The Real Way to Stop Eating Fast Food
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
“How could you eat that junk? It’s so bad for you!” (nag, nag). “Don’t you know those fries will give you a heart attack?” (nag, nag). “You have to stop eating all that fast food, it’s going to make you fat!” (nag nag). “You have to eat more healthy food like fruits and vegetables - they’re good for you!” (nag, nag). Your friends nag you, your family nags you, your doctor nags you, the health newsletters, websites and magazines - they all nag you, and of course, your personal trainer nags the heck out of you, to stop eating all those BAD FAST FOODS. But does all that nagging you and bad-mouthing the fast food industry really help anyone stop?
It doesn’t look that way. The fast food industry is thriving, even in the bad economy. The Chicago Tribune recently said that McDonalds is “recession proof.”
As one of only two companies to turn a major profit over the last year (the other being Wal Mart), McDonald’s is laughing its way to the bank. In fact, McDonalds plans to open 1,000 new stores this year.
I was driving down Route 95 a few weeks ago and pulled over to use the rest room at Mcdonalds on a Saturday morning (there’s a McDonalds conveniently located immediately off almost every exit up and down the full length of Interstate 95).
The parking lot was full, it was standing-room only inside and the lines snaked around into the seating area! You’d think Brad and Angelina were there signing autographs or something. Nope. Just a regular weekend at breakfast-time.
I was shopping in Wal Mart the same week and I almost passed out when I saw (smelled, actually) a McDonalds… INSIDE THE WAL- MART! Also, with lines.
Yep. It looks like your friends and family’s nagging you to stop eating fast food, and all the messages of the health and fitness industry to get people eating more “health food” are not working!
So what does work?
The results of a new survey from the behavior and psychology section of the journal, OBESITY (Feb 2009) provide some answers:
Researchers at the University of Minnesota School of Public health surveyed 530 adults about their attitudes towards fast foods.
They found that people already know fast food is unhealthy. (like, no kidding!)
The primary reasons they eat it anyway are because of the perceived convenience and a dislike for cooking! (I’d add another: they think fast food is always cheaper than healthy food).
So, said the authors of this research paper, nagging people to eat more healthy food and warning them that “fast food is going to make us fat and kill us” is not the best approach.
What’s the right approach?
Focus on teaching people how to make healthy eating fast, convenient and easy, because those are the reasons people are choosing fast food in the first place.
So what’s holding us back from implementing or taking this advice?
Well, I think that most people can’t get over the ideas that they “just cant cook” or that cooking is “too time consuming” or that healthy food “tastes like dirt” (as if McDonalds is gourmet food!)
That said, I’m not going to nag you, scold you or try to scare you out of eating fast food. I’m not going to lecture you about health food (not today, anyway). Nor am I going to bad-mouth the fast food restaurants.
I’m going to lead the new charge by showing you just how easy and convenient it is to eat healthy and nutritious food and make it delicous.
Here’s a few meal ideas (for starters) to prove my point.
3-MINUTE APPLE CINNAMON OATMEAL
* natural oatmeal (like Quaker old fashioned rolled oats)
* natural (unsweetened) applesauce
* cinnamon
* for protein, serve with scrambled eggs or egg whites on side or stir 1-2 scoops of vanilla protein powder into the oats
I eat this almost every morning. It’s faster, easier and cheaper than going to the donut place or getting sausage, cheese, bacon breakfast muffins at the fast food joint! (you don’t have to wait in line, either!)
10-MINUTE LAZY PERSON’S CHINESE STIR FRY
* Brown rice (I like basmati)
* frozen oriental vegetables
* chicken breast, grilled (try foreman grill)
* bragg’s “liquid aminos” (or light/lo-sodium soy sauce)
This takes 30 minutes, however, if you get a rice cooker and make a giant batch, you can have your rice on standby for instant eats and this will take less than 10 minutes.
It doesn’t get much easier than that. (I like those chinese veggies that come with the little mini-corn-on-the-cobs… reminds me of that Tom Hanks Movie, BIG)
2-MINUTE BLACK BEANS AND SPICY SALSA
* black beans (15 oz can)
* Medium or hot salsa
* 1 tbsp extra virgin olive oil
* 2 cloves garlic or chopped garlic to taste
* salt and pepper to taste
This one takes you all of 2 minutes to make. No cooking required! And it’s good! It’s vegetarian as listed above, but if you’re a high-protein muscle-head like me, just add chicken breast or lean ground turkey.
Best part: this is all inexpensive food! Oats, rice, beans… doesn’t get much cheaper than that - buy your healthy staples in bulk and the cost per serving is probably less than mickey D’s! (yes, even the “Value” meals)
Every one of these recipes is compatible with my Burn The Fat program
This means that my way of eating makes you more muscular and leaner… so you can look hot wearing very little clothes this summer… and be healthier… and save money too.
Train Hard, Eat Right, and Expect Success!
Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
Monday, October 25, 2010
Irvinga Gabonensis Supplement Craze: In-Credible Weight Loss from an African Tree?
Irvingia Gabonensis Supplement Craze: In-Credible Weight Loss from an African Tree?
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Irvingia gabonensis is the latest weight loss supplement to hit the marketplace, saturate the internet with advertisements, ignite forum discussions and flood my email inbox with questions. In the weight loss marketplace, this may gain the dubious distinction of becoming the next hoodia or acai berry (scam), but I'll just present the facts, make my case and then let you judge for yourself.
Irvingia gabonensis comes from a West African tree commonly known as the wild mango or bush mango. The trees bear edible fruits, and they're especially known for their nuts which go by many different names including ogbono, etima, odika or dika nuts. Like other nuts and seeds, Irvingia gabonensis is high in fat (50%), and oil can be extracted from them. Irvingia gabonensis is also comprised of 26.4% carbohydrate, 7.5% protein, 2.3% ash and 14% fiber. Dietary fibers are often recommended to aid with weight loss programs as well as for their health benefits.
The first Irvingia Gabonensis weight loss study: 2005
Due to its customary use in African cuisine and reputation as a health food, a research group based in Cameroon (Western Africa) set up a randomized double blind study in 2005 to see if Irvingia gabonensis could help with weight loss. 40 obese subjects, age 19 to 52, were divided into placebo and experimental groups. The experimental group received 1.05 grams of Irvingia seed extract 3 times a day (total 3.15 grams) for 30 days.
Subjects were examined weekly and tested for body weight, body fat and hip/waist circumferences. Blood pressure was measured and blood samples were also collected after an overnight fast and tested for total cholesterol, triacylglycerol, HDL-cholesterol and glucose. The subjects were interviewed about their physical activity and food intake during the trial and were instructed to follow a low fat diet of 1800 calories per day and keep a food record for seven days.
At the end of the 30 day trial, the Irvingia group had lost an average of 5.26 kilos (11.5 lbs) and the placebo group had lost only 1.32 kilos (2.9 lbs). The group receiving Irvingia also experienced a decrease in systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides and LDL cholesterol. HDL cholesterol increased.
This was the first study that suggested a weight loss benefit from Irvingia gabonensis. Why did the Irvingia group lose more weight? It's not clear, but in studies of free-living subjects, increased weight loss often means that the experimental group ate less, not necessarily from a direct action on metabolism, hormones or physiology.
In-credible weight loss research
In March of 2008, the same research group (Oben and Ngondi) published the results of their second study about Irvingia and weight loss. This time, Irvingia was combined with Cissus quadrangularis, a succulent vine native to West Africa and Southeast Asia. 72 subjects were divided into three groups, placebo, Cissus extract only (150 mg 2X/day) and Cissus-Irvingia combination (250 mg combined Cissus-Irvingia 2X/day).
All the same tests and measurements were taken as in the 2005 study. After 10 weeks, improvements were seen in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and fasting blood glucose. The placebo group lost 2.1 kg (4.6 lbs), the cissus group lost 8.82 kg (19.4 lbs) and the Cissus-Irvingia group lost 11.86 kg (26.1 lbs).
Attributing 26 pounds lost in 10 weeks solely to a fiber supplement is highly unlikely if not impossible, so the researchers (Oben and Ngondi) figured there was something else going on. They proposed that PPAR gamma, leptin, adiponectin or glycerol-3 phosphate dehydrogenase could all be potential mechanisms through which Irvingia gabonensis might affect body weight in overweight humans.
They set up another 10 week randomized double blind placebo-controlled study to investigate these possibilities. 120 subjects were divided into two groups; a placebo group and an Irvingia gabonensis group, which received 150 mg of Irvingia gabonensis extract twice a day.
Again, total and LDL cholesterol levels fell more in the Irvingia group than the placebo group (27% vs 4.8%). In the Irvingia gabonensis group, body fat decreased by 6.3% versus 1.9% in the placebo group. Weight decreased by 12.8 kg (28.1) pounds in the Irvingia gabonensis group vs 0.7 kg (1.5 lbs) in the placebo group. Favorable changes were also seen in Leptin (anti starvation hormone that signals brain & body about fat stores), adiponectin (protein secreted from fat cells; higher levels improve insulin sensitivity), C-reactive protein (marker of inflammation and cardiac risk) and fasting glucose.
To the lay person, this 28-pound weight loss (12.8 kilos) looks incredible. To someone familiar with research methods and weight loss research, these results look IN-credible, meaning NOT credible. To the informed and discriminating, results like these do not send you running to the health food store, they raise red flags, prompt more questions and demand more and better-controlled research.
What "controlled research" means
The subjects were advised not to alter their diet or activity, but that doesn't mean they didn't alter it anyways. These were free-living subjects, free to eat whatever they wanted and the only way the researchers knew how much the subjects ate or how active they were was from self-reported food and activity records. That's another way of saying the study was NOT controlled.
A true tightly-controlled weight loss study means that the subjects stay in a hospital or research center metabolic ward where all their food is prepared and delivered to them, which is the ONLY way to guarantee we actually know how much they ate. It also means that activity and exercise levels are monitored. Alas, none of these controls were used in this study and we have no way of knowing the true caloric intake or caloric expenditure of these subjects.
Explaining the anomaly
If these results are questionable, then how do we explain them? I mean, we're not saying the researchers are frauds, we're only suggesting that there were some anomalous findings which were parlayed into the latest supplement craze and a thriving business.
The main problem is that self-reporting of food intake is highly inaccurate and makes long term weight loss research very difficult to do. It’s even possible that some subjects may have experienced a sort of "12 week fitness contest" type of effect, whereupon enrolling in the study, they wanted to impress anyone who saw the results. Therefore, they increased their exercise or activity in spite of instructions otherwise. Perhaps some of the subjects got sick and lost lean body mass. Maybe some were bloated and water retentive and simply dropped a lot of water weight. The explanations are endless.
But the story doesn't end here. There's another twist! It turns out that one person has done ALL the research to date and the same person owns the product rights.
Am I being overly skeptical?
Sure, I'm skeptical of weight loss supplements. That's because I'm intimately familiar with their sordid history and I read the research. In case anyone thinks I'm just trying to pick part this particular research only because I'm a diet pill party pooper and supplement skeptic, then think about the magnitude of the claim for a moment and decide for yourself:
The Dubious claim: "28 pounds of fat loss in 10 weeks with NO CHANGE IN DIET OR EXERCISE."
Let's do some math, shall we? 28 pounds of fat loss in 10 weeks = 98,000 calories, or 9,800 calories per week, or 1400 calories per day. So, the researchers and makers of this supplement are claiming that this product will raise metabolic rate by 1400 calories per day.
Is it a more reasonable assumption that an over-the-counter plant extract from an African tree caused astronomical increase in metabolism that probably no prescription drug comes close to, or that the research is flawed?
Consumers in the weight loss marketplace have such short memories. Doesn't anyone remember that last African wonder pill, hoodia? What happened to that one? And why another? How many of these products are already buried in the supplement graveyard? Haven't we learned our lessons from the past?
Irvingia Gabonensis: The bottom line
With an objective look at the evidence, we can probably conclude that Irvingia is a good source of fiber. Fiber can provide numerous health benefits and play a role in body fat control, but there are cheaper ways to get fiber than expensive African supplements, (starting with your food!) A 30-day supply of Irvingia (60 softgels at 150 mg each) currently retails for $42 to $72.
Future research might show that Irvingia Gabonensis and or an Irvingia and Cissus combination may provide significant health benefits. Existing research already suggests health benefits including cholesterol improvements, glycemic control, antibacterial actions and antioxidant properties. It's possible that some of the proposed anti-obesity benefits may also be confirmed. But at this time, the evidence is too thin to recommend Irvingia Gabonensis for weight loss beyond what you could get from any fiber product.
Yours in health,
Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
References
Ngondi JL, Oben JE, The effect of Irvingia gabonensis seeds on body weight and blood lipids of obese subjects in Cameroon. Lipids Health Dis. 2005May 25;4:12. University of Yaounde I, Cameroon.
Ngondi JL, Etoundi BC, Nyangono CB, Mbofung CM, Oben JE.IGOB131, a novel seed extract of the West African plant Irvingia gabonensis, significantly reduces body weight and improves metabolic parameters in overweight humans in a randomized double-blind placebo controlled investigation. Lipids Health Dis. 2009 Mar 2;8:7. University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, Cameroon.
Damson I, Okafor C, Abu-Bakare A. A supplement of Dikanut (Irvingia gabonesis) improves treatment of type II diabetics. West Afr J Med. 1990 Apr-Jun;9(2):108-15. 1990. University of Benin.
Oben JE, Ngondi JL, Momo CN, Agbor GA, Sobgui CS. The use of a Cissus quadrangularis/Irvingia gabonensis combination in the management of weight loss: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Lipids Health Dis. 2008 Mar 31;7:12. University of Yaoundé, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Okafor J, Okolo HC: Potentials of some indigenous fruit trees of Nigeria. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the Forestry Association of Nigeria Jos 1974:60-71.
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Irvingia gabonensis is the latest weight loss supplement to hit the marketplace, saturate the internet with advertisements, ignite forum discussions and flood my email inbox with questions. In the weight loss marketplace, this may gain the dubious distinction of becoming the next hoodia or acai berry (scam), but I'll just present the facts, make my case and then let you judge for yourself.
Irvingia gabonensis comes from a West African tree commonly known as the wild mango or bush mango. The trees bear edible fruits, and they're especially known for their nuts which go by many different names including ogbono, etima, odika or dika nuts. Like other nuts and seeds, Irvingia gabonensis is high in fat (50%), and oil can be extracted from them. Irvingia gabonensis is also comprised of 26.4% carbohydrate, 7.5% protein, 2.3% ash and 14% fiber. Dietary fibers are often recommended to aid with weight loss programs as well as for their health benefits.
The first Irvingia Gabonensis weight loss study: 2005
Due to its customary use in African cuisine and reputation as a health food, a research group based in Cameroon (Western Africa) set up a randomized double blind study in 2005 to see if Irvingia gabonensis could help with weight loss. 40 obese subjects, age 19 to 52, were divided into placebo and experimental groups. The experimental group received 1.05 grams of Irvingia seed extract 3 times a day (total 3.15 grams) for 30 days.
Subjects were examined weekly and tested for body weight, body fat and hip/waist circumferences. Blood pressure was measured and blood samples were also collected after an overnight fast and tested for total cholesterol, triacylglycerol, HDL-cholesterol and glucose. The subjects were interviewed about their physical activity and food intake during the trial and were instructed to follow a low fat diet of 1800 calories per day and keep a food record for seven days.
At the end of the 30 day trial, the Irvingia group had lost an average of 5.26 kilos (11.5 lbs) and the placebo group had lost only 1.32 kilos (2.9 lbs). The group receiving Irvingia also experienced a decrease in systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides and LDL cholesterol. HDL cholesterol increased.
This was the first study that suggested a weight loss benefit from Irvingia gabonensis. Why did the Irvingia group lose more weight? It's not clear, but in studies of free-living subjects, increased weight loss often means that the experimental group ate less, not necessarily from a direct action on metabolism, hormones or physiology.
In-credible weight loss research
In March of 2008, the same research group (Oben and Ngondi) published the results of their second study about Irvingia and weight loss. This time, Irvingia was combined with Cissus quadrangularis, a succulent vine native to West Africa and Southeast Asia. 72 subjects were divided into three groups, placebo, Cissus extract only (150 mg 2X/day) and Cissus-Irvingia combination (250 mg combined Cissus-Irvingia 2X/day).
All the same tests and measurements were taken as in the 2005 study. After 10 weeks, improvements were seen in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and fasting blood glucose. The placebo group lost 2.1 kg (4.6 lbs), the cissus group lost 8.82 kg (19.4 lbs) and the Cissus-Irvingia group lost 11.86 kg (26.1 lbs).
Attributing 26 pounds lost in 10 weeks solely to a fiber supplement is highly unlikely if not impossible, so the researchers (Oben and Ngondi) figured there was something else going on. They proposed that PPAR gamma, leptin, adiponectin or glycerol-3 phosphate dehydrogenase could all be potential mechanisms through which Irvingia gabonensis might affect body weight in overweight humans.
They set up another 10 week randomized double blind placebo-controlled study to investigate these possibilities. 120 subjects were divided into two groups; a placebo group and an Irvingia gabonensis group, which received 150 mg of Irvingia gabonensis extract twice a day.
Again, total and LDL cholesterol levels fell more in the Irvingia group than the placebo group (27% vs 4.8%). In the Irvingia gabonensis group, body fat decreased by 6.3% versus 1.9% in the placebo group. Weight decreased by 12.8 kg (28.1) pounds in the Irvingia gabonensis group vs 0.7 kg (1.5 lbs) in the placebo group. Favorable changes were also seen in Leptin (anti starvation hormone that signals brain & body about fat stores), adiponectin (protein secreted from fat cells; higher levels improve insulin sensitivity), C-reactive protein (marker of inflammation and cardiac risk) and fasting glucose.
To the lay person, this 28-pound weight loss (12.8 kilos) looks incredible. To someone familiar with research methods and weight loss research, these results look IN-credible, meaning NOT credible. To the informed and discriminating, results like these do not send you running to the health food store, they raise red flags, prompt more questions and demand more and better-controlled research.
What "controlled research" means
The subjects were advised not to alter their diet or activity, but that doesn't mean they didn't alter it anyways. These were free-living subjects, free to eat whatever they wanted and the only way the researchers knew how much the subjects ate or how active they were was from self-reported food and activity records. That's another way of saying the study was NOT controlled.
A true tightly-controlled weight loss study means that the subjects stay in a hospital or research center metabolic ward where all their food is prepared and delivered to them, which is the ONLY way to guarantee we actually know how much they ate. It also means that activity and exercise levels are monitored. Alas, none of these controls were used in this study and we have no way of knowing the true caloric intake or caloric expenditure of these subjects.
Explaining the anomaly
If these results are questionable, then how do we explain them? I mean, we're not saying the researchers are frauds, we're only suggesting that there were some anomalous findings which were parlayed into the latest supplement craze and a thriving business.
The main problem is that self-reporting of food intake is highly inaccurate and makes long term weight loss research very difficult to do. It’s even possible that some subjects may have experienced a sort of "12 week fitness contest" type of effect, whereupon enrolling in the study, they wanted to impress anyone who saw the results. Therefore, they increased their exercise or activity in spite of instructions otherwise. Perhaps some of the subjects got sick and lost lean body mass. Maybe some were bloated and water retentive and simply dropped a lot of water weight. The explanations are endless.
But the story doesn't end here. There's another twist! It turns out that one person has done ALL the research to date and the same person owns the product rights.
Am I being overly skeptical?
Sure, I'm skeptical of weight loss supplements. That's because I'm intimately familiar with their sordid history and I read the research. In case anyone thinks I'm just trying to pick part this particular research only because I'm a diet pill party pooper and supplement skeptic, then think about the magnitude of the claim for a moment and decide for yourself:
The Dubious claim: "28 pounds of fat loss in 10 weeks with NO CHANGE IN DIET OR EXERCISE."
Let's do some math, shall we? 28 pounds of fat loss in 10 weeks = 98,000 calories, or 9,800 calories per week, or 1400 calories per day. So, the researchers and makers of this supplement are claiming that this product will raise metabolic rate by 1400 calories per day.
Is it a more reasonable assumption that an over-the-counter plant extract from an African tree caused astronomical increase in metabolism that probably no prescription drug comes close to, or that the research is flawed?
Consumers in the weight loss marketplace have such short memories. Doesn't anyone remember that last African wonder pill, hoodia? What happened to that one? And why another? How many of these products are already buried in the supplement graveyard? Haven't we learned our lessons from the past?
Irvingia Gabonensis: The bottom line
With an objective look at the evidence, we can probably conclude that Irvingia is a good source of fiber. Fiber can provide numerous health benefits and play a role in body fat control, but there are cheaper ways to get fiber than expensive African supplements, (starting with your food!) A 30-day supply of Irvingia (60 softgels at 150 mg each) currently retails for $42 to $72.
Future research might show that Irvingia Gabonensis and or an Irvingia and Cissus combination may provide significant health benefits. Existing research already suggests health benefits including cholesterol improvements, glycemic control, antibacterial actions and antioxidant properties. It's possible that some of the proposed anti-obesity benefits may also be confirmed. But at this time, the evidence is too thin to recommend Irvingia Gabonensis for weight loss beyond what you could get from any fiber product.
Yours in health,
Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
References
Ngondi JL, Oben JE, The effect of Irvingia gabonensis seeds on body weight and blood lipids of obese subjects in Cameroon. Lipids Health Dis. 2005May 25;4:12. University of Yaounde I, Cameroon.
Ngondi JL, Etoundi BC, Nyangono CB, Mbofung CM, Oben JE.IGOB131, a novel seed extract of the West African plant Irvingia gabonensis, significantly reduces body weight and improves metabolic parameters in overweight humans in a randomized double-blind placebo controlled investigation. Lipids Health Dis. 2009 Mar 2;8:7. University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, Cameroon.
Damson I, Okafor C, Abu-Bakare A. A supplement of Dikanut (Irvingia gabonesis) improves treatment of type II diabetics. West Afr J Med. 1990 Apr-Jun;9(2):108-15. 1990. University of Benin.
Oben JE, Ngondi JL, Momo CN, Agbor GA, Sobgui CS. The use of a Cissus quadrangularis/Irvingia gabonensis combination in the management of weight loss: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Lipids Health Dis. 2008 Mar 31;7:12. University of Yaoundé, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Okafor J, Okolo HC: Potentials of some indigenous fruit trees of Nigeria. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the Forestry Association of Nigeria Jos 1974:60-71.
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Calorie Restriction For Life Extension: What They Didn't Tell You On Oprah
Calorie Restriction For Life Extension: What They Didn't Tell You On Oprah
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
On a recent episode of the Oprah show, one of the guests was a 51 year old man with the heart of a 20 year old. He's been following a calorie restriction plan and they said he might be one of the first people to reach 120 years old by following this plan. There have been stories both in the lay press and scientific press about calorie restriction for years and it has been a frequent talk show topic on other many other TV shows. However, before you cut your calories in half in hopes of adding another decade onto your life, you'd better get the other half of the story they didn't talk about on Oprah.
I’ve seen a lot of strange things in the health field, and although calorie restriction (CR) is the subject of serious and legitimate scientific study, I consider CR to be one of those strange things. Of course, that’s because I choose a different lifestyle - the muscle-friendly Burn The fat, Feed The Muscle lifestyle - but there’s more than one reason why I’m not a CR advocate:
Hunger while dieting is almost always a challenge. There’s some hunger even with conservative calorie deficits of 15-20% under maintenance. Prolonged hunger is one of the biggest reasons people fall off the weight loss diet wagon because it’s unpleasant and difficult to resist. This is why pharmaceutical and supplement companies spend millions of dollars on researching, developing and marketing appetite suppressants. Yet CR advocates put themselves through 30-50% calorie restriction on a daily basis as a way of life in the hopes of extending life span or health.
Practitioners of CR follow a low-calorie lifestyle, but technically, they are not in a chronic 30% calorie deficit. That would be impossible. What happens is their metabolisms get very slow (that’s part of the idea behind CR; if you slow down your metabolism, you allegedly slow down aging). So a 6 foot tall man who would normally require nearly 3,000 calories to maintain his weight, might eventually reach an energy balance at only 1800 or 1900 calories. This is not just due to a ‘starvation mode’ phenomenon, that’s only part of it. It’s primarily because he loses weight until he is very thin and his smaller body doesn’t need many calories any more.
Does caloric restriction really extend lifespan?
The biological mechanisms of lifespan extension through calorie restriction are not fully understood, but researchers say it may involve alterations in energy metabolism (as mentioned above), reduced oxidative damage, improvements in insulin sensitivity, reduction of glycation, modulation of protein metabolism, downregulation of pro-inflammatory genes and functional changes in both neuroendocrine and autonomic nervous systems.
Mouse studies on CR go back as far as 1935 and monkey studies began in the late 1980’s. So far the results are clear on one thing: caloric restriction does increase lifespan in rodents and other lower species (yeast, worms and flies). Studies suggest the life of the laboratory rat is 25% longer with CR (even longer with aggressive CR). Primate studies are still underway and humans have been experimenting with CR for some time. In primates and humans, biomarkers of aging show signs of slower aging with CR. This makes many proponents talk about this CR as if it were a sure-thing, already proven through double-blind randomized clinical human trials.
The truth is, there is NO direct experimental evidence that you will live longer from practicing CR. Due to the length of human lifespans, we will not have the necessary data for at least another generation and perhaps multiple generations. Even then, it will still be highly speculative whether CR will extend human life at all and if so how much. We can only estimate. I’ve seen guesses in the scientific literature ranging from 3 to 13 years, if CR is practiced for an entire adult lifetime.
Jay Phelan, a biologist at UCLA is skeptical. He says the potential life extension is on the lower end of that range and the increase is so small that it’s not worth the semi-starvation:
“There is no current evidence that lifelong caloric restriction leads to increased lifespan in primates. It’s certainly tantalizing that things like blood pressure or heart rate look as though they are a lot healthier and I believe they are. Whether or not this translates to a significantly increased lifespan, I don’t know. I predict that it doesn’t.”
I don’t quibble qualitatively with their results. Yes, it will increase lifespan, but it will not increase it by 50% or 60%, it won’t increase it by 20% or 10%, it might increase it by 2%. So if you tell me that I have to do something horrible for every day of my life for a 2% benefit - for an extra year of life - I say no thanks.”
Is prolonged caloric restriction unhealthy?
When caloric restriction is practiced with optimal nutrition (CRON), it is not inherently unhealthy. Actually, it appears the reverse is true. First, the weight loss that comes with the low calories produces improvements in the health markers, as you would expect. Second, the meticulous choice of food from CRON practitioners, where they pick high nutrient foods and avoid empty calories means that they are making healthy food choices. Third, advocates say that the CR itself improves health. I wonder, however, how much does CR improve health independent of the weight loss and the optimal nutrition?
By losing fat and maintaining an ideal body composition (the fat to muscle ratio) and eating high nutrient density foods, I propose that even at a more normal caloric intake, you will get very significant health and longevity benefits. I also propose that gaining muscle in a natural way (no steroids) will increase your quality of life today and as you get older.
Aside from the fact that we are not lab rats, the truth is, none of us knows when our day will come. We could get plucked off this physical plane at any moment and have no control over how it happens. My belief is that we should make our lifestyle decisions based on quality of life, not just quantity of life. That includes our quality of life today as well as our anticipated quality of life when we are older. Maybe we ought to be focusing more on “health span” than life span.
Downsides of calorie restriction for life extension
One fact about calorie restriction that they often don’t mention on these talk shows is that the benefits of CR decline if you start CR at a later age. This was discussed in a research paper from the Journal of Nutrition called, “Starving for life: what animal studies can and cannot tell us about the use of caloric restriction to prolong human lifespan.” The author of the paper, John Speakman from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, said that the later in life you begin to practice CR, the less of an increase in lifespan you will achieve. Even if the CR proponents are right, if you started in your late 40’s or mid 50’s for example, the benefit would be minimal. If you started in your 60’s the effect would be almost nonexistent. Essentially, you have to “starve for life” to get the benefits.
While some CR proponents claim that they aren’t hungry and they cite studies suggesting that hunger decreases during starvation, Speakman and other researchers say that hunger remains a big problem during CR - especially in today’s modern society where we are surrounded with convenience food and numerous eating cues - and that alone makes CR impractical:
“Neuroendocrine profiles support the idea that animals under CR are continuously hungry. The feasibility of restricting intake in humans for many decades is questionable.”
Let’s suppose for a moment that CR is totally legit and the claims are true. Many of the proposed benefits of CR come at the expense of what many of us are trying to do here: gain and maintain lean body mass. One spokesman for CR is 6 feet tall and 130 pounds. Another poster boy for CR is 6 foot tall and 115 lbs. Measurements of rodents under CR not only show large reductions in skeletal muscle but also bone mass.
I am not suggesting that these CR practitioners are anorexic, a concern that has been raised about CR when practiced aggressively. However, they are losing large amounts of fat-free tissue and that is plainly obvious for all to see when you look at their bony physiques. I am not imposing my body standards on others, but 115 to 130 lbs at 6 foot tall is underweight for a man by any standard. Furthermore, researchers say that at the body mass indices sustained by most voluntary CR practitioners, we would expect females to become amenorrheic. “One thing that is completely incompatible with a CR lifestyle is reproduction” says Speakman.
With that kind of atrophy, I have to wonder what their quality of life will be like in old age. While many people struggle with body fat for most of their adult lives, I’m sure almost everyone knows an elderly person who wrestles with the opposite problem: they are seriously underweight and they struggle to eat enough and maintain lean body mass.
My grandmother, before she passed away, was under 80 lbs. We could not get her to eat. She was weak and very frail. I have reported many times about the research showing how most overweight people under estimate calorie intake and eat more than they think or admit. In elder care homes, the research has often showed the opposite - the patients over estimate how much they eat. They swear they are eating enough, but they arent and they keep losing dangerous amounts of weight. With underweight, atrophied seniors, weakness means less functionality and lower quality of life and a fall can mean more than broken bones, it can be life-threatening.
Life extension with more muscle
While there is a commonality between CRON and the way I recommend eating (high nutrient density, low calorie density foods), in most regards, CR is the opposite of my approach. In my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, we go for a higher energy flux nutrition program, which means that because we are weight training and doing cardio and leading a very active lifestyle, we get to eat more. Because we are so active and well-trained, the eating more does not have a negative effect as it would on a sedentary person, who might get sick and fat from the additional calories. We active folks take those calories, burn them for energy, partition them into lean muscle tissue and we enjoy a faster metabolism and extremely high quality of life.
As a bodybuilder, CR is not compatible with my priorities, but hypothetically speaking, if I were to practice a lower calorie lifestyle, I wouldn’t follow an aggressive CR approach. I’d probably do as the Okinawans do. They have a very simple philosophy: hari hachi bu: eat until you are only 80% full. While this does not mean there is a carefully measured 20% calorie deficit, it’s consistent with what we practice in the Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle lifestyle for a fat loss phase, and avoiding overeating is certainly a smart way to avoid obesity and health problems. Incidentally, the Okinawans eat about 40% less than Americans, and 11% less than they should, according to standard caloric intake guidelines, and they live 4 years longer than Americans.
If someone is being “sold” on CR by an enthusiastic CR spokesperson, or simply curious after watching the latest TV talk show (where they are looking for controversial stories), it’s important to know that there is more than one side to the story. If you carefully read the entire body of research on CR, you will see that the experts are split right down the middle in their opinions about whether CR will really work. CR for humans remains highly controversial and there are no guarantees that this will extend your life.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Baltimore, MD put it this way:
“Because it is unlikely that an experimental study will ever be designed to address this question in humans, we respond that “we think we will never know for sure.” We suggest that debate of this question is clearly an academic exercise.”
In closing, let me go back to one of the original questions I was asked: “Can the BFFM food plan also be thought as a longevity lifestyle, but with more muscle mass?” Absolutely beautifully said! That’s precisely what Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle is.
I believe that by making healthy food choices but doing so at a higher level of calorie intake and expenditure, that we can fend off sarcopenia - the age related decline in muscle mass that debilitates many seniors - while enjoying a more muscular physique, greater strength, and a less restrictive lifestyle. Most gerontologists agree - by making simple lifestyle changes that include strength training and good nutrition, you can easily turn back the biological clock 10 years without going hungry.
For more information about Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, the “longevity lifestyle with more muscle”, visit: www.BurnTheFat.com
Train hard and expect success,
Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
References:
Hunger does not diminish over time in mice under protracted caloric restriction. Hambly C, Mercer JG, Speakman JR.Rejuvenation Res. 2007 Dec;10(4):533-42.Aberdeen Centre for Energy Regulation and Obesity (ACERO), Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Starving for life: what animal studies can and cannot tell us about the use of caloric restriction to prolong human lifespan.Speakman JR, Hambly C. J Nutr. 2007 Apr;137(4):1078-86. School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, Scotland, UK.
Can dietary restriction increase longevity in all species, particularly in human beings? Introduction to a debate among experts. Le Bourg E, Rattan SI. Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):123-5.
The potential for dietary restriction to increase longevity in humans: extrapolation from monkey studies. Ingram DK, Roth GS, Lane MA, Ottinger MA, Zou S, de Cabo R, Mattison JA.Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):143-8. Laboratory of Experimental Gerontology, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
Caloric restriction in humans: potential pitfalls and health concerns. Dirks AJ, Leeuwenburgh C.Mech Ageing Dev. 2006 Jan;127(1):1-7. Epub 2005 Oct 13, Wingate University, School of Pharmacy, 316 N. Main Street, Wingate, NC 28174, USA.
Caloric restriction and human longevity: what can we learn from the Okinawans? D. Craig Willcox, Bradley J. Willcox Hidemi Todoriki. Biogerontology (2006) 7: 173—177
Endocrine alterations in response to calorie restriction in humans. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2009 Feb 5;299(1):129-36. Epub 2008 Oct 21. Redman LM, Ravussin E. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, United States.
Caloric restriction in the presence of attractive food cues: external cues, eating, and weight. Polivy J, Herman CP, Coelho JS.Physiol Behav. 2008 Aug 6;94(5):729-33. Epub 2008 Apr 13. University of Toronto, Canada.
Life Extension by Calorie Restriction in Humans. Everitt AV, Le Couteur DG.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Aug 23, Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, University of Sydney, Concord, New South Wales, Australia.
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
On a recent episode of the Oprah show, one of the guests was a 51 year old man with the heart of a 20 year old. He's been following a calorie restriction plan and they said he might be one of the first people to reach 120 years old by following this plan. There have been stories both in the lay press and scientific press about calorie restriction for years and it has been a frequent talk show topic on other many other TV shows. However, before you cut your calories in half in hopes of adding another decade onto your life, you'd better get the other half of the story they didn't talk about on Oprah.
I’ve seen a lot of strange things in the health field, and although calorie restriction (CR) is the subject of serious and legitimate scientific study, I consider CR to be one of those strange things. Of course, that’s because I choose a different lifestyle - the muscle-friendly Burn The fat, Feed The Muscle lifestyle - but there’s more than one reason why I’m not a CR advocate:
Hunger while dieting is almost always a challenge. There’s some hunger even with conservative calorie deficits of 15-20% under maintenance. Prolonged hunger is one of the biggest reasons people fall off the weight loss diet wagon because it’s unpleasant and difficult to resist. This is why pharmaceutical and supplement companies spend millions of dollars on researching, developing and marketing appetite suppressants. Yet CR advocates put themselves through 30-50% calorie restriction on a daily basis as a way of life in the hopes of extending life span or health.
Practitioners of CR follow a low-calorie lifestyle, but technically, they are not in a chronic 30% calorie deficit. That would be impossible. What happens is their metabolisms get very slow (that’s part of the idea behind CR; if you slow down your metabolism, you allegedly slow down aging). So a 6 foot tall man who would normally require nearly 3,000 calories to maintain his weight, might eventually reach an energy balance at only 1800 or 1900 calories. This is not just due to a ‘starvation mode’ phenomenon, that’s only part of it. It’s primarily because he loses weight until he is very thin and his smaller body doesn’t need many calories any more.
Does caloric restriction really extend lifespan?
The biological mechanisms of lifespan extension through calorie restriction are not fully understood, but researchers say it may involve alterations in energy metabolism (as mentioned above), reduced oxidative damage, improvements in insulin sensitivity, reduction of glycation, modulation of protein metabolism, downregulation of pro-inflammatory genes and functional changes in both neuroendocrine and autonomic nervous systems.
Mouse studies on CR go back as far as 1935 and monkey studies began in the late 1980’s. So far the results are clear on one thing: caloric restriction does increase lifespan in rodents and other lower species (yeast, worms and flies). Studies suggest the life of the laboratory rat is 25% longer with CR (even longer with aggressive CR). Primate studies are still underway and humans have been experimenting with CR for some time. In primates and humans, biomarkers of aging show signs of slower aging with CR. This makes many proponents talk about this CR as if it were a sure-thing, already proven through double-blind randomized clinical human trials.
The truth is, there is NO direct experimental evidence that you will live longer from practicing CR. Due to the length of human lifespans, we will not have the necessary data for at least another generation and perhaps multiple generations. Even then, it will still be highly speculative whether CR will extend human life at all and if so how much. We can only estimate. I’ve seen guesses in the scientific literature ranging from 3 to 13 years, if CR is practiced for an entire adult lifetime.
Jay Phelan, a biologist at UCLA is skeptical. He says the potential life extension is on the lower end of that range and the increase is so small that it’s not worth the semi-starvation:
“There is no current evidence that lifelong caloric restriction leads to increased lifespan in primates. It’s certainly tantalizing that things like blood pressure or heart rate look as though they are a lot healthier and I believe they are. Whether or not this translates to a significantly increased lifespan, I don’t know. I predict that it doesn’t.”
I don’t quibble qualitatively with their results. Yes, it will increase lifespan, but it will not increase it by 50% or 60%, it won’t increase it by 20% or 10%, it might increase it by 2%. So if you tell me that I have to do something horrible for every day of my life for a 2% benefit - for an extra year of life - I say no thanks.”
Is prolonged caloric restriction unhealthy?
When caloric restriction is practiced with optimal nutrition (CRON), it is not inherently unhealthy. Actually, it appears the reverse is true. First, the weight loss that comes with the low calories produces improvements in the health markers, as you would expect. Second, the meticulous choice of food from CRON practitioners, where they pick high nutrient foods and avoid empty calories means that they are making healthy food choices. Third, advocates say that the CR itself improves health. I wonder, however, how much does CR improve health independent of the weight loss and the optimal nutrition?
By losing fat and maintaining an ideal body composition (the fat to muscle ratio) and eating high nutrient density foods, I propose that even at a more normal caloric intake, you will get very significant health and longevity benefits. I also propose that gaining muscle in a natural way (no steroids) will increase your quality of life today and as you get older.
Aside from the fact that we are not lab rats, the truth is, none of us knows when our day will come. We could get plucked off this physical plane at any moment and have no control over how it happens. My belief is that we should make our lifestyle decisions based on quality of life, not just quantity of life. That includes our quality of life today as well as our anticipated quality of life when we are older. Maybe we ought to be focusing more on “health span” than life span.
Downsides of calorie restriction for life extension
One fact about calorie restriction that they often don’t mention on these talk shows is that the benefits of CR decline if you start CR at a later age. This was discussed in a research paper from the Journal of Nutrition called, “Starving for life: what animal studies can and cannot tell us about the use of caloric restriction to prolong human lifespan.” The author of the paper, John Speakman from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, said that the later in life you begin to practice CR, the less of an increase in lifespan you will achieve. Even if the CR proponents are right, if you started in your late 40’s or mid 50’s for example, the benefit would be minimal. If you started in your 60’s the effect would be almost nonexistent. Essentially, you have to “starve for life” to get the benefits.
While some CR proponents claim that they aren’t hungry and they cite studies suggesting that hunger decreases during starvation, Speakman and other researchers say that hunger remains a big problem during CR - especially in today’s modern society where we are surrounded with convenience food and numerous eating cues - and that alone makes CR impractical:
“Neuroendocrine profiles support the idea that animals under CR are continuously hungry. The feasibility of restricting intake in humans for many decades is questionable.”
Let’s suppose for a moment that CR is totally legit and the claims are true. Many of the proposed benefits of CR come at the expense of what many of us are trying to do here: gain and maintain lean body mass. One spokesman for CR is 6 feet tall and 130 pounds. Another poster boy for CR is 6 foot tall and 115 lbs. Measurements of rodents under CR not only show large reductions in skeletal muscle but also bone mass.
I am not suggesting that these CR practitioners are anorexic, a concern that has been raised about CR when practiced aggressively. However, they are losing large amounts of fat-free tissue and that is plainly obvious for all to see when you look at their bony physiques. I am not imposing my body standards on others, but 115 to 130 lbs at 6 foot tall is underweight for a man by any standard. Furthermore, researchers say that at the body mass indices sustained by most voluntary CR practitioners, we would expect females to become amenorrheic. “One thing that is completely incompatible with a CR lifestyle is reproduction” says Speakman.
With that kind of atrophy, I have to wonder what their quality of life will be like in old age. While many people struggle with body fat for most of their adult lives, I’m sure almost everyone knows an elderly person who wrestles with the opposite problem: they are seriously underweight and they struggle to eat enough and maintain lean body mass.
My grandmother, before she passed away, was under 80 lbs. We could not get her to eat. She was weak and very frail. I have reported many times about the research showing how most overweight people under estimate calorie intake and eat more than they think or admit. In elder care homes, the research has often showed the opposite - the patients over estimate how much they eat. They swear they are eating enough, but they arent and they keep losing dangerous amounts of weight. With underweight, atrophied seniors, weakness means less functionality and lower quality of life and a fall can mean more than broken bones, it can be life-threatening.
Life extension with more muscle
While there is a commonality between CRON and the way I recommend eating (high nutrient density, low calorie density foods), in most regards, CR is the opposite of my approach. In my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, we go for a higher energy flux nutrition program, which means that because we are weight training and doing cardio and leading a very active lifestyle, we get to eat more. Because we are so active and well-trained, the eating more does not have a negative effect as it would on a sedentary person, who might get sick and fat from the additional calories. We active folks take those calories, burn them for energy, partition them into lean muscle tissue and we enjoy a faster metabolism and extremely high quality of life.
As a bodybuilder, CR is not compatible with my priorities, but hypothetically speaking, if I were to practice a lower calorie lifestyle, I wouldn’t follow an aggressive CR approach. I’d probably do as the Okinawans do. They have a very simple philosophy: hari hachi bu: eat until you are only 80% full. While this does not mean there is a carefully measured 20% calorie deficit, it’s consistent with what we practice in the Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle lifestyle for a fat loss phase, and avoiding overeating is certainly a smart way to avoid obesity and health problems. Incidentally, the Okinawans eat about 40% less than Americans, and 11% less than they should, according to standard caloric intake guidelines, and they live 4 years longer than Americans.
If someone is being “sold” on CR by an enthusiastic CR spokesperson, or simply curious after watching the latest TV talk show (where they are looking for controversial stories), it’s important to know that there is more than one side to the story. If you carefully read the entire body of research on CR, you will see that the experts are split right down the middle in their opinions about whether CR will really work. CR for humans remains highly controversial and there are no guarantees that this will extend your life.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Baltimore, MD put it this way:
“Because it is unlikely that an experimental study will ever be designed to address this question in humans, we respond that “we think we will never know for sure.” We suggest that debate of this question is clearly an academic exercise.”
In closing, let me go back to one of the original questions I was asked: “Can the BFFM food plan also be thought as a longevity lifestyle, but with more muscle mass?” Absolutely beautifully said! That’s precisely what Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle is.
I believe that by making healthy food choices but doing so at a higher level of calorie intake and expenditure, that we can fend off sarcopenia - the age related decline in muscle mass that debilitates many seniors - while enjoying a more muscular physique, greater strength, and a less restrictive lifestyle. Most gerontologists agree - by making simple lifestyle changes that include strength training and good nutrition, you can easily turn back the biological clock 10 years without going hungry.
For more information about Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, the “longevity lifestyle with more muscle”, visit: www.BurnTheFat.com
Train hard and expect success,
Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
References:
Hunger does not diminish over time in mice under protracted caloric restriction. Hambly C, Mercer JG, Speakman JR.Rejuvenation Res. 2007 Dec;10(4):533-42.Aberdeen Centre for Energy Regulation and Obesity (ACERO), Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Starving for life: what animal studies can and cannot tell us about the use of caloric restriction to prolong human lifespan.Speakman JR, Hambly C. J Nutr. 2007 Apr;137(4):1078-86. School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, Scotland, UK.
Can dietary restriction increase longevity in all species, particularly in human beings? Introduction to a debate among experts. Le Bourg E, Rattan SI. Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):123-5.
The potential for dietary restriction to increase longevity in humans: extrapolation from monkey studies. Ingram DK, Roth GS, Lane MA, Ottinger MA, Zou S, de Cabo R, Mattison JA.Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):143-8. Laboratory of Experimental Gerontology, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
Caloric restriction in humans: potential pitfalls and health concerns. Dirks AJ, Leeuwenburgh C.Mech Ageing Dev. 2006 Jan;127(1):1-7. Epub 2005 Oct 13, Wingate University, School of Pharmacy, 316 N. Main Street, Wingate, NC 28174, USA.
Caloric restriction and human longevity: what can we learn from the Okinawans? D. Craig Willcox, Bradley J. Willcox Hidemi Todoriki. Biogerontology (2006) 7: 173—177
Endocrine alterations in response to calorie restriction in humans. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2009 Feb 5;299(1):129-36. Epub 2008 Oct 21. Redman LM, Ravussin E. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, United States.
Caloric restriction in the presence of attractive food cues: external cues, eating, and weight. Polivy J, Herman CP, Coelho JS.Physiol Behav. 2008 Aug 6;94(5):729-33. Epub 2008 Apr 13. University of Toronto, Canada.
Life Extension by Calorie Restriction in Humans. Everitt AV, Le Couteur DG.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Aug 23, Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, University of Sydney, Concord, New South Wales, Australia.
Trans Fatty Acids: The poison in our food supply that most people are STILL eating every day
Trans Fatty Acids: The poison in our food supply that most people are STILL eating every day
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Most people are eating a poison every day without giving it a second thought. This substance can increase belly fat and consuming even small amounts (2% of total energy intake) is consistently linked to coronary heart disease. The research also says that this stuff can increase visceral fat, contribute to insulin resistance, increase risk of type 2 diabetes, increase bad cholesterol, decrease good cholesterol, trigger systemic inflammation and adversely affect almost every cell in your body.
What substance could be so harmful that it causes all of these health problems and yet is so prevalent in our food supply that most people are eating dangerous amounts every single day? This industrially manufactured ingredient is called Trans fatty acids (TFA’s).
TFA’s are not found in nature, with the exception of some ruminant-derived TFA’s in certain dairy products (usually contributing less than 0.5% of total caloric intake). TFA’s come mostly from the industrial hydrogenation of vegetable oils, which alters the natural cis configuration of the oils to the trans configuration. If you see “partially hydrogenated” oil in the ingredients list of any food product, then it contains TFA’s.
TFA’s have been studied for decades, but were largely ignored until the past several years. Research papers linking trans fats to heart disease date back to the 1970’s. In 1994, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to put trans fats on food labels (didn’t happen until 2006). Since 2006, TFA’s have thankfully received a decent amount of publicity when they were in the news regarding new food labeling laws and the banning of their use in restaurants in some states.
New studies have been published in the past year confirming the dangers of TFA’s. Four recent studies indicated 24, 20, 27 and 32% higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death for every 2% energy of TFA consumption isocalorically replacing carbohydrate, SFA, cis monounsaturated fatty acids and cis polyunsaturated fatty acids, respectively.
TFA intake in the United States still averages 2-3% of total energy intake, 4% in some developing countries where fast food is being introduced and as high as 8-10% in certain subgroups (who eat large amounts of baked goods, fried foods, pastries, doughnuts, etc). The government recommended maximum is 1% of total energy intake (2 grams!). Some experts say there is NO safe level of TFA intake.
Legislation has been enacted in some states banning the use of TFAs in restaurants. It was big news New York. As of 2008, 11 cities and counties have adopted regulations to restrict TFA use in restaurants. However, industrial TFA use is still widespread and lots of people are still scarfing them down every day.
If Trans fats are so dangerous, why is their use so widespread? Dietary fat expert Udo Erasmus put it this way: “TFA’s are a food manufacturer’s dream: an unspoilable substance that lasts forever.” TFA’s are cheap and for countless food products, they can prolong shelf life, allow easy transport, provide solidity at room temperature (to make spreads), and increase suitability for commercial frying.
Although most people have heard of TFA’s, the bad news is that this increased awareness has not been enough to translate into behavior change.
A study recently published in the Journal of The American Dietetic Association (ADA) found that in 2007, 73% of Americans knew that TFA’s increased risk of heart disease, compared to 63% in 2006. However, the bad news is that 79% of Americans could not name 3 foods that contain trans fats. 46% of Americans could not name any sources of trans fats on their own.
“Knowledge about food sources of fats remains low” says Robert Eckel, professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado.
Public health messages have been raising awareness, but they haven’t been enough. “TFA’s are bad for you.” Ok, so now what? What you really need are some simple behavior guidelines and a list of foods to eat very infrequently if you eat them at all.
Here are some good places for you to start.
4 Ways to Avoid Trans Fatty Acids
1. Eat mostly foods that do not have a label. At the risk of stating the obvious, if you don’t eat anything that comes in a box or package with a label, then you won’t ever consume manmade TFA’s. If your diet consists primarily of fruits, fibrous vegetables, root vegetables, beans, legumes, brown rice, unprocessed whole grains, nuts, seeds, eggs, fish and lean meats, you’re home free.
2. Watch for label loopholes. WARNING: Food companies are lying to you on their product labels to make you think their foods are TFA-free. The front of their package may say “ZERO grams of trans fats,” and yet there is hydrogenated oil listed in the ingredients. How could that be? There is a label loophole where the government allows companies to claim zero trans fats if there is less than a half a gram per serving. So the food companies sneakily manipulate their serving sizes until the servings are so small that the TFA content falls below the per serving limit.
3. Read ingredients lists. The primary source of TFA’s is partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. In particular, soybean, sunflower, cottonseed and palm oils are frequently hydrogenated. Your first step then, is to read food labels on any packaged products and look at the ingredients list. If it contains partially hydrogenated oils, it contains TFA’s.
4. Avoid foods that contain TFA’s most of the time. TFA’s are commonly found in baked goods (bakery), fried foods and packaged convenience foods, especially:
cookies*
crackers*
biscuits*
pastries*
pies*
doughnuts*
packaged frozen foods (breaded chicken, breaded fish, etc)
corn chips
potato chips
packaged popcorn
some breads
frostings
french fries (fried potatoes)
taco shells
margarines and spreads
shortening
some salad dressings
some candies
some artificial cheeses
* major food sources for American adults
In 2002 when I published the first edition of my ebook, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, I warned my readers of the dangers of trans fatty acids. I was not the only one either. Years ahead of the 2006 law requiring trans fats to be listed on food labels and the 2007-2008 restaurant TFA bans, numerous health professionals were already warning people to stay away from TFA’s.
Not enough people heeded the warnings, while meanwhile, politics and commercial interests delayed legislation. No doubt, skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease can be largely linked to the continued use of these artificial fake food additives. In the US alone, 1,700,000 new cases of diabetes, 233,600 diabetes-related deaths, 600,000 myocardial infarctions and 451,300 coronary heart disease-related deaths are reported every year.
A campaign for better education and lifestyle change is worth supporting. As researchers from Harvard said, “A comprehensive strategy to eliminate the use of industrial TFA in both developed and developing countries, including education, food labeling, and policy and legislative initiatives, would likely prevent tens of thousands of CHD events worldwide each year.”
For a healthy and balanced lifestyle, and for better long-term compliance, I’m rarely in favor of tagging any foods as totally “forbidden” or to use words as strong as “poison” in describing foods. But if there are any exceptions, trans fats are one of them.
If you are unable or unwilling to eliminate TFA’s from your diet completely, then you would be wise for the sake of your health and your family’s health, to keep foods containing TFA’s to a bare minimum and avoid eating any TFA-laden foods on a daily basis.
Last, but not least, be on guard, because history tells us that when one harmful food additive is banned, it is often replaced with another, which is sometimes even worse. That’s why item #1 on my list of four ways to avoid trans fatty acids is the best way to avoid anything that is harmful to your health.
Train hard and expect success,
Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
References
Americans’ Awareness, Knowledge, and Behaviors Regarding Fats, Eckel RH et al, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Feb 2009 (2):288-296
Metabolic implications of dietary trans-fatty acids, Dorfman SE et al, Obesity, Feb 2009, 1-8. Cardiovascular and metabolism disease area, Novartis institutes for biomedical research, INc. Cambridge, Mass.
Mortality from arteriosclerotic disease and consumption of hydrogenated oils and fats, Thomas LH, Br J Prev Soc Med, Jun 1975 29(2): 82-90
Health effects of trans-fatty acids: experimental and observational evidence. Mozzafarian D, Eur J Clin Nutr, May 2009: 63 suppl 2S5-21, Harvard Medical School
Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill, Udo Erasmus, Alive Books, 1994
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Most people are eating a poison every day without giving it a second thought. This substance can increase belly fat and consuming even small amounts (2% of total energy intake) is consistently linked to coronary heart disease. The research also says that this stuff can increase visceral fat, contribute to insulin resistance, increase risk of type 2 diabetes, increase bad cholesterol, decrease good cholesterol, trigger systemic inflammation and adversely affect almost every cell in your body.
What substance could be so harmful that it causes all of these health problems and yet is so prevalent in our food supply that most people are eating dangerous amounts every single day? This industrially manufactured ingredient is called Trans fatty acids (TFA’s).
TFA’s are not found in nature, with the exception of some ruminant-derived TFA’s in certain dairy products (usually contributing less than 0.5% of total caloric intake). TFA’s come mostly from the industrial hydrogenation of vegetable oils, which alters the natural cis configuration of the oils to the trans configuration. If you see “partially hydrogenated” oil in the ingredients list of any food product, then it contains TFA’s.
TFA’s have been studied for decades, but were largely ignored until the past several years. Research papers linking trans fats to heart disease date back to the 1970’s. In 1994, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to put trans fats on food labels (didn’t happen until 2006). Since 2006, TFA’s have thankfully received a decent amount of publicity when they were in the news regarding new food labeling laws and the banning of their use in restaurants in some states.
New studies have been published in the past year confirming the dangers of TFA’s. Four recent studies indicated 24, 20, 27 and 32% higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death for every 2% energy of TFA consumption isocalorically replacing carbohydrate, SFA, cis monounsaturated fatty acids and cis polyunsaturated fatty acids, respectively.
TFA intake in the United States still averages 2-3% of total energy intake, 4% in some developing countries where fast food is being introduced and as high as 8-10% in certain subgroups (who eat large amounts of baked goods, fried foods, pastries, doughnuts, etc). The government recommended maximum is 1% of total energy intake (2 grams!). Some experts say there is NO safe level of TFA intake.
Legislation has been enacted in some states banning the use of TFAs in restaurants. It was big news New York. As of 2008, 11 cities and counties have adopted regulations to restrict TFA use in restaurants. However, industrial TFA use is still widespread and lots of people are still scarfing them down every day.
If Trans fats are so dangerous, why is their use so widespread? Dietary fat expert Udo Erasmus put it this way: “TFA’s are a food manufacturer’s dream: an unspoilable substance that lasts forever.” TFA’s are cheap and for countless food products, they can prolong shelf life, allow easy transport, provide solidity at room temperature (to make spreads), and increase suitability for commercial frying.
Although most people have heard of TFA’s, the bad news is that this increased awareness has not been enough to translate into behavior change.
A study recently published in the Journal of The American Dietetic Association (ADA) found that in 2007, 73% of Americans knew that TFA’s increased risk of heart disease, compared to 63% in 2006. However, the bad news is that 79% of Americans could not name 3 foods that contain trans fats. 46% of Americans could not name any sources of trans fats on their own.
“Knowledge about food sources of fats remains low” says Robert Eckel, professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado.
Public health messages have been raising awareness, but they haven’t been enough. “TFA’s are bad for you.” Ok, so now what? What you really need are some simple behavior guidelines and a list of foods to eat very infrequently if you eat them at all.
Here are some good places for you to start.
4 Ways to Avoid Trans Fatty Acids
1. Eat mostly foods that do not have a label. At the risk of stating the obvious, if you don’t eat anything that comes in a box or package with a label, then you won’t ever consume manmade TFA’s. If your diet consists primarily of fruits, fibrous vegetables, root vegetables, beans, legumes, brown rice, unprocessed whole grains, nuts, seeds, eggs, fish and lean meats, you’re home free.
2. Watch for label loopholes. WARNING: Food companies are lying to you on their product labels to make you think their foods are TFA-free. The front of their package may say “ZERO grams of trans fats,” and yet there is hydrogenated oil listed in the ingredients. How could that be? There is a label loophole where the government allows companies to claim zero trans fats if there is less than a half a gram per serving. So the food companies sneakily manipulate their serving sizes until the servings are so small that the TFA content falls below the per serving limit.
3. Read ingredients lists. The primary source of TFA’s is partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. In particular, soybean, sunflower, cottonseed and palm oils are frequently hydrogenated. Your first step then, is to read food labels on any packaged products and look at the ingredients list. If it contains partially hydrogenated oils, it contains TFA’s.
4. Avoid foods that contain TFA’s most of the time. TFA’s are commonly found in baked goods (bakery), fried foods and packaged convenience foods, especially:
cookies*
crackers*
biscuits*
pastries*
pies*
doughnuts*
packaged frozen foods (breaded chicken, breaded fish, etc)
corn chips
potato chips
packaged popcorn
some breads
frostings
french fries (fried potatoes)
taco shells
margarines and spreads
shortening
some salad dressings
some candies
some artificial cheeses
* major food sources for American adults
In 2002 when I published the first edition of my ebook, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, I warned my readers of the dangers of trans fatty acids. I was not the only one either. Years ahead of the 2006 law requiring trans fats to be listed on food labels and the 2007-2008 restaurant TFA bans, numerous health professionals were already warning people to stay away from TFA’s.
Not enough people heeded the warnings, while meanwhile, politics and commercial interests delayed legislation. No doubt, skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease can be largely linked to the continued use of these artificial fake food additives. In the US alone, 1,700,000 new cases of diabetes, 233,600 diabetes-related deaths, 600,000 myocardial infarctions and 451,300 coronary heart disease-related deaths are reported every year.
A campaign for better education and lifestyle change is worth supporting. As researchers from Harvard said, “A comprehensive strategy to eliminate the use of industrial TFA in both developed and developing countries, including education, food labeling, and policy and legislative initiatives, would likely prevent tens of thousands of CHD events worldwide each year.”
For a healthy and balanced lifestyle, and for better long-term compliance, I’m rarely in favor of tagging any foods as totally “forbidden” or to use words as strong as “poison” in describing foods. But if there are any exceptions, trans fats are one of them.
If you are unable or unwilling to eliminate TFA’s from your diet completely, then you would be wise for the sake of your health and your family’s health, to keep foods containing TFA’s to a bare minimum and avoid eating any TFA-laden foods on a daily basis.
Last, but not least, be on guard, because history tells us that when one harmful food additive is banned, it is often replaced with another, which is sometimes even worse. That’s why item #1 on my list of four ways to avoid trans fatty acids is the best way to avoid anything that is harmful to your health.
Train hard and expect success,
Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
References
Americans’ Awareness, Knowledge, and Behaviors Regarding Fats, Eckel RH et al, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Feb 2009 (2):288-296
Metabolic implications of dietary trans-fatty acids, Dorfman SE et al, Obesity, Feb 2009, 1-8. Cardiovascular and metabolism disease area, Novartis institutes for biomedical research, INc. Cambridge, Mass.
Mortality from arteriosclerotic disease and consumption of hydrogenated oils and fats, Thomas LH, Br J Prev Soc Med, Jun 1975 29(2): 82-90
Health effects of trans-fatty acids: experimental and observational evidence. Mozzafarian D, Eur J Clin Nutr, May 2009: 63 suppl 2S5-21, Harvard Medical School
Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill, Udo Erasmus, Alive Books, 1994
Friday, October 22, 2010
Orthorexia and the New Rules of Clean Eating (Part 2)
Orthorexia and the New Rules of Clean Eating (Part 2)
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
In part one, I described the growing obsession many people have with eating only the purest, healthiest foods, aka “clean eating.” You’d think that nothing but good would come from that, but some experts today dislike the concept of clean foods because it implies a dichotomy where other foods, by default, are “dirty” or forbidden - as in, you can never, ever eat them again (imagine life without chocolate, or pizza… or beer! you guys). Some physicians and psychologists even believe that if taken to an extreme, a fixation on healthy food qualifies as a new eating disorder called orthorexia.
Personally, I have no issues with the phrase “clean eating.” Even if you choose to eat clean nearly 100% of the time, I don’t see how that qualifies as a psychological disorder of any kind (I reckon people who eat at McDonalds every day are the ones who need a shrink).
However, I also think you would agree that any behavior - washing your hands, cleaning your house, or even exercise or eating health food - can become obsessive-compulsive and dysfunctional if it takes over your life or is taken to an extreme. In the case of diet and exercise, it could also lead to or overlap with anorexia.
It’s debatable whether orthorexia is a distinct eating disorder, but I’m not against using the word to help classify a specific type of obsessive-compulsive behavior. I think it’s real.
The truth is that many people are quite “enthusiastic” in defending – or preaching about - their dietary beliefs: no meat, no grains, no dairy, only organic, only raw, only what God made, and on and on the rigid all-or-nothing rules go.
What people choose to eat is often so sacred to them, it makes for tricky business when you’re a nutrition educator. Sometimes I don’t feel like telling anyone what to eat, but simply setting a personal example and showing people how I do it, like, “Hey guys, here is how natural bodybuilders eat to get so ripped and muscular. It may not suit you, but it works for us. Take it or leave it.”
On the other hand, I can’t help feeling that there’s got to be a way to better help the countless individuals who haven’t yet formulated their own philosophies, and who find nutrition overwhelmingly confusing. For many people, even a simple walk down the aisles of a grocery store, and trying to decipher the food labels and nutrition claims is enough to trigger an anxiety attack.
That’s where I hope this is useful. I can’t draw the line for you, or tell you what to eat, but I can suggest a list of “new rules” for clean eating which simplifies nutrition and clears up confusion, while giving you more freedom, balance, life enjoyment and better results at the same time.
New Rule #1: Define what clean eating means to you
Obviously, clean eating is not a scientific term. Most people define clean eating as avoiding processed foods, chemicals and artificial ingredients and choosing natural foods, the way they came out of the ground or as close to their natural form as possible. If that works for you, then use it. However, the possible definitions are endless. I’ve seen forum arguments about whether protein powder is “clean.” Arguments are a waste of time. Ultimately, what clean eating means is up to you to define. Whether your beliefs and values have you restrict or expand on the general definition, define it you must, keeping in mind that your definition may be different than other’s.
New Rule #2: Always obey the law of energy balance
There’s one widely held belief about food that hurts people and perpetuates the obesity problem because it’s simply not true. It’s the idea that calories don’t matter for weight loss, as long as you eat certain foods or avoid certain foods. Some people think that if you eat only clean foods, you’re guaranteed to lose weight and stay lean. The truth is that eating too much of anything gets stored as fat. Yes, you can become obese eating 100% clean, natural foods. There’s more to good nutrition than calories in versus calories out, but the energy balance equation is always there.
New Rule #3: Remember that “foods” are not fattening, “excess calories” are
There’s a widespread fear today that certain foods will automatically turn into fat. Carbohydrates – particularly refined carbohydrates and sugars - are still high on the hit list of feared foods, and so are fatty foods, owing to their high caloric density (9 calories per gram). Foods that contain fat and sugar (think donuts) are considered the most fattening of all. But what if you ate only one small donut and stayed in a calorie deficit for the day – would you still say that donut was fattening?
If you want to say certain foods are fattening, you certainly can, but what you really mean is that some foods are calorie dense, highly palatable, not very satiating and eating them might even stimulate your appetite for more (betcha can’t eat just one!). Therefore, they’re likely to cause you to eat more calories than you need. Conversely, “non-fattening” foods have no magical properties, they’re simply low in caloric density, highly filling and non-appetite stimulating.
New Rule #4: Understand the health-bodyfat paradox
Two of the biggest reasons people choose to eat clean are health and weight loss. Health and body composition are intertwined, but dietary rules for health and weight loss are not one in the same. Weight gains or losses are dictated primarily by calorie quantity. Health is dictated primarily by calorie quality. That’s the paradox: You can lose weight on a 100% junk food diet, but that doesn’t mean you’ll be healthy. You can get healthier on an all natural clean food diet, but that doesn’t mean you won’t gain weight… and if you gain too much weight, then you start getting unhealthy. To be healthy and lean requires the right combination of calorie quantity and quality, not one or the other.
New Rule #5: Forbidden foods are forbidden.
Think of you on a diet like a pressure cooker on a burner. The longer you keep that pot on the heat, the more the steam builds up inside. If there’s no outlet or release valve, eventually the pressure builds up so much that even if it’s made of steel and the lid is bolted down, she’s gonna blow, sooner or later. But if you let off a little steam by occasionally having that slice of pizza or whatever is your favorite food, that relieves the pressure.
Alas, you never even felt the urge to binge… because you already had your pizza and the urge was satisfied. Since the “cheat meal” was planned and you obeyed the law of calorie balance, you stayed in control and it had little or no effect on your fat loss results. Ironically, you overcome your cravings by giving in to them, with two caveats: not too often and not too much.
New Rule #6: Set your own compliance rule
Many health and nutrition professionals suggest a 90% compliance rule because if you choose clean foods 90% of the time, it’s easy to control your calories, you consume enough nutrients for good health, and what you eat the other 10% of the time doesn’t seem to matter much. Suppose you eat 3 meals and 2 snacks every day, a total of 35 feedings per week. 90% compliance would mean following your clean eating plan for about 31 or 32 of those weekly feedings. The other 3 or 4 times per week, you eat whatever you want (as long as you obey rule #2 and keep the calories in check)
You’ll need to decide for yourself where to set your own rule. A 90% compliance rule is a popular, albeit arbitrary number – a best guess at how much “clean eating” will give you optimal health. Some folks stay lean and healthy with 80%. Others say they don’t even desire junk food and they eat 99% clean, indulging perhaps only once or twice a month.
One thing is for certain – the majority of your calories should come from natural nutrient-dense foods – not only for good health, but also because what you eat most of the time becomes your habitual pattern. Habit patterns are tough to break and what you do every day over the long term is what really counts the most.
New Rule #7: Have “free” meals, not “cheat” meals
Cheating presupposes that you’re doing something you’re not supposed to be doing. That’s why you feel guilty when you cheat. Guilt can be one of the biggest diet destroyers. Consider referring to these meals that are off your regular plan as “free meals” instead of “cheat meals.” If having free meals is part of your plan right from the start, then you’re not cheating are you? So don’t call it that. What can you eat for your free meals? Anything you want. Otherwise, it wouldn’t truly be a free meal, would it?
People sometimes tell me that my bodybuilding diet and lifestyle are “too strict.” I find that amusing because I love eating clean 95-99% of the time and I consider it easy. I had a butter-drizzled steak, a glass of wine, and chocolate sin cake for dessert to celebrate my last birthday. I had a couple slices of pizza just four weeks before my last competition (and still stepped on stage at 4.5% body fat). Oh, and I’m really looking forward to my mom’s pumpkin pie and Christmas cake too. Why? How? Because as strict as my lifestyle might appear to some people, I’ve learned how to enjoy free meals and I will eat ANYTHING I want - with no guilt. Meanwhile, my critics are often people with rules that NEVER allow those foods to ever cross their lips.
New Rule #8: For successful weight control, focus on compliance to a calorie deficit, not just compliance to a food list
Dietary compliance doesn’t just mean eating the right foods, it means eating the right amount of food. You might be doing a terrific job at eating only the foods “authorized” by your nutrition program, but if you eat too many “clean” foods, you will still get fat. On the fat loss side of health-bodyfat paradox, the quantity of food is the pivotal factor, not the quality of food. If fat loss is your goal and you’re stubbornly determined to be 100% strict about your nutrition, then be 100% strict about maintaining your calorie deficit.
Lesson #9: Avoid all or none attitudes and dichotomous thinking
If you make a mistake, it doesn’t ruin an entire 12 week program, a whole week and not even an entire day. What ruins a program is thinking that you must either be on or off your diet and allowing one meal off your program to completely derail you. All or nothing thinking is the great killer of diet programs.
Even if they don’t believe that one meal will set them back physically, many “clean eaters” feel like a single cheat is a moral failure. They are terrified to eat any processed foods because they look at foods as good or bad rather than looking at the degree of processing or the frequency of consuming them.
Rest assured, a single meal of ANYTHING, if the calories don’t exceed your energy needs, will have virtually no impact on your condition. It’s not what you do occasionally, it’s what you do most of the time, day after day, that determines your long term results.
New Rule #10: Focus more on results, less on methods
I’m not sure whether it’s sad or laughable that most people get so married to their methods that they stop paying attention to results. Overweight people often praise their diet program and the guru that created it, even though they’ve plateaud and haven’t lost any weight in months, or the weight they lost has begun to creep back on. Health food fanatics keep eating the same, even when they’re sick and weak and not getting any stronger or healthier.
Why would someone continue doing more of the same even when it’s not working? One word: habit! Beliefs and behavior patterns are so ingrained at the unconscious level, you repeat the same behaviors every day virtually on automatic pilot. Defending existing beliefs and doing it the way you’ve always done it is a lot easier than changing.
In the final analysis, results are what counts: weight, body composition, lean muscle, performance, strength, blood pressure, blood lipids, and everything else you want to improve. Are they improving or not? If not, perhaps it’s time for a change.
Concluding words of wisdom
We need rules. Trying to eat “intuitively” or just “wing it” from the start is a recipe for failure. Ironically, intuitive eating does not come intuitively. Whether you use my Burn The Fat, Feed the Muscle program or a different program that suits your lifestyle better, you must have a plan.
After following your plan for a while, your constructive new behaviors eventually turn over to unconscious control (a process commonly known as developing habits). But you’ll never reach that hallowed place of “unconscious competence” unless you start with planning, structure, discipline and rules.
Creating nutritional rules does NOT create more rule breakers. Only unrealistic or unnecessary rules create rule breakers. That’s why these new rules of clean eating are based on a neat combination of structure and flexibility. If you have too much flexibility and not enough structure, you no longer have a plan. If you have too much structure and not enough flexibility, you have a plan you can’t stick with.
To quickly sum it all up: Relax your diet a bit! But not too much!
Tom Venuto, author of:
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
|
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
In part one, I described the growing obsession many people have with eating only the purest, healthiest foods, aka “clean eating.” You’d think that nothing but good would come from that, but some experts today dislike the concept of clean foods because it implies a dichotomy where other foods, by default, are “dirty” or forbidden - as in, you can never, ever eat them again (imagine life without chocolate, or pizza… or beer! you guys). Some physicians and psychologists even believe that if taken to an extreme, a fixation on healthy food qualifies as a new eating disorder called orthorexia.
Personally, I have no issues with the phrase “clean eating.” Even if you choose to eat clean nearly 100% of the time, I don’t see how that qualifies as a psychological disorder of any kind (I reckon people who eat at McDonalds every day are the ones who need a shrink).
However, I also think you would agree that any behavior - washing your hands, cleaning your house, or even exercise or eating health food - can become obsessive-compulsive and dysfunctional if it takes over your life or is taken to an extreme. In the case of diet and exercise, it could also lead to or overlap with anorexia.
It’s debatable whether orthorexia is a distinct eating disorder, but I’m not against using the word to help classify a specific type of obsessive-compulsive behavior. I think it’s real.
The truth is that many people are quite “enthusiastic” in defending – or preaching about - their dietary beliefs: no meat, no grains, no dairy, only organic, only raw, only what God made, and on and on the rigid all-or-nothing rules go.
What people choose to eat is often so sacred to them, it makes for tricky business when you’re a nutrition educator. Sometimes I don’t feel like telling anyone what to eat, but simply setting a personal example and showing people how I do it, like, “Hey guys, here is how natural bodybuilders eat to get so ripped and muscular. It may not suit you, but it works for us. Take it or leave it.”
On the other hand, I can’t help feeling that there’s got to be a way to better help the countless individuals who haven’t yet formulated their own philosophies, and who find nutrition overwhelmingly confusing. For many people, even a simple walk down the aisles of a grocery store, and trying to decipher the food labels and nutrition claims is enough to trigger an anxiety attack.
That’s where I hope this is useful. I can’t draw the line for you, or tell you what to eat, but I can suggest a list of “new rules” for clean eating which simplifies nutrition and clears up confusion, while giving you more freedom, balance, life enjoyment and better results at the same time.
New Rule #1: Define what clean eating means to you
Obviously, clean eating is not a scientific term. Most people define clean eating as avoiding processed foods, chemicals and artificial ingredients and choosing natural foods, the way they came out of the ground or as close to their natural form as possible. If that works for you, then use it. However, the possible definitions are endless. I’ve seen forum arguments about whether protein powder is “clean.” Arguments are a waste of time. Ultimately, what clean eating means is up to you to define. Whether your beliefs and values have you restrict or expand on the general definition, define it you must, keeping in mind that your definition may be different than other’s.
New Rule #2: Always obey the law of energy balance
There’s one widely held belief about food that hurts people and perpetuates the obesity problem because it’s simply not true. It’s the idea that calories don’t matter for weight loss, as long as you eat certain foods or avoid certain foods. Some people think that if you eat only clean foods, you’re guaranteed to lose weight and stay lean. The truth is that eating too much of anything gets stored as fat. Yes, you can become obese eating 100% clean, natural foods. There’s more to good nutrition than calories in versus calories out, but the energy balance equation is always there.
New Rule #3: Remember that “foods” are not fattening, “excess calories” are
There’s a widespread fear today that certain foods will automatically turn into fat. Carbohydrates – particularly refined carbohydrates and sugars - are still high on the hit list of feared foods, and so are fatty foods, owing to their high caloric density (9 calories per gram). Foods that contain fat and sugar (think donuts) are considered the most fattening of all. But what if you ate only one small donut and stayed in a calorie deficit for the day – would you still say that donut was fattening?
If you want to say certain foods are fattening, you certainly can, but what you really mean is that some foods are calorie dense, highly palatable, not very satiating and eating them might even stimulate your appetite for more (betcha can’t eat just one!). Therefore, they’re likely to cause you to eat more calories than you need. Conversely, “non-fattening” foods have no magical properties, they’re simply low in caloric density, highly filling and non-appetite stimulating.
New Rule #4: Understand the health-bodyfat paradox
Two of the biggest reasons people choose to eat clean are health and weight loss. Health and body composition are intertwined, but dietary rules for health and weight loss are not one in the same. Weight gains or losses are dictated primarily by calorie quantity. Health is dictated primarily by calorie quality. That’s the paradox: You can lose weight on a 100% junk food diet, but that doesn’t mean you’ll be healthy. You can get healthier on an all natural clean food diet, but that doesn’t mean you won’t gain weight… and if you gain too much weight, then you start getting unhealthy. To be healthy and lean requires the right combination of calorie quantity and quality, not one or the other.
New Rule #5: Forbidden foods are forbidden.
Think of you on a diet like a pressure cooker on a burner. The longer you keep that pot on the heat, the more the steam builds up inside. If there’s no outlet or release valve, eventually the pressure builds up so much that even if it’s made of steel and the lid is bolted down, she’s gonna blow, sooner or later. But if you let off a little steam by occasionally having that slice of pizza or whatever is your favorite food, that relieves the pressure.
Alas, you never even felt the urge to binge… because you already had your pizza and the urge was satisfied. Since the “cheat meal” was planned and you obeyed the law of calorie balance, you stayed in control and it had little or no effect on your fat loss results. Ironically, you overcome your cravings by giving in to them, with two caveats: not too often and not too much.
New Rule #6: Set your own compliance rule
Many health and nutrition professionals suggest a 90% compliance rule because if you choose clean foods 90% of the time, it’s easy to control your calories, you consume enough nutrients for good health, and what you eat the other 10% of the time doesn’t seem to matter much. Suppose you eat 3 meals and 2 snacks every day, a total of 35 feedings per week. 90% compliance would mean following your clean eating plan for about 31 or 32 of those weekly feedings. The other 3 or 4 times per week, you eat whatever you want (as long as you obey rule #2 and keep the calories in check)
You’ll need to decide for yourself where to set your own rule. A 90% compliance rule is a popular, albeit arbitrary number – a best guess at how much “clean eating” will give you optimal health. Some folks stay lean and healthy with 80%. Others say they don’t even desire junk food and they eat 99% clean, indulging perhaps only once or twice a month.
One thing is for certain – the majority of your calories should come from natural nutrient-dense foods – not only for good health, but also because what you eat most of the time becomes your habitual pattern. Habit patterns are tough to break and what you do every day over the long term is what really counts the most.
New Rule #7: Have “free” meals, not “cheat” meals
Cheating presupposes that you’re doing something you’re not supposed to be doing. That’s why you feel guilty when you cheat. Guilt can be one of the biggest diet destroyers. Consider referring to these meals that are off your regular plan as “free meals” instead of “cheat meals.” If having free meals is part of your plan right from the start, then you’re not cheating are you? So don’t call it that. What can you eat for your free meals? Anything you want. Otherwise, it wouldn’t truly be a free meal, would it?
People sometimes tell me that my bodybuilding diet and lifestyle are “too strict.” I find that amusing because I love eating clean 95-99% of the time and I consider it easy. I had a butter-drizzled steak, a glass of wine, and chocolate sin cake for dessert to celebrate my last birthday. I had a couple slices of pizza just four weeks before my last competition (and still stepped on stage at 4.5% body fat). Oh, and I’m really looking forward to my mom’s pumpkin pie and Christmas cake too. Why? How? Because as strict as my lifestyle might appear to some people, I’ve learned how to enjoy free meals and I will eat ANYTHING I want - with no guilt. Meanwhile, my critics are often people with rules that NEVER allow those foods to ever cross their lips.
New Rule #8: For successful weight control, focus on compliance to a calorie deficit, not just compliance to a food list
Dietary compliance doesn’t just mean eating the right foods, it means eating the right amount of food. You might be doing a terrific job at eating only the foods “authorized” by your nutrition program, but if you eat too many “clean” foods, you will still get fat. On the fat loss side of health-bodyfat paradox, the quantity of food is the pivotal factor, not the quality of food. If fat loss is your goal and you’re stubbornly determined to be 100% strict about your nutrition, then be 100% strict about maintaining your calorie deficit.
Lesson #9: Avoid all or none attitudes and dichotomous thinking
If you make a mistake, it doesn’t ruin an entire 12 week program, a whole week and not even an entire day. What ruins a program is thinking that you must either be on or off your diet and allowing one meal off your program to completely derail you. All or nothing thinking is the great killer of diet programs.
Even if they don’t believe that one meal will set them back physically, many “clean eaters” feel like a single cheat is a moral failure. They are terrified to eat any processed foods because they look at foods as good or bad rather than looking at the degree of processing or the frequency of consuming them.
Rest assured, a single meal of ANYTHING, if the calories don’t exceed your energy needs, will have virtually no impact on your condition. It’s not what you do occasionally, it’s what you do most of the time, day after day, that determines your long term results.
New Rule #10: Focus more on results, less on methods
I’m not sure whether it’s sad or laughable that most people get so married to their methods that they stop paying attention to results. Overweight people often praise their diet program and the guru that created it, even though they’ve plateaud and haven’t lost any weight in months, or the weight they lost has begun to creep back on. Health food fanatics keep eating the same, even when they’re sick and weak and not getting any stronger or healthier.
Why would someone continue doing more of the same even when it’s not working? One word: habit! Beliefs and behavior patterns are so ingrained at the unconscious level, you repeat the same behaviors every day virtually on automatic pilot. Defending existing beliefs and doing it the way you’ve always done it is a lot easier than changing.
In the final analysis, results are what counts: weight, body composition, lean muscle, performance, strength, blood pressure, blood lipids, and everything else you want to improve. Are they improving or not? If not, perhaps it’s time for a change.
Concluding words of wisdom
We need rules. Trying to eat “intuitively” or just “wing it” from the start is a recipe for failure. Ironically, intuitive eating does not come intuitively. Whether you use my Burn The Fat, Feed the Muscle program or a different program that suits your lifestyle better, you must have a plan.
After following your plan for a while, your constructive new behaviors eventually turn over to unconscious control (a process commonly known as developing habits). But you’ll never reach that hallowed place of “unconscious competence” unless you start with planning, structure, discipline and rules.
Creating nutritional rules does NOT create more rule breakers. Only unrealistic or unnecessary rules create rule breakers. That’s why these new rules of clean eating are based on a neat combination of structure and flexibility. If you have too much flexibility and not enough structure, you no longer have a plan. If you have too much structure and not enough flexibility, you have a plan you can’t stick with.
To quickly sum it all up: Relax your diet a bit! But not too much!
Tom Venuto, author of:
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
|
Orthorexia and the New Rules of Clean Eating (Part 1)
Orthorexia and the New Rules of Clean Eating (Part 1)
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Clean eating has no official definition, but it’s usually described as avoiding processed foods, chemicals, preservatives and artificial ingredients. Instead, clean eaters choose natural foods, the way they came out of the ground or as close to their natural form as possible. Vegetables, fruits, legumes, 100% whole grains, egg whites, fish, and chicken breast are clean eating staples. Clean eating appears to be a desirable, sensible, even noble goal. Eating clean is what we should all strive to do to achieve optimum health and body composition isn’t it? Arguably the answer is mostly yes, but more and more people today are asking, “is it possible to take clean eating too far?”
Physician Steven Bratman thinks so. In 1997, Bratman was the first to put a name to an obsession with healthy eating, calling it orthorexia nervosa. In his book, Health Food Junkies, Bratman said that whether they are trying to lose weight or not, orthorexics are preoccupied with eating healthy food and avoiding anything artificial or “toxic.”
Orthorexics are not only fanatical about eating the purest, healthiest, most nutritious (aka “clean”) foods available, says Bratman, they often feel a sense of righteousness in doing so.
Whether orthorexia should be officially classified as an eating disorder is controversial. The term appears in pub med indexed scientific journals, but it’s not listed in the DSM-IV as are anorexia and bulimia. Opponents wonder, “Since when did choosing a lifestyle that eliminates junk food become a disease?”
Media coverage and internet discussions about orthorexia have increased in the past year. Websites such as the Mayo Clinic, the Huffington Post and the UK-based Guardian added their editorials into the mix in recent months, alongside dozens of individual bloggers.
In most cases, mainstream media discussions of orthorexia have focused on far extremes of health food practices such as raw foodism, detox dieting or 100% pure organic eating, where some folks would rather starve to death than eat a cooked or pesticide-exposed vegetable.
But closer to my home, what about the bodybuilding, fitness, figure and physique crowd? Should we be included in this discussion?
In their quest for adding muscle mass and burning fat, many fitness and physique enthusiasts become obsessed with eating only the “cleanest” foods possible. Like the natural health enthusiasts, physique athletes usually avoid all processed foods and put entire food groups on the “forbidden” list. Oddly, that sometimes includes rules such as “you must cut out fruit on precontest diets” because “fruit is high in sugar” or “fructose turns to fat”.
According to Bratman’s criteria, one could argue that almost every competitive bodybuilder or physique athlete is automatically orthorexic, and they might add obsessive-compulsive and neurotic for good measure.
As you can imagine, I have mixed feelings about that (being a bodybuilder).
If I choose to set a rule for myself that I’ll limit my junk food to only 10% of my meals, does that make me orthorexic or is that a prudent health decision?
If I plan my menus on a spreadsheet, am I a macronutrient micromanager or am I detail-oriented?
If I make my meals in advance for the day ahead, does that mean I’m obsessive compulsive, or am I prepared?
If I make one of my high protein vanilla apple cinnamon oatmeal pancakes (one of my favorite portable clean food recipes) and take it with me on a flight because I don’t want to eat airline food, am I neurotic? Or am I perhaps, the smartest guy on the plane?
Some folks are probably shaking their heads and saying, “you bodybuilders are definitely OCD.” I prefer to call it dedicated, thank you, but perhaps we are obsessive, at least a wee bit before competitions. But aren’t all competitive athletes, to some degree, at the upper levels of most sports?
Athletes of all kinds – not just bodybuilders - take their nutrition and training regimens far beyond what the “average Joe” or “average soccer mom” would require to stay healthy and fit.
What if you don’t want to be average – what if you want to be world class? What then? Is putting hours of practice a day into developing a skill or discipline an obsessive-compulsive disorder too?
Okay, now that I’ve defended the strict lifestyle habits of the muscle-head brother and sisterhood, let me address the flipside: being too strict.
Where does the average health and bodyweight-concerned fitness enthusiast draw the line? How clean should you eat? Do you need lots of structure and planning in your eating habits, or as Lao Tzu, the Chinese philosopher said, does making too many rules only create more rule-breakers?
Debates have started flaring up over these questions and as inconceivable as it seems, there has actually been somewhat of a backlash against “clean eating.” Why would THAT possibly happen? Eating “clean” is eating healthy, right? Eating clean is a good thing, right?
Well, almost everyone agrees that it’s ok to have a “cheat meal” occasionally, but some experts - after watching how many people are becoming neurotic about food - are now clamoring to point out that it’s not necessary to be so strict.
The diet pendulum has apparently swung from:
“Eat a balanced diet with a wide variety of foods you enjoy.”
To:
“You MUST eat clean!”
To:
“Go ahead and eat as much junk as you want, as long as you watch your calories and get your essential nutrients like protein, essential fats, vitamins and minerals.”
Talk about confusion! Now we’ve got people who gain great pride and a sense of dedication and accomplishment for taking up a healthy, clean-eating lifestyle and we’ve got people who thumb their nose at clean eating and say, “Chill out bro! Live a little!”
The current debate about how clean you should eat (or how much you should “cheat”) reminds me of the recent arguments over training methods such as steady state versus HIIT cardio. Whatever the debate of the day, most people seem to have a really difficult time acknowledging that there’s a middle ground.
Most dieters, when they don’t like a certain philosophy, reject it entirely and flip to its polar opposite. Most dieters are dichotomous thinkers, always viewing their endeavors as all or nothing. Most dieters are also joiners, plugging into one of the various diet tribes and gaining their sense of identity by belonging.
In some cases, I think these tribes are more like cults, as people follow guru-like leaders who pass down health and nutrition commandments that are followed with religious conviction. Seriously, the parallels of diet groups to religious groups can be downright scary sometimes.
Whether the goal is to optimize health, to build muscle or to burn fat, there’s little doubt that many individuals with all kinds of different motivations sometimes take their dietary restrictions to extremes. Obviously, an overly restrictive diet can lead to nutrient deficiencies and can adversely affect health, energy and performance.
In some cases, I can also see how swinging to any extreme, even a “healthy obsession” with pure food could lead to distorted views and behaviors that border on eating disorders. If you don’t believe it’s a real clinical psychological problem, then at the very least, you might agree that nutritional extremes could mean restricting social activities, creating inconvenience or making lifestyle sacrifices that are just not necessary.
I believe there’s a middle ground - a place where we can balance health and physique with a lifestyle and food plan we love and enjoy. Even more important, I believe that your middle ground may not be the same as mine. We all must find our own balance.
I believe that going back to BALANCE, but this time with a better definition of what balance means, is the approach of the future.
I also believe that some new rules would help us find that balance.
If you'd like to learn the rules that bodybuilders and fitness models follow to "eat clean" and stay lean, then visit http://www.burnthefat.com.
Tom Venuto, author of:
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Clean eating has no official definition, but it’s usually described as avoiding processed foods, chemicals, preservatives and artificial ingredients. Instead, clean eaters choose natural foods, the way they came out of the ground or as close to their natural form as possible. Vegetables, fruits, legumes, 100% whole grains, egg whites, fish, and chicken breast are clean eating staples. Clean eating appears to be a desirable, sensible, even noble goal. Eating clean is what we should all strive to do to achieve optimum health and body composition isn’t it? Arguably the answer is mostly yes, but more and more people today are asking, “is it possible to take clean eating too far?”
Physician Steven Bratman thinks so. In 1997, Bratman was the first to put a name to an obsession with healthy eating, calling it orthorexia nervosa. In his book, Health Food Junkies, Bratman said that whether they are trying to lose weight or not, orthorexics are preoccupied with eating healthy food and avoiding anything artificial or “toxic.”
Orthorexics are not only fanatical about eating the purest, healthiest, most nutritious (aka “clean”) foods available, says Bratman, they often feel a sense of righteousness in doing so.
Whether orthorexia should be officially classified as an eating disorder is controversial. The term appears in pub med indexed scientific journals, but it’s not listed in the DSM-IV as are anorexia and bulimia. Opponents wonder, “Since when did choosing a lifestyle that eliminates junk food become a disease?”
Media coverage and internet discussions about orthorexia have increased in the past year. Websites such as the Mayo Clinic, the Huffington Post and the UK-based Guardian added their editorials into the mix in recent months, alongside dozens of individual bloggers.
In most cases, mainstream media discussions of orthorexia have focused on far extremes of health food practices such as raw foodism, detox dieting or 100% pure organic eating, where some folks would rather starve to death than eat a cooked or pesticide-exposed vegetable.
But closer to my home, what about the bodybuilding, fitness, figure and physique crowd? Should we be included in this discussion?
In their quest for adding muscle mass and burning fat, many fitness and physique enthusiasts become obsessed with eating only the “cleanest” foods possible. Like the natural health enthusiasts, physique athletes usually avoid all processed foods and put entire food groups on the “forbidden” list. Oddly, that sometimes includes rules such as “you must cut out fruit on precontest diets” because “fruit is high in sugar” or “fructose turns to fat”.
According to Bratman’s criteria, one could argue that almost every competitive bodybuilder or physique athlete is automatically orthorexic, and they might add obsessive-compulsive and neurotic for good measure.
As you can imagine, I have mixed feelings about that (being a bodybuilder).
If I choose to set a rule for myself that I’ll limit my junk food to only 10% of my meals, does that make me orthorexic or is that a prudent health decision?
If I plan my menus on a spreadsheet, am I a macronutrient micromanager or am I detail-oriented?
If I make my meals in advance for the day ahead, does that mean I’m obsessive compulsive, or am I prepared?
If I make one of my high protein vanilla apple cinnamon oatmeal pancakes (one of my favorite portable clean food recipes) and take it with me on a flight because I don’t want to eat airline food, am I neurotic? Or am I perhaps, the smartest guy on the plane?
Some folks are probably shaking their heads and saying, “you bodybuilders are definitely OCD.” I prefer to call it dedicated, thank you, but perhaps we are obsessive, at least a wee bit before competitions. But aren’t all competitive athletes, to some degree, at the upper levels of most sports?
Athletes of all kinds – not just bodybuilders - take their nutrition and training regimens far beyond what the “average Joe” or “average soccer mom” would require to stay healthy and fit.
What if you don’t want to be average – what if you want to be world class? What then? Is putting hours of practice a day into developing a skill or discipline an obsessive-compulsive disorder too?
Okay, now that I’ve defended the strict lifestyle habits of the muscle-head brother and sisterhood, let me address the flipside: being too strict.
Where does the average health and bodyweight-concerned fitness enthusiast draw the line? How clean should you eat? Do you need lots of structure and planning in your eating habits, or as Lao Tzu, the Chinese philosopher said, does making too many rules only create more rule-breakers?
Debates have started flaring up over these questions and as inconceivable as it seems, there has actually been somewhat of a backlash against “clean eating.” Why would THAT possibly happen? Eating “clean” is eating healthy, right? Eating clean is a good thing, right?
Well, almost everyone agrees that it’s ok to have a “cheat meal” occasionally, but some experts - after watching how many people are becoming neurotic about food - are now clamoring to point out that it’s not necessary to be so strict.
The diet pendulum has apparently swung from:
“Eat a balanced diet with a wide variety of foods you enjoy.”
To:
“You MUST eat clean!”
To:
“Go ahead and eat as much junk as you want, as long as you watch your calories and get your essential nutrients like protein, essential fats, vitamins and minerals.”
Talk about confusion! Now we’ve got people who gain great pride and a sense of dedication and accomplishment for taking up a healthy, clean-eating lifestyle and we’ve got people who thumb their nose at clean eating and say, “Chill out bro! Live a little!”
The current debate about how clean you should eat (or how much you should “cheat”) reminds me of the recent arguments over training methods such as steady state versus HIIT cardio. Whatever the debate of the day, most people seem to have a really difficult time acknowledging that there’s a middle ground.
Most dieters, when they don’t like a certain philosophy, reject it entirely and flip to its polar opposite. Most dieters are dichotomous thinkers, always viewing their endeavors as all or nothing. Most dieters are also joiners, plugging into one of the various diet tribes and gaining their sense of identity by belonging.
In some cases, I think these tribes are more like cults, as people follow guru-like leaders who pass down health and nutrition commandments that are followed with religious conviction. Seriously, the parallels of diet groups to religious groups can be downright scary sometimes.
Whether the goal is to optimize health, to build muscle or to burn fat, there’s little doubt that many individuals with all kinds of different motivations sometimes take their dietary restrictions to extremes. Obviously, an overly restrictive diet can lead to nutrient deficiencies and can adversely affect health, energy and performance.
In some cases, I can also see how swinging to any extreme, even a “healthy obsession” with pure food could lead to distorted views and behaviors that border on eating disorders. If you don’t believe it’s a real clinical psychological problem, then at the very least, you might agree that nutritional extremes could mean restricting social activities, creating inconvenience or making lifestyle sacrifices that are just not necessary.
I believe there’s a middle ground - a place where we can balance health and physique with a lifestyle and food plan we love and enjoy. Even more important, I believe that your middle ground may not be the same as mine. We all must find our own balance.
I believe that going back to BALANCE, but this time with a better definition of what balance means, is the approach of the future.
I also believe that some new rules would help us find that balance.
If you'd like to learn the rules that bodybuilders and fitness models follow to "eat clean" and stay lean, then visit http://www.burnthefat.com.
Tom Venuto, author of:
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com
Monday, October 18, 2010
Nutrition Label Lies & Loopholes: Serving Size Sleight of Hand
Nutrition Label Lies & Loopholes: Serving Size Sleight of Hand
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
For years, concerned consumers and watchdog organizations have been screaming that the U.S. labeling laws are full of loopholes and in need of serious revision. After years of talk, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says they’re planning to so something about it. But will it be enough?
There are many food labeling issues we could complain about, but one of the biggest problems (due to its direct relationship to the obesity crisis) is serving sizes.
I’m not just talking about supersizing. What’s worse is that the actual calories are being disguised with serving size sleight of hand.
Let me show you some examples:
Tostitos touch of lime. Calories per serving: 150. Not too bad for tortilla chips, eh? Not so fast. Check that serving size: 1 ounce. That’s a whopping 6 chips. There are 10 servings per container. That’s 1500 calories in the bag.
Most guys could knock off half that bag for a cool 750 calories. Ok, suppose you have some restraint and you only eat a third of the bag (20 chips). You still get 500 calories. But who stops at 6 chips?
Vitamin Water. While I could rant about how sugar water is being marketed as health food, I’ll stick with the serving size sleight for now.
The label says there are 50 calories per serving. Wow, only 50 calories! Plus they add all those vitamins. Must be good for you and perfect for dieters, right? Think again. Look at the serving size and servings per container: 8 oz per serving and 2.5 servings per container.
Excuse me, but is there ANY reason for making it 2.5 servings other than to disguise the actual calorie content?
When you see that the entire bottle is 20 ounces, you realize that it contains 125 calories, not 50. Although 20 ounces is a large bottle, I don’t know many guys who wouldn’t chug that whole thing.
Sobe Lifewater? Same trick in their 20 oz bottles.
Healthy Choice soup, country vegetable. They make these in convenient little microwavable containers with a plastic lid. Just heat and eat.
It says 90 calories and 480 mg of sodium per serving. Wow, less than a hundred calories. Wait a minute though. Turn the container around and you see the serving size is 1 cup and the servings per container says “about 2.”
Huh? It looks pretty obvious to me that this microwave-ready container was designed for one person to eat in one sitting, so why not just put 180 calories per container on the label (and 960 mg of sodium). I guess 90 calories and 480 mg sodium sounds… well… like a healthier choice!
Ben and Jerrys chocolate fudge brownie ice cream.
This infamously delicious ice cream with its own facebook fan page has 270 calories per serving.
We all know ice cream is loaded with calories and should only be an occasional treat, but 270 calories per serving, that’s not too terrible is it?
Look a little closer at the label. The serving size is ½ a cup. Who eats a half a cup of ice cream? In fact, who hasn’t polished off a whole pint by themselves? (the “comment confessional” is below if you’d like to answer that)
According to Ben and Jerry, there are 4 servings in that one pint container. 270 calories times 4 servings = 1080 calories! That’s about half a days worth of calories for an average female.
I could go on and on - crackers, chocolate chip cookies, muffins, pasta, boxed cereals (who eats ¾ cup of cereal), etc. But I think you get the point.
What’s the solution to this mess? News reports in the last week say that the FDA may be cracking down. Count me among those who are pleased to hear this news. One of their ideas is to post nutritional information, including the calories, on the FRONT of the food labels.
The problem is, this move by itself could actually make matters worse. Suppose Tostitos started posting “150 calories per serving” right on the front of the bag. Most people would assume the chips were low in calories. Putting calorie info on the front of the label would help only if it clearly stated the amount of calories in the entire package or in a normal human-sized serving!
Ah, but the FDA says they’re on top of that too. They also want to standardize or re-define serving sizes. Sounds great, but there are critics who say that consumers would take it as approval to eat larger servings so the strategy would backfire.
Suppose for example, the government decides that no one eats ½ a cup of Ben and Jerry’s so they make the new serving size 1 cup, or half the pint-sized container. Now by law the label says 540 calories per serving instead of 270. Is that like getting official permission to eat twice as much?
I’m not against the FDA’s latest initiative, but what we really need is some honesty in labeling.
Food manufacturers should not be allowed to manipulate serving sizes in a way that would trick you into thinking there are fewer calories than there really are in a quantity that you’re likely to eat.
It would be nice to have calories for the entire package listed on the label at a glance. A new rating scale for caloric density would be cool too, if it could be easily interpreted. It would also be nice to have serving sizes chosen for quantities that are most likely to be commonly eaten. But standardization of serving sizes for all types of foods is difficult.
My friends from Europe tell me that food labels over there are listed in 100g portions, making comparisons easy. But when you consider how much each individual’s daily calorie needs can vary (easily 3-fold or more when you run the gamut from totally sedentary to elite athlete, not to mention male and female differences), standardization that applies to everyone may not be possible.
I think the recent laws such as requiring calories on restaurant menus are a positive move that will influence some people’s behavior. But no label changes by themselves will solve the obesity crisis. A real solution is going to have to include personal responsibility, nutrition education, self-discipline, hard work and lifestyle change.
Changes in the labeling laws won’t influence everybody because the people most likely to care about what labels say are those who have already made a commitment to change their lifestyles (and they’re least likely to eat processed and packaged foods - that have labels - in the first place). Actually, for those who care, all the info you need is already on the labels, you just have to do a little math and watch out for sneaky label tricks.
There’s one true solution to this portion distortion and label lies problem: Become CALORIE AWARE. Of course that includes educated label reading, but it goes much further. In my Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle system, here is how I define "calorie counting:"
square1. Get a good calorie counter book, chart or electronic device/software and get to know the calorie counts of all the staple foods you eat on a daily basis. Look up the calorie values for foods you eat occasionally.
2. Always have a daily meal plan – on paper – with calories printed for each food, each meal and the day. Use that menu as a daily goal and target.
3. Educate yourself about average caloric needs for men and women and learn how to estimate your own calorie needs as closely as you can based on your activity, weight, body composition, height, gender and age.
4. Get a good kitchen food scale and use it.
Keep counting calories and doing nutrition by the numbers until you are unconsciously competent and eating the right quantities to easily maintain your ideal weight becomes second nature.
Obviously, saying that calories are all there is to nutrition is like saying that putting is all there is to golf. Calorie quality and quantity are both important. However, it’s a mistake to ignore the calorie quantity side of the game. Serving sizes matter and even healthy foods get stored as fat if you eat too much..
You can play “blindfolded archery” by guessing your calories and food portions if you want to. Hey, you might get lucky and guess right. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend depending on luck - or the government - for something as important as your body and your health. I would recommend the personal responsibility, nutrition education, self-discipline, hard work and lifestyle change…
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
banner
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com or http://www.BurnTheFatInnerCircle.com
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
For years, concerned consumers and watchdog organizations have been screaming that the U.S. labeling laws are full of loopholes and in need of serious revision. After years of talk, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says they’re planning to so something about it. But will it be enough?
There are many food labeling issues we could complain about, but one of the biggest problems (due to its direct relationship to the obesity crisis) is serving sizes.
I’m not just talking about supersizing. What’s worse is that the actual calories are being disguised with serving size sleight of hand.
Let me show you some examples:
Tostitos touch of lime. Calories per serving: 150. Not too bad for tortilla chips, eh? Not so fast. Check that serving size: 1 ounce. That’s a whopping 6 chips. There are 10 servings per container. That’s 1500 calories in the bag.
Most guys could knock off half that bag for a cool 750 calories. Ok, suppose you have some restraint and you only eat a third of the bag (20 chips). You still get 500 calories. But who stops at 6 chips?
Vitamin Water. While I could rant about how sugar water is being marketed as health food, I’ll stick with the serving size sleight for now.
The label says there are 50 calories per serving. Wow, only 50 calories! Plus they add all those vitamins. Must be good for you and perfect for dieters, right? Think again. Look at the serving size and servings per container: 8 oz per serving and 2.5 servings per container.
Excuse me, but is there ANY reason for making it 2.5 servings other than to disguise the actual calorie content?
When you see that the entire bottle is 20 ounces, you realize that it contains 125 calories, not 50. Although 20 ounces is a large bottle, I don’t know many guys who wouldn’t chug that whole thing.
Sobe Lifewater? Same trick in their 20 oz bottles.
Healthy Choice soup, country vegetable. They make these in convenient little microwavable containers with a plastic lid. Just heat and eat.
It says 90 calories and 480 mg of sodium per serving. Wow, less than a hundred calories. Wait a minute though. Turn the container around and you see the serving size is 1 cup and the servings per container says “about 2.”
Huh? It looks pretty obvious to me that this microwave-ready container was designed for one person to eat in one sitting, so why not just put 180 calories per container on the label (and 960 mg of sodium). I guess 90 calories and 480 mg sodium sounds… well… like a healthier choice!
Ben and Jerrys chocolate fudge brownie ice cream.
This infamously delicious ice cream with its own facebook fan page has 270 calories per serving.
We all know ice cream is loaded with calories and should only be an occasional treat, but 270 calories per serving, that’s not too terrible is it?
Look a little closer at the label. The serving size is ½ a cup. Who eats a half a cup of ice cream? In fact, who hasn’t polished off a whole pint by themselves? (the “comment confessional” is below if you’d like to answer that)
According to Ben and Jerry, there are 4 servings in that one pint container. 270 calories times 4 servings = 1080 calories! That’s about half a days worth of calories for an average female.
I could go on and on - crackers, chocolate chip cookies, muffins, pasta, boxed cereals (who eats ¾ cup of cereal), etc. But I think you get the point.
What’s the solution to this mess? News reports in the last week say that the FDA may be cracking down. Count me among those who are pleased to hear this news. One of their ideas is to post nutritional information, including the calories, on the FRONT of the food labels.
The problem is, this move by itself could actually make matters worse. Suppose Tostitos started posting “150 calories per serving” right on the front of the bag. Most people would assume the chips were low in calories. Putting calorie info on the front of the label would help only if it clearly stated the amount of calories in the entire package or in a normal human-sized serving!
Ah, but the FDA says they’re on top of that too. They also want to standardize or re-define serving sizes. Sounds great, but there are critics who say that consumers would take it as approval to eat larger servings so the strategy would backfire.
Suppose for example, the government decides that no one eats ½ a cup of Ben and Jerry’s so they make the new serving size 1 cup, or half the pint-sized container. Now by law the label says 540 calories per serving instead of 270. Is that like getting official permission to eat twice as much?
I’m not against the FDA’s latest initiative, but what we really need is some honesty in labeling.
Food manufacturers should not be allowed to manipulate serving sizes in a way that would trick you into thinking there are fewer calories than there really are in a quantity that you’re likely to eat.
It would be nice to have calories for the entire package listed on the label at a glance. A new rating scale for caloric density would be cool too, if it could be easily interpreted. It would also be nice to have serving sizes chosen for quantities that are most likely to be commonly eaten. But standardization of serving sizes for all types of foods is difficult.
My friends from Europe tell me that food labels over there are listed in 100g portions, making comparisons easy. But when you consider how much each individual’s daily calorie needs can vary (easily 3-fold or more when you run the gamut from totally sedentary to elite athlete, not to mention male and female differences), standardization that applies to everyone may not be possible.
I think the recent laws such as requiring calories on restaurant menus are a positive move that will influence some people’s behavior. But no label changes by themselves will solve the obesity crisis. A real solution is going to have to include personal responsibility, nutrition education, self-discipline, hard work and lifestyle change.
Changes in the labeling laws won’t influence everybody because the people most likely to care about what labels say are those who have already made a commitment to change their lifestyles (and they’re least likely to eat processed and packaged foods - that have labels - in the first place). Actually, for those who care, all the info you need is already on the labels, you just have to do a little math and watch out for sneaky label tricks.
There’s one true solution to this portion distortion and label lies problem: Become CALORIE AWARE. Of course that includes educated label reading, but it goes much further. In my Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle system, here is how I define "calorie counting:"
square1. Get a good calorie counter book, chart or electronic device/software and get to know the calorie counts of all the staple foods you eat on a daily basis. Look up the calorie values for foods you eat occasionally.
2. Always have a daily meal plan – on paper – with calories printed for each food, each meal and the day. Use that menu as a daily goal and target.
3. Educate yourself about average caloric needs for men and women and learn how to estimate your own calorie needs as closely as you can based on your activity, weight, body composition, height, gender and age.
4. Get a good kitchen food scale and use it.
Keep counting calories and doing nutrition by the numbers until you are unconsciously competent and eating the right quantities to easily maintain your ideal weight becomes second nature.
Obviously, saying that calories are all there is to nutrition is like saying that putting is all there is to golf. Calorie quality and quantity are both important. However, it’s a mistake to ignore the calorie quantity side of the game. Serving sizes matter and even healthy foods get stored as fat if you eat too much..
You can play “blindfolded archery” by guessing your calories and food portions if you want to. Hey, you might get lucky and guess right. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend depending on luck - or the government - for something as important as your body and your health. I would recommend the personal responsibility, nutrition education, self-discipline, hard work and lifestyle change…
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
banner
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com or http://www.BurnTheFatInnerCircle.com
Once an Endomorph Always an Endomorph? (Can Your Body Type Change?)
Once an Endomorph Always an Endomorph? (Can Your Body Type Change?)
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Are you an ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph body type? To maximize your results, regardless of whether your goal is fat loss or muscle gain, it’s helpful to know your body type and adjust your approach according to your type. But a big question that almost no one has ever answered is, “Does your body type change over time?” If so, then what? Do you have to totally change your nutrition and training again? And if your body type doesn’t change, does this mean you are stuck being a fat endomorph for the rest of your life, doomed because of genetics? Read on to find out.
Somatotype is a 3-part, 7-point body type rating scale developed by a guy named Sheldon back around 1940 or so. Ectomorphs are the linear, bony, lean types, mesomorphs are the naturally muscular body types (yeah, the ones we hate!), and endormorphs are the ones with the round body shapes and the genetic tendency toward storing more body fat.
Generally, you have a combination body type, which is why you are scored with 3 numbers (Arnold Schwarzenneger in his bodybuilding prime: think pure mesomorph with the highest score of 7).
The question is, Does somatotype change? this is a very interesting question that has been asked and debated before both by the layperson (often bodybuilding and fitness enthusiasts) and by scientists.
Two of those scientists were JE Lindsay Carter, a physical education professor from San Diego State University and Barbara Heath, and Anthropologist from the University of Pennsylvania.
There was initially a lot of debate and antagonism provoked by the classic Sheldon system of classifying human body types (“somatotyping”), because initially, Sheldon was very rigid in his insistence that body types were permanent and did not change.
However, Heath and Carter proposed that it was plain to see that body types DID change due to normal growth, aging, physical training and dietary deprivation (they cited the Minnesota starvation study, where subjects started out looking somewhat mesomorphic and ended up looking like ectomorphs (like POW camp victims, literally).
Heath and Carter weren’t trying to dismiss somatotpying, they supported it and wanted to validate it.
However, they wanted to address the shortcomings of the somatotyping method and one of those was the fact that the Sheldon system didn’t accommodate for changes in physique as a result of training and nutrition.
In their voluminous 1990 textbook on the subject, Heath and Carter define somatotype as:
“A quantitative description of the present shape and composition of the human body. It is expressed in a 3 number rating, representing three components of physique: (1) endomorphy, (2) mesomorphy and (3) ectomorphy. The somatotype can be used to record changes in physique and to estimate gross biological differences and similarities among human beings. This method of somatotyping is sensitive to changes in physique over time and is used for rating both sexes at all ages.”
john_bartlett.jpg
Look at a guy like John Bartlett for example, one of our inner circle contributing authors and an outstanding natural competitive bodybuilder. When you see him today and you ask what is his body type, you would say, “MESOMORPH all the way!”
That’s because today he is ripped and muscular
But if you look at his before picture and ask “what is this guy’s body type” you would say, “Endomorph” all the way or at least “endo-mesomorph” because he did have a solid and stocky build before, but also a high body fat percentage.
Well, which is it? Or did his body type change? Clearly, John gained a lot of muscle and lost a lot of fat and looks totally different today. So could we say his body type changed? If we go by current outward appearance, then yes, absolutely.
But does this mean his body type really changed or did he overcome an inherent endomorph body type to achieve where he is now?
Or, to play devil’s advocate here, was he always a mesomorph inherently and he just really let himself go for a while and he was just returning to his normal body type of mesomorph?
These are interesting questions. The Heath-Carter method simply includes body composition as part of the rating scale of a person’s body type and says that you can rate someone based on how they look now. That includes bone structure (which changes little or not at all after adulthood) AND body composition (which can change throughout life). So you could say John was an Endomorph and is now a Mesomorph. Predominantly Mesomorph is his present classification.
However, at the same time, we could say that a person DOES have an inherent body type or set point - a physique that they will gravitate towards in the absence of circumstances or concerted efforts to change it.
I addressed this issue of changing body types versus an inherent (or “permanent” body type) in Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle (BFFM). The way I explained it is that I said your true body type is what you will gravitate to naturally when you are not in a highly trained state. It’s your inherent tendency. In that respect, you could say somatotype does not change, while body composition does.
In chapter 5 of BFFM, I said there were three additional ways to know your inherent body type beyond Sheldon’s scale, which takes into account changes in physique due to training and nutrition:
1. How you looked before you took up training (your “natural” body shape)
2. How you respond to training and nutrition (ease of muscle gain or fat loss)
3. How you respond to de-training (how well you retain lean mass and low body fat or how quickly you lose lean mass and gain fat on cessation of training)
If you wanted to make this even MORE complex, we could look at somatotyping by considering not just the outward bone structure and body composition of an individual, but also the metabolic (interior) characteristics.
My “Burn The Fat” system of body typing is like a combination of:
(1) Metabolic typing (internal metabolic characteristics like carb tolerance)
(2) Somatotyping (external body shape - linearity or roundness, fatness or leanness)
(3) Miscellaneous other genetic factors.
That would be a pretty good three-part body typing system that covers the concerns about changing body types, individual metabolic types (“carb intolerant types” or protein types, etc), and genetics (which is especially relevant since obesity genes have been identified fairly recently).
I hear criticisms of the somatotyping system all the time, where people say it is not useful. I disagree. Yes, it’s perhaps too crude of a system to base your entire training and nutrition plan upon, but I believe it’s very helpful as a general tool to “KNOW THYSELF”.
In other words, if you are inherently an endomorph and you KNOW IT, then you know darn well what happens when you don’t do any cardio. You know what happens when you cheat four or five times in a week. You know what happens when you slack off. You gravitate towards gaining fat, because that is your body type’s tendency! So you can adjust your training, nutrition and lifestyle accordingly.
If you are an ectomorph, then you know what happens when you skip meals… you don’t gain any muscle! You know what happens when you do too much cardio… you don’t gain any muscle, or you lose some!, etc. etc.
And if you’re a mesomorph…. did I mention…. we hate you!
If you’d like to learn more, chapter 5 in Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle is about body typing. It’s full of some really valuable and motivating lessons about knowing yourself, your body and your genetics and understanding the importance of taking personal responsibility, regardless of your hereditary predispositions. If you already have the book, it’s worth re-reading periodically.
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
P.S. Just kidding mesomorphs… we don’t really hate you, we just envy you!
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com or http://
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Are you an ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph body type? To maximize your results, regardless of whether your goal is fat loss or muscle gain, it’s helpful to know your body type and adjust your approach according to your type. But a big question that almost no one has ever answered is, “Does your body type change over time?” If so, then what? Do you have to totally change your nutrition and training again? And if your body type doesn’t change, does this mean you are stuck being a fat endomorph for the rest of your life, doomed because of genetics? Read on to find out.
Somatotype is a 3-part, 7-point body type rating scale developed by a guy named Sheldon back around 1940 or so. Ectomorphs are the linear, bony, lean types, mesomorphs are the naturally muscular body types (yeah, the ones we hate!), and endormorphs are the ones with the round body shapes and the genetic tendency toward storing more body fat.
Generally, you have a combination body type, which is why you are scored with 3 numbers (Arnold Schwarzenneger in his bodybuilding prime: think pure mesomorph with the highest score of 7).
The question is, Does somatotype change? this is a very interesting question that has been asked and debated before both by the layperson (often bodybuilding and fitness enthusiasts) and by scientists.
Two of those scientists were JE Lindsay Carter, a physical education professor from San Diego State University and Barbara Heath, and Anthropologist from the University of Pennsylvania.
There was initially a lot of debate and antagonism provoked by the classic Sheldon system of classifying human body types (“somatotyping”), because initially, Sheldon was very rigid in his insistence that body types were permanent and did not change.
However, Heath and Carter proposed that it was plain to see that body types DID change due to normal growth, aging, physical training and dietary deprivation (they cited the Minnesota starvation study, where subjects started out looking somewhat mesomorphic and ended up looking like ectomorphs (like POW camp victims, literally).
Heath and Carter weren’t trying to dismiss somatotpying, they supported it and wanted to validate it.
However, they wanted to address the shortcomings of the somatotyping method and one of those was the fact that the Sheldon system didn’t accommodate for changes in physique as a result of training and nutrition.
In their voluminous 1990 textbook on the subject, Heath and Carter define somatotype as:
“A quantitative description of the present shape and composition of the human body. It is expressed in a 3 number rating, representing three components of physique: (1) endomorphy, (2) mesomorphy and (3) ectomorphy. The somatotype can be used to record changes in physique and to estimate gross biological differences and similarities among human beings. This method of somatotyping is sensitive to changes in physique over time and is used for rating both sexes at all ages.”
john_bartlett.jpg
Look at a guy like John Bartlett for example, one of our inner circle contributing authors and an outstanding natural competitive bodybuilder. When you see him today and you ask what is his body type, you would say, “MESOMORPH all the way!”
That’s because today he is ripped and muscular
But if you look at his before picture and ask “what is this guy’s body type” you would say, “Endomorph” all the way or at least “endo-mesomorph” because he did have a solid and stocky build before, but also a high body fat percentage.
Well, which is it? Or did his body type change? Clearly, John gained a lot of muscle and lost a lot of fat and looks totally different today. So could we say his body type changed? If we go by current outward appearance, then yes, absolutely.
But does this mean his body type really changed or did he overcome an inherent endomorph body type to achieve where he is now?
Or, to play devil’s advocate here, was he always a mesomorph inherently and he just really let himself go for a while and he was just returning to his normal body type of mesomorph?
These are interesting questions. The Heath-Carter method simply includes body composition as part of the rating scale of a person’s body type and says that you can rate someone based on how they look now. That includes bone structure (which changes little or not at all after adulthood) AND body composition (which can change throughout life). So you could say John was an Endomorph and is now a Mesomorph. Predominantly Mesomorph is his present classification.
However, at the same time, we could say that a person DOES have an inherent body type or set point - a physique that they will gravitate towards in the absence of circumstances or concerted efforts to change it.
I addressed this issue of changing body types versus an inherent (or “permanent” body type) in Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle (BFFM). The way I explained it is that I said your true body type is what you will gravitate to naturally when you are not in a highly trained state. It’s your inherent tendency. In that respect, you could say somatotype does not change, while body composition does.
In chapter 5 of BFFM, I said there were three additional ways to know your inherent body type beyond Sheldon’s scale, which takes into account changes in physique due to training and nutrition:
1. How you looked before you took up training (your “natural” body shape)
2. How you respond to training and nutrition (ease of muscle gain or fat loss)
3. How you respond to de-training (how well you retain lean mass and low body fat or how quickly you lose lean mass and gain fat on cessation of training)
If you wanted to make this even MORE complex, we could look at somatotyping by considering not just the outward bone structure and body composition of an individual, but also the metabolic (interior) characteristics.
My “Burn The Fat” system of body typing is like a combination of:
(1) Metabolic typing (internal metabolic characteristics like carb tolerance)
(2) Somatotyping (external body shape - linearity or roundness, fatness or leanness)
(3) Miscellaneous other genetic factors.
That would be a pretty good three-part body typing system that covers the concerns about changing body types, individual metabolic types (“carb intolerant types” or protein types, etc), and genetics (which is especially relevant since obesity genes have been identified fairly recently).
I hear criticisms of the somatotyping system all the time, where people say it is not useful. I disagree. Yes, it’s perhaps too crude of a system to base your entire training and nutrition plan upon, but I believe it’s very helpful as a general tool to “KNOW THYSELF”.
In other words, if you are inherently an endomorph and you KNOW IT, then you know darn well what happens when you don’t do any cardio. You know what happens when you cheat four or five times in a week. You know what happens when you slack off. You gravitate towards gaining fat, because that is your body type’s tendency! So you can adjust your training, nutrition and lifestyle accordingly.
If you are an ectomorph, then you know what happens when you skip meals… you don’t gain any muscle! You know what happens when you do too much cardio… you don’t gain any muscle, or you lose some!, etc. etc.
And if you’re a mesomorph…. did I mention…. we hate you!
If you’d like to learn more, chapter 5 in Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle is about body typing. It’s full of some really valuable and motivating lessons about knowing yourself, your body and your genetics and understanding the importance of taking personal responsibility, regardless of your hereditary predispositions. If you already have the book, it’s worth re-reading periodically.
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
P.S. Just kidding mesomorphs… we don’t really hate you, we just envy you!
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com or http://
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Double-Edged Sword of "Health" Fast Food
The Double-Edged Sword of “Healthy” Fast Food
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
squareWhat’s on the menu at the big fast food chains lately? Oddly enough, the answer is… “health food!” Even more incongruous, many are marketing their food for weight loss. Healthy weight loss food at Taco Bell and McDonalds? Is this a noble move to be applauded, is it a big corporate money grab, or is it a double edged sword?
Remember Jared Fogle, the Subway guy? He lost 245 pounds while eating at Subway regularly. He simply picked the lower calorie menu items. Seeing an opportunity, the local store owner pitched Subway corporate with an idea. Before long, Jared was the company spokesperson in their nationwide advertising campaigns which became known as The Subway Diet.
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 the sandwich maker. Other fast food chains picked up the weight loss torch where Subway left off.
The latest is the Taco Bell Drive through diet, with their own skinny spokesperson: Christine! The ads, which are admittedly conservative, perhaps due to more stringent FTC laws, say Christine lost 54 lbs over 2 years by reducing her calories to 1250 a day, and 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 and 4 grams of fat.
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, but left to his own devices, he WILL make a beeline to Taco Bell and McDonalds.
I went to McDonalds with him a few months ago (I was dragged there), 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 agreed, apparently happy to get any McDonalds fix.
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 was something with only 260 calories on the menu? Absolutely. Do I applaud the fast food restaurants for offering lower calorie choices? You bet. But the big question is: are these really “healthy choices?”
A few journalists and bloggers recently answered, “These fast food diet items are NOT healthy, they’re only ‘healthi-ER.’”
I think they’re both mistaken. I think this food is not healthy nor is it healthier. It’s only lower in calories. If you eat lower calorie food, that can help you lose weight and if you lose weight, that can improve your health. But what if your definition of healthy food includes nutrition, nutrient density and absence of artificial ingredients?
Let’s take a look at that very low calorie chicken wrap. Is it really 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?
This is not food. It’s more like what author Michael Pollan would call an “edible food-like substance.”
What about the honey mustard sauce? The 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, and that is what makes “healthy” fast food a double edged sword at best.
Some people, like my brother, simply aren’t going to give up fast food completely. If I can get him to make better bad choices, that could help him control his weight. 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 regular basis. You’d shop for whole, fresh, natural real food, keep a well-stocked kitchen… and learn how to cook.
The Subway diet, the Drive Through diet, or the Weight Watchers approved McDonalds menu (yes its true, what a pair that is!) Don’t kid yourself – this is 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.”
Train hard and expect success!
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is the author of the #1 best seller, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle: Fat Burning Secrets of the World’s Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom is a lifetime natural bodybuilder and fat loss expert who achieved an astonishing 3.7% body fat level without drugs or supplements. Discover how to increase your metabolism and burn stubborn body fat, find out which foods burn fat and which foods turn to fat, plus get a free fat loss report and mini course by visiting Tom's site at: www.BurnTheFat.com
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
squareWhat’s on the menu at the big fast food chains lately? Oddly enough, the answer is… “health food!” Even more incongruous, many are marketing their food for weight loss. Healthy weight loss food at Taco Bell and McDonalds? Is this a noble move to be applauded, is it a big corporate money grab, or is it a double edged sword?
Remember Jared Fogle, the Subway guy? He lost 245 pounds while eating at Subway regularly. He simply picked the lower calorie menu items. Seeing an opportunity, the local store owner pitched Subway corporate with an idea. Before long, Jared was the company spokesperson in their nationwide advertising campaigns which became known as The Subway Diet.
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 the sandwich maker. Other fast food chains picked up the weight loss torch where Subway left off.
The latest is the Taco Bell Drive through diet, with their own skinny spokesperson: Christine! The ads, which are admittedly conservative, perhaps due to more stringent FTC laws, say Christine lost 54 lbs over 2 years by reducing her calories to 1250 a day, and 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 and 4 grams of fat.
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, but left to his own devices, he WILL make a beeline to Taco Bell and McDonalds.
I went to McDonalds with him a few months ago (I was dragged there), 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 agreed, apparently happy to get any McDonalds fix.
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 was something with only 260 calories on the menu? Absolutely. Do I applaud the fast food restaurants for offering lower calorie choices? You bet. But the big question is: are these really “healthy choices?”
A few journalists and bloggers recently answered, “These fast food diet items are NOT healthy, they’re only ‘healthi-ER.’”
I think they’re both mistaken. I think this food is not healthy nor is it healthier. It’s only lower in calories. If you eat lower calorie food, that can help you lose weight and if you lose weight, that can improve your health. But what if your definition of healthy food includes nutrition, nutrient density and absence of artificial ingredients?
Let’s take a look at that very low calorie chicken wrap. Is it really 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?
This is not food. It’s more like what author Michael Pollan would call an “edible food-like substance.”
What about the honey mustard sauce? The 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, and that is what makes “healthy” fast food a double edged sword at best.
Some people, like my brother, simply aren’t going to give up fast food completely. If I can get him to make better bad choices, that could help him control his weight. 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 regular basis. You’d shop for whole, fresh, natural real food, keep a well-stocked kitchen… and learn how to cook.
The Subway diet, the Drive Through diet, or the Weight Watchers approved McDonalds menu (yes its true, what a pair that is!) Don’t kid yourself – this is 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.”
Train hard and expect success!
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is the author of the #1 best seller, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle: Fat Burning Secrets of the World’s Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom is a lifetime natural bodybuilder and fat loss expert who achieved an astonishing 3.7% body fat level without drugs or supplements. Discover how to increase your metabolism and burn stubborn body fat, find out which foods burn fat and which foods turn to fat, plus get a free fat loss report and mini course by visiting Tom's site at: www.BurnTheFat.com
New HIIT Research: A Practical Model For High Intensity Interval Training
New HIIT Research: A Practical Model For High Intensity Interval Training
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
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 recent 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
Intensity Work intervals: “high intensity cycling at a workload that corresponded to the peak power achieved at the end of the ramp VO2peak test (355 +/- 10W)”
Recovery intervals: 75 seconds
Intensity Recovery Intervals: Low intensity cycling at 30W”
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 other articles 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, then 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!
Train hard and expect success!
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is the author of the #1 best seller, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle: Fat Burning Secrets of the World’s Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom is a lifetime natural bodybuilder and fat loss expert who achieved an astonishing 3.7% body fat level without drugs or supplements. Discover how to increase your metabolism and burn stubborn body fat, find out which foods burn fat and which foods turn to fat, plus get a free fat loss report and mini course by visiting Tom's site at: www.BurnTheFat.com
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
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 recent 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
Intensity Work intervals: “high intensity cycling at a workload that corresponded to the peak power achieved at the end of the ramp VO2peak test (355 +/- 10W)”
Recovery intervals: 75 seconds
Intensity Recovery Intervals: Low intensity cycling at 30W”
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 other articles 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, then 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!
Train hard and expect success!
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.BurnTheFat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.BurnTheFat.com/innercircle
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is the author of the #1 best seller, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle: Fat Burning Secrets of the World’s Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom is a lifetime natural bodybuilder and fat loss expert who achieved an astonishing 3.7% body fat level without drugs or supplements. Discover how to increase your metabolism and burn stubborn body fat, find out which foods burn fat and which foods turn to fat, plus get a free fat loss report and mini course by visiting Tom's site at: www.BurnTheFat.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)