results in humans. Besides the claims of the product users, of course - but that's not placebo effect or anything. See also my earlier point about controlling for variables; when you don't perform research in controlled conditions, you can't be sure that your attributed cause is creating the effect. Since giving out free supplements to bodybuilders is almost the definition of 'bias' and 'placebo effect', these testimonials have to be considered highly suspect.

And of course all of these objections can apply just as easily to any workout routine, or any study that looks at strength training.”