"The Incredible Shrinking Fat Cell"...
What Really Happens When Body Fat is Burned?
By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
www.BurnTheFat.com
Earlier this week someone in our discussion forum wrote, "I haven't "LOST" any fat... I know EXACTLY where it went! I got a chuckle out of that because I "got" the joke, but truth is, most people really don't know how fat cells work, how the fat burning process takes place or where the fat goes when it's burned. It's actually quite a complex biochemical process, but I'll explain it as simply as possible, so by the end of this article, you'll be a "fat burning" expert!
When you "lose" body fat, the fat cell (also called an adipocyte) does not go anywhere or "move into the muscle cell to be burned. The fat cell itself, (unfortunately) stays right where it was - under the skin in your thighs, stomach, hips, arms, etc., and on top of the muscles - which is why you can't see muscle "definition" when your body fat is high.
Fat is stored inside the fat cell in the form of triaglycerol. The fat is not burned right there in the fat cell, it must be liberated from the fat cell through somewhat complex hormonal/enzymatic pathways. When stimulated to do so, the fat cell simply releases its contents (triaglycerol) into the bloodstream as free fatty acids (FFA's), and they are transported through the blood to the tissues where the energy is needed.
A typical young male adult stores about 60,000 to 100,000 calories of energy in body fat cells. What triggers the release of all these stored fatty acids from the fat cell? Simple: When your body needs energy because you're consuming fewer calories than you are burning (an energy deficit), then your body releases hormones and enzymes that signal your fat cells to release your fat reserves instead of keeping them in storage.
For stored fat to be liberated from the fat cell, hydrolysis (lipolysis or fat breakdown), splits the molecule of triaglycerol into glycerol and three fatty acids. An important enzyme called hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) is the catalyst for this reaction. The stored fat (energy) gets released into the bloodstream as FFA's and they are shuttled off to the muscles where the energy is needed. As blood flow increases to the active muscles, more FFA's are delivered to the muscles that need them.
An important enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL), then helps the FFA's get inside the mitochondria of the muscle cell, where the FFA's can be burned for energy. If you've ever taken a biology class, then you've probably heard of the mitochondria. This is the "cellular powerhouse" where energy production takes place and this is where the FFA's go to be burned for energy.
Tom Venuto Reveals His Lifetime Of Fat Burning Secrets... How To Reach Single Digit Body Fat... Without Drugs, Supplements or Low Calories!
Just imagine having abs like THESE!
Discover an all natural method to lose fat forever... even if you have less than average genetics and you've never succeeded at losing weight before...
For information on "Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, officially ranked #1 Fitness e-book in the world, Click here: www.BurnTheFat.com
When the FFA's are released from the fat cell, the fat cell shrinks and that's why you look leaner when you lose body fat - because the fat cell is now smaller. A small or "empty" fat cell is what you're after if you want the lean, defined look.
It was once believed that the number of fat cells could not increase after adulthood, only the size of the fat cells could increase (or decrease). We now know that fat cells can indeed increase both in size (hypertrophy) and in number (hyperplasia) and that they are more likely to increase in number at certain times and under certain circumstances, such as 1) during late childhood and early puberty, 2) During pregnancy, and 3) During adulthood when extreme amounts of weight are gained
Some people are genetically predisposed to have more fat cells than others and women have more fat cells than men. An infant usually has about 5 - 6 billion fat cells. This number increases during early childhood and puberty, and a healthy adult with normal body composition has about 25 to 30 billion fat cells. A typical overweight adult has around 75 billion fat cells. But in the case of severe obesity, this number can be as high as 250 to 300 billion!
The average size (weight) of an adult fat cell is about 0.6 micrograms, but they can vary in size from 0.2 micograms to 0.9 micrograms. An overweight person's fat cells can be up to three times larger than a person with ideal body composition.
Remember, body fat is basically just a reserve source of energy and fat cells are the like the storage tanks. Unlike a gas tank in your car which is fixed in size, however, fat cells can expand or shrink in size depending on how "filled" they are.
Picture a balloon that is not inflated: It's tiny when not filled with air - maybe the size of your thumb. When you blow it up with air, it can expand 10 or 12 times it's normal size, because it simply fills up. That's what happens to fat cells: They start as nearly empty fat storage "tanks" (when you are lean), and when energy intake exceeds your needs, your fat cells "fill up" and "stretch out" like balloons filling up with jelly (not a pretty picture, is it?)
So you don't actually "lose" fat cells, you "shrink" or "empty out" fat cells.
Take-home lessons:
1. Calories count!The signal that triggers your body to release adipose from fat cells is an energy deficit... you have to burn more than you eat.
2. Cut calories conservatively. Starving yourself may cause quick weightloss at first, but never works long term because it actually decreases the activity of fat burning enzymes that release fat from the cells. to avoid this "starvation mode" use exercise to BURN THE FAT, not very low calorie crash diets.
3. Get control of your weight now. If you are gaining weight, and especially if your weight is climbing upwards out of control, make a decision to STOP RIGHT NOW. Your fat cells might be multiplying, making it more difficult to burn fat in the future. NOW is the time!
4. If you've already lost weight, you must be forever diligent. Your fat cells are not gone, they have merely "shrunk" or "emptied out." Fitness is not a 12 week program, its a lifestyle. To stay lean you have to eat clean and stay active
5. Genetics are only a minor factor. You may not have control over how many fat cells you were born with, but you do control the major factors that determine how much fat you store: lifestyle, exercise, nutrition, mental attitude.
Genetics are not an excuse. The past is not an excuse. Your present condition is not an excuse. You can either make excuses or get results, but you can't do both.
So keep educating yourself about the science, read these newsletters, take action every day and go out there and make it happen!
If you need more help, Burn The Fat is the eating plan that turned it all around for thousands of others... why not you? visit:
www.burnthefat.com
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). Tom is the author of "Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using methods 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
Friday, November 26, 2010
Fish Oil May Help You Burn Fat But Not THAT Much Fat!
Fish Oil May Help You Burn Fat...
But Not THAT Much Fat!
What the latest research says about omega-3 fatty acids and weight loss
By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
www.BurnTheFat.com
Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere for the last several years, you’ve probably heard about the health benefits of eating fatty fish or taking fish oil supplements. Well, it looks like you might be able to add fat loss alongside the other benefits like heart, blood (cholesterol/triglycerides), brain, skin and joint health (and the rest of the list, which is too long to print here).
The biologically active ingredients that seem to make fatty fish so beneficial are are the long chain omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, EPA and DHA. At least a half a dozen human studies and more than two dozen animal studies have been completed in the last 10 years which suggest that these omega-3 fatty acids found in fish may help you lose more fat. However, the fat loss benefit is not as much as some people want you to believe…
The results of two new studies on fish oil and fat loss were just released earlier this year. In one study published by the International Journal of Obesity, researchers from Reykjavik Iceland tested the effects of fish or fish oil consumption equivalent to 1.5 grams of combined EPA/DHA on body weight and body composition as part of a calorie restricted diet. (1)
The subjects were 324 young overweight men and women who followed one of four experimental protocols for 8 weeks:
(1) sunflower oil capsules (control)
(2) lean fish
(3) fatty fish (salmon)
(4) fish oil capsules
The researchers reported the following results:
“In young, overweight men, the inclusion of either lean or fatty fish, or fish oil as part of a hypoenergetic diet resulted in 1 kilogram more weight loss after 4 weeks than a similar diet without seafood or supplement of marine origin. The addition of seafood to a nutritionally balanced energy-restricted diet may boost weight loss.”
It should be noted that the study was supported by the Seafood Plus organization and there were some limitations in the design that could have influenced the subject’s compliance.
The second study, conducted at the University of South Australia and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2) investigated the effect of combining fish oil supplements with regular aerobic exercise.
In a 12-week, placebo-controlled study, the subjects were divided into four groups:
(1) sunflower oil
(2) sunflower oil plus exercise
(3) fish oil
(4) fish oil plus exercise.
The fish oil groups were given 6 grams of high DHA fish oil per day, which contained a total of 1.9 grams of long chain omega-3 fatty acids. The exercising groups performed aerobic exercise three days per week for 45 minutes.
As you might expect, the fish oil plus exercise group came out with the best results:
* minus 1.2% body fat (compared to no decrease in the other groups)
* minus 2 kilograms/4.4 lbs (compared to no decrease in the non exercise group).
Unfortunately, there was a limitation in this study as well: The food intake of the subjects was self reported, which is known to be notoriously inaccurate.
There have been several other human studies on fish oil and fat loss in the last ten years or so and the majority of the findings have been positive. The research is compelling and there have been numerous, and very plausible mechanisms of action proposed.
However, more and more often, I am hearing people in the health, fitness and nutrition industries making some pretty bold and I daresay, premature and outrageous claims about what fish oil can do for fat loss; claims which are not supported by the research.
The studies on fish oil and fat loss are encouraging, but the vast majority of research has been on animals (rats, mice and hamsters) and there have been limitations in nearly all the human studies so far, including:
Small sample sizes, short study durations, statistically insignificant results, lack of randomization, no control groups, imprecise body composition testing, measurement errors, self-reporting of food intake, low compliance control and fish industry or supplement industry-sponsored bias.
Even if you take the results of the existing research at face value, the fat loss really isn’t all that impressive - an extra pound here, an extra kilo there.
Many of the research results barely reach statistical significance, and you even have to wonder if these small improvements in fat loss are simply correcting omega-3 deficiency or fixing omega-3 and omega-6 imbalance… therefore, will they continue over a longer time period or is this a one time improvement?
One of the earlier studies showed the same kind of measurable but modest results: The fish oil group that took 1.8 grams of combined EPA/DHA daily lost 2 pounds and the non fish oil group lost only 0.7 pounds after 3 weeks (3).
Of course, you’ll probably take all the fat loss help that you can get, and since there are already enough good reasons to eat fatty fish for cardiovascular disease prevention and other health benefits, it’s really a no brainer to eat fish such as salmon, trout, mackerel or sardines at least twice a week. (By the way, with the exception of King Mackerel, these are species which have not been reported as having problems with mercury contamination).
Alternately, you can use a fish oil supplement to get the equivalent in omega-3 fatty acids as found in the fish. Non fish eaters or vegetarians can use flaxseed oil, a plant-based source of Alpha Linolenic Acid (ALA) which converts in the body to EPA and DHA (the efficiency and amount of conversion has been a subject of controversy, however).
Based on the three studies cited above, it looks like 1.5 to 2.0 grams per day of combined DHA/EPA is the right dose when fat loss is the goal (although some suggest you should consider body weight when choosing the dosage, i.e., 1 gram total fish oil for each 20 lbs body weight, so a big guy might go with as much as 3.0 grams)
Most fish oil capsules come in 1,000 mg size at a 30% concentration, so if you took five 1000mg capsules a day, that would give you 1.5 grams of EPA/DHA; about the same as you’d get in 3 ounces (85 g) of salmon.
Note: other studies on fish oil and fat loss tested 3.0 to 4.0 g/day of EPA/DHA, but the American Heart Association has warned against taking more than 3 g EPA/DHA per day without a physicians supervision, as there may be potential contraindications and side effects such as increased bleeding time. Based on the research, more fish oil will NOT burn more fat, so be wary of the “mega dose gurus.”
Another tip: Don’t fall for the “premium price” necessarily means better quality party line. Quality and purity are important, but you can get molecularly-distilled, mercury, PCB, Dioxin, Organochlorine-free, 3rd party tested-to-meet-label-claims fish oil for less than ten bucks per bottle of 400 (one gram) capsules… yet I have seen “fish oil gurus” selling the exact same thing for $50 to $60 claiming that everyone else’s products are “contaminated” and “inferior” in quality. If that’s true, then I’d like to see those products submitted to consumer lab for voluntary 3rd party independent analysis and head to head comparison on purity AND cost effectiveness. If they come out superior and cost effective, I will gladly publicize the results myself.
The bottom line is it looks like fish oil may be a legitimate help to your fat loss efforts, especially when combined with exercise, as there may be an important synergy there. However, the idea that fish oil is some kind of miracle fat burner is just not true.
Like Mulder on the X-files, “I want to believe”… but we need much, much more research before we can say for certain exactly how much body composition improvement you can really expect from eating fatty fish or taking fish oil supplements.
References:
(1) Hill AM. Combining fish-oil supplements with regular aerobic exercise improves body composition and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Am J Clin Nutr. 86(5): 1267-1274. 2007
(2) Thorsdottir I et al. Randomized trial of weight loss diets for young adults varying in fish and fish oil content. Int J Obesity. May 2007. pp 1-7
(3) Couet C. Effect of dietary fish oil on body fat mass and basal fat oxidation in healthy adults. Int J Obes. 21: 637-643. 1997
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). Tom is the author of "Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using methods 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
But Not THAT Much Fat!
What the latest research says about omega-3 fatty acids and weight loss
By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
www.BurnTheFat.com
Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere for the last several years, you’ve probably heard about the health benefits of eating fatty fish or taking fish oil supplements. Well, it looks like you might be able to add fat loss alongside the other benefits like heart, blood (cholesterol/triglycerides), brain, skin and joint health (and the rest of the list, which is too long to print here).
The biologically active ingredients that seem to make fatty fish so beneficial are are the long chain omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, EPA and DHA. At least a half a dozen human studies and more than two dozen animal studies have been completed in the last 10 years which suggest that these omega-3 fatty acids found in fish may help you lose more fat. However, the fat loss benefit is not as much as some people want you to believe…
The results of two new studies on fish oil and fat loss were just released earlier this year. In one study published by the International Journal of Obesity, researchers from Reykjavik Iceland tested the effects of fish or fish oil consumption equivalent to 1.5 grams of combined EPA/DHA on body weight and body composition as part of a calorie restricted diet. (1)
The subjects were 324 young overweight men and women who followed one of four experimental protocols for 8 weeks:
(1) sunflower oil capsules (control)
(2) lean fish
(3) fatty fish (salmon)
(4) fish oil capsules
The researchers reported the following results:
“In young, overweight men, the inclusion of either lean or fatty fish, or fish oil as part of a hypoenergetic diet resulted in 1 kilogram more weight loss after 4 weeks than a similar diet without seafood or supplement of marine origin. The addition of seafood to a nutritionally balanced energy-restricted diet may boost weight loss.”
It should be noted that the study was supported by the Seafood Plus organization and there were some limitations in the design that could have influenced the subject’s compliance.
The second study, conducted at the University of South Australia and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2) investigated the effect of combining fish oil supplements with regular aerobic exercise.
In a 12-week, placebo-controlled study, the subjects were divided into four groups:
(1) sunflower oil
(2) sunflower oil plus exercise
(3) fish oil
(4) fish oil plus exercise.
The fish oil groups were given 6 grams of high DHA fish oil per day, which contained a total of 1.9 grams of long chain omega-3 fatty acids. The exercising groups performed aerobic exercise three days per week for 45 minutes.
As you might expect, the fish oil plus exercise group came out with the best results:
* minus 1.2% body fat (compared to no decrease in the other groups)
* minus 2 kilograms/4.4 lbs (compared to no decrease in the non exercise group).
Unfortunately, there was a limitation in this study as well: The food intake of the subjects was self reported, which is known to be notoriously inaccurate.
There have been several other human studies on fish oil and fat loss in the last ten years or so and the majority of the findings have been positive. The research is compelling and there have been numerous, and very plausible mechanisms of action proposed.
However, more and more often, I am hearing people in the health, fitness and nutrition industries making some pretty bold and I daresay, premature and outrageous claims about what fish oil can do for fat loss; claims which are not supported by the research.
The studies on fish oil and fat loss are encouraging, but the vast majority of research has been on animals (rats, mice and hamsters) and there have been limitations in nearly all the human studies so far, including:
Small sample sizes, short study durations, statistically insignificant results, lack of randomization, no control groups, imprecise body composition testing, measurement errors, self-reporting of food intake, low compliance control and fish industry or supplement industry-sponsored bias.
Even if you take the results of the existing research at face value, the fat loss really isn’t all that impressive - an extra pound here, an extra kilo there.
Many of the research results barely reach statistical significance, and you even have to wonder if these small improvements in fat loss are simply correcting omega-3 deficiency or fixing omega-3 and omega-6 imbalance… therefore, will they continue over a longer time period or is this a one time improvement?
One of the earlier studies showed the same kind of measurable but modest results: The fish oil group that took 1.8 grams of combined EPA/DHA daily lost 2 pounds and the non fish oil group lost only 0.7 pounds after 3 weeks (3).
Of course, you’ll probably take all the fat loss help that you can get, and since there are already enough good reasons to eat fatty fish for cardiovascular disease prevention and other health benefits, it’s really a no brainer to eat fish such as salmon, trout, mackerel or sardines at least twice a week. (By the way, with the exception of King Mackerel, these are species which have not been reported as having problems with mercury contamination).
Alternately, you can use a fish oil supplement to get the equivalent in omega-3 fatty acids as found in the fish. Non fish eaters or vegetarians can use flaxseed oil, a plant-based source of Alpha Linolenic Acid (ALA) which converts in the body to EPA and DHA (the efficiency and amount of conversion has been a subject of controversy, however).
Based on the three studies cited above, it looks like 1.5 to 2.0 grams per day of combined DHA/EPA is the right dose when fat loss is the goal (although some suggest you should consider body weight when choosing the dosage, i.e., 1 gram total fish oil for each 20 lbs body weight, so a big guy might go with as much as 3.0 grams)
Most fish oil capsules come in 1,000 mg size at a 30% concentration, so if you took five 1000mg capsules a day, that would give you 1.5 grams of EPA/DHA; about the same as you’d get in 3 ounces (85 g) of salmon.
Note: other studies on fish oil and fat loss tested 3.0 to 4.0 g/day of EPA/DHA, but the American Heart Association has warned against taking more than 3 g EPA/DHA per day without a physicians supervision, as there may be potential contraindications and side effects such as increased bleeding time. Based on the research, more fish oil will NOT burn more fat, so be wary of the “mega dose gurus.”
Another tip: Don’t fall for the “premium price” necessarily means better quality party line. Quality and purity are important, but you can get molecularly-distilled, mercury, PCB, Dioxin, Organochlorine-free, 3rd party tested-to-meet-label-claims fish oil for less than ten bucks per bottle of 400 (one gram) capsules… yet I have seen “fish oil gurus” selling the exact same thing for $50 to $60 claiming that everyone else’s products are “contaminated” and “inferior” in quality. If that’s true, then I’d like to see those products submitted to consumer lab for voluntary 3rd party independent analysis and head to head comparison on purity AND cost effectiveness. If they come out superior and cost effective, I will gladly publicize the results myself.
The bottom line is it looks like fish oil may be a legitimate help to your fat loss efforts, especially when combined with exercise, as there may be an important synergy there. However, the idea that fish oil is some kind of miracle fat burner is just not true.
Like Mulder on the X-files, “I want to believe”… but we need much, much more research before we can say for certain exactly how much body composition improvement you can really expect from eating fatty fish or taking fish oil supplements.
References:
(1) Hill AM. Combining fish-oil supplements with regular aerobic exercise improves body composition and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Am J Clin Nutr. 86(5): 1267-1274. 2007
(2) Thorsdottir I et al. Randomized trial of weight loss diets for young adults varying in fish and fish oil content. Int J Obesity. May 2007. pp 1-7
(3) Couet C. Effect of dietary fish oil on body fat mass and basal fat oxidation in healthy adults. Int J Obes. 21: 637-643. 1997
About the Author:
Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). Tom is the author of "Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using methods 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
Does Hypnosis Work For Weight Loss?
Does Hypnosis Work For Weight Loss?
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
Hypnosis conjures up images of a bearded man with piercing black eyes and a mesmerizing deep voice swinging a pendulum back and forth, chanting, “You are getting very sleeeeepy.” Hypnosis is terribly misunderstood and the only exposure to hypnosis most people will ever have is a Las Vegas stage show. But stage hypnosis for entertainment and hypnotherapy for behavior change are completely different animals. Could “real” hypnotherapy help you get leaner?
I’ve wondered the same thing myself for decades, since I first started bodybuilding.
In the late 1980’s, Dr. Judd Biasiotto published numerous books about the mind in sports including one called, “Hypnotize Me And Make Me Great.”
That 70-page book, which has long since gone out of print (but still holds a hallowed place on my shelf), was one of the books that sparked my interest in mind power and hypnosis.
In case you’re not familiar with strength sports, Dr. Judd is the guy who squatted 605 pounds at a body weight of 132 pounds – a staggering feat, as any powerlifter will tell you. When a world class lifter who also holds a PhD in sports psychology says there’s something to hypnosis, and that his mental training regimen was instrumental in his success, a teenage wannabe bodybuilder, desperate for muscle, listens!
All these years later, my interest in hypnosis and the powers of the mind have never waned. I’ve used self hypnosis as well as hypnosis CD’s, which were directed at improving performance in the gym, generating maximum intensity during workouts and pushing through the pain barrier. While I don’t see hypnosis as anything magical, I do believe it has been helpful. I also believe that a comprehensive mental training program, which may include hypnosis, can make or break your weight loss program success and give athletes a competitive advantage.
Any seasoned coach can tell you that which diet or training program you follow is irrelevant if you can’t follow it consistently. Many of the problems such as non-compliance, self-sabotage, inconsistency and lack of motivation are mind problems, not body problems.
One misconception about hypnosis is the fear that you’ll lose command of your faculties during a session or that it’s some kind of “mind control.” This is not true to any greater degree than your family, friends, peers or culture have “controlled” your mind.
The fact is, the mind is amenable to suggestion, (especially the mind of a very young child), and in that sense everything is hypnosis. Reading the newspaper or watching TV is hypnosis or “mental programming” in one sense. You get “programmed” by societal norms to become one of the masses, unless you make a choice to be different and become what you want to be.
Another source of misconceptions about hypnosis comes from stage hypnosis, which has virtually nothing to do with hypnotherapy for personal change. The stage hypnotist intentionally ferrets out the most susceptible individuals in his audience - who happen to be willing participants - and then induces some hypnotic phenomenon for entertainment value.
Hypnosis, as used in personal change work, is simply a relaxed state of altered consciousness and heightened focus where the conscious mind gets out of the way, allowing a message from the hypnotherapist to reach your subconscious more easily. When your subconscious gets the message, it stimulates positive behaviors, so hypnosis is simply a tool for behavior change.
Self hypnosis (by yourself), is as simple as taking long, deep breaths, getting relaxed (sometimes using progressive muscle relaxation techniques), then doing your visualization or repeating affirmations, or even listening to your own home-made affirmations tape.
Many people report great success with hypnosis, but others do not. The mixed results probably have to do with the practitioner, and some with the subject. What kind of results can you expect from hypnosis? Could hypnosis help you lose weight or change your body in other ways?
I believe that there is a mind-body link and that it’s entirely possible that the brain, central nervous system and subconscious mind can literally “talk” to the various cells of your body and that this may be a factor in healing from illnesses. I believe that the body is a remarkable self-healing machine and its own natural pharmacy.
I think it’s pretty difficult to prove, but being that a legitimate science exists on this subject (it’s called psychoneuroimmunology), the scientific community seems to think enough of the mind-body connection to spend time, money and resources to formally investigate it. There are many exciting and plausible theories. We also have the placebo effect to consider, where a belief can affect biology in truly amazing ways.
That said, when it comes to hypnosis, I think you should view it with an eye of caution as well as interest. First and foremost, and perhaps exclusively, you should see hypnosis as a tool to change behavior. When you look at a claim made for hypnosis, you should ask yourself whether that claim is a result that can be achieved through a change in your behavior.
For example, if someone promotes hypnosis for muscle growth, is it possible that your behavior might change in a way that you gain more muscle? The answer is yes. The hypnosis might help you change your eating habits, and you might just push yourself harder in the gym. Therefore, the muscle growth occurs as a result of behavior change - eating better and training harder - rather than the hypnosis itself.
It’s the same with body fat reduction: Will hypnosis magically increase your metabolism from a mind body connection? While I like to keep an open mind, I seriously doubt it and I’m not too enthused about hypnotherapists who say they will hypnotize you and your metabolism will speed up. If it can happen, I’m not sure it will ever be provable using the scientific method, so it may ultimately come down to your will to believe the claims.
So, could hypnosis help with breast enlargement? Well, maybe. A thought might bubble up from your subconscious mind that it’s a good idea to save up your money, go visit the doctor, and fork over the three grand for implants (sarcasm intended).
Guys, I could give the same warning about hypnosis for enlargement of your…. uh… your amount of hair… yeah, hair growth, that’s it… watch out for those hair growth hypnosis claims. I’m not so sure I believe them (grin).
What about weight loss?
Although the results are not definitive, there’s some clinical psychology research that’s been published in peer reviewed journals which shows successful results from hypnosis for weight loss. In part 2 of this series, you’ll hear more about what those studies found.
Even more eye-opening in my view are some of the documented cases of medical hypnosis, which range from simple pain relief from dental work to surgery without anesthesia (which is pretty freaky if you think about it). The mind does affect the body.
In my opinion, hypnosis sessions or hypnosis CD’s can be a valuable adjunct to a comprehensive fitness, nutrition and lifestyle program for some people, if you get them from a reputable and skilled hypnotherapist.
Even better, I believe the ideal type of session would include conscious coaching and education as well as traditional hypnosis, not just a passive situation where you listen and expect your mind to be positively “programmed.”
Then again, I think this is why weight loss hypnosis CDs sell like gangbusters, because they’re often sold under the pretense that you do absolutely nothing. Just listen and get slim - the perfect “quick fix.”
I don’t think it’s that simple or easy. You have to accept responsibility for change, take an active role in creating change and have a bias for action if you really want to be successful. You have to work on the physical and mental plane simultaneously not just “think positive” or rely on self help CD’s of any kind.
So while I DO believe hypnosis can be a valuable tool, at the end of the day, programming your mind for success all boils down to what you say to yourself (and see/read/listen to), most of the time. You can’t work with a hypnotherapist every day for the rest of your life, but you do talk to yourself non stop every single day, and repetition is a proven way to condition the mind.
The way you talk to yourself, most of the time, IS “hypnosis” if you think about it… it’s self-hypnosis.
If you already have a structured training and nutrition plan, Like Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, but you’re having challenges with the behavior change side of things, I hypnosis or positive mental programming CD’s might be worth trying as an additional tool in your “mental training” took kit.
Just remember that in the long run, you are your own best hypnotherapist and when it comes to the claims, let the buyer beware.
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.burnthefat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.burnthefatinnercircle.com
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
Hypnosis conjures up images of a bearded man with piercing black eyes and a mesmerizing deep voice swinging a pendulum back and forth, chanting, “You are getting very sleeeeepy.” Hypnosis is terribly misunderstood and the only exposure to hypnosis most people will ever have is a Las Vegas stage show. But stage hypnosis for entertainment and hypnotherapy for behavior change are completely different animals. Could “real” hypnotherapy help you get leaner?
I’ve wondered the same thing myself for decades, since I first started bodybuilding.
In the late 1980’s, Dr. Judd Biasiotto published numerous books about the mind in sports including one called, “Hypnotize Me And Make Me Great.”
That 70-page book, which has long since gone out of print (but still holds a hallowed place on my shelf), was one of the books that sparked my interest in mind power and hypnosis.
In case you’re not familiar with strength sports, Dr. Judd is the guy who squatted 605 pounds at a body weight of 132 pounds – a staggering feat, as any powerlifter will tell you. When a world class lifter who also holds a PhD in sports psychology says there’s something to hypnosis, and that his mental training regimen was instrumental in his success, a teenage wannabe bodybuilder, desperate for muscle, listens!
All these years later, my interest in hypnosis and the powers of the mind have never waned. I’ve used self hypnosis as well as hypnosis CD’s, which were directed at improving performance in the gym, generating maximum intensity during workouts and pushing through the pain barrier. While I don’t see hypnosis as anything magical, I do believe it has been helpful. I also believe that a comprehensive mental training program, which may include hypnosis, can make or break your weight loss program success and give athletes a competitive advantage.
Any seasoned coach can tell you that which diet or training program you follow is irrelevant if you can’t follow it consistently. Many of the problems such as non-compliance, self-sabotage, inconsistency and lack of motivation are mind problems, not body problems.
One misconception about hypnosis is the fear that you’ll lose command of your faculties during a session or that it’s some kind of “mind control.” This is not true to any greater degree than your family, friends, peers or culture have “controlled” your mind.
The fact is, the mind is amenable to suggestion, (especially the mind of a very young child), and in that sense everything is hypnosis. Reading the newspaper or watching TV is hypnosis or “mental programming” in one sense. You get “programmed” by societal norms to become one of the masses, unless you make a choice to be different and become what you want to be.
Another source of misconceptions about hypnosis comes from stage hypnosis, which has virtually nothing to do with hypnotherapy for personal change. The stage hypnotist intentionally ferrets out the most susceptible individuals in his audience - who happen to be willing participants - and then induces some hypnotic phenomenon for entertainment value.
Hypnosis, as used in personal change work, is simply a relaxed state of altered consciousness and heightened focus where the conscious mind gets out of the way, allowing a message from the hypnotherapist to reach your subconscious more easily. When your subconscious gets the message, it stimulates positive behaviors, so hypnosis is simply a tool for behavior change.
Self hypnosis (by yourself), is as simple as taking long, deep breaths, getting relaxed (sometimes using progressive muscle relaxation techniques), then doing your visualization or repeating affirmations, or even listening to your own home-made affirmations tape.
Many people report great success with hypnosis, but others do not. The mixed results probably have to do with the practitioner, and some with the subject. What kind of results can you expect from hypnosis? Could hypnosis help you lose weight or change your body in other ways?
I believe that there is a mind-body link and that it’s entirely possible that the brain, central nervous system and subconscious mind can literally “talk” to the various cells of your body and that this may be a factor in healing from illnesses. I believe that the body is a remarkable self-healing machine and its own natural pharmacy.
I think it’s pretty difficult to prove, but being that a legitimate science exists on this subject (it’s called psychoneuroimmunology), the scientific community seems to think enough of the mind-body connection to spend time, money and resources to formally investigate it. There are many exciting and plausible theories. We also have the placebo effect to consider, where a belief can affect biology in truly amazing ways.
That said, when it comes to hypnosis, I think you should view it with an eye of caution as well as interest. First and foremost, and perhaps exclusively, you should see hypnosis as a tool to change behavior. When you look at a claim made for hypnosis, you should ask yourself whether that claim is a result that can be achieved through a change in your behavior.
For example, if someone promotes hypnosis for muscle growth, is it possible that your behavior might change in a way that you gain more muscle? The answer is yes. The hypnosis might help you change your eating habits, and you might just push yourself harder in the gym. Therefore, the muscle growth occurs as a result of behavior change - eating better and training harder - rather than the hypnosis itself.
It’s the same with body fat reduction: Will hypnosis magically increase your metabolism from a mind body connection? While I like to keep an open mind, I seriously doubt it and I’m not too enthused about hypnotherapists who say they will hypnotize you and your metabolism will speed up. If it can happen, I’m not sure it will ever be provable using the scientific method, so it may ultimately come down to your will to believe the claims.
So, could hypnosis help with breast enlargement? Well, maybe. A thought might bubble up from your subconscious mind that it’s a good idea to save up your money, go visit the doctor, and fork over the three grand for implants (sarcasm intended).
Guys, I could give the same warning about hypnosis for enlargement of your…. uh… your amount of hair… yeah, hair growth, that’s it… watch out for those hair growth hypnosis claims. I’m not so sure I believe them (grin).
What about weight loss?
Although the results are not definitive, there’s some clinical psychology research that’s been published in peer reviewed journals which shows successful results from hypnosis for weight loss. In part 2 of this series, you’ll hear more about what those studies found.
Even more eye-opening in my view are some of the documented cases of medical hypnosis, which range from simple pain relief from dental work to surgery without anesthesia (which is pretty freaky if you think about it). The mind does affect the body.
In my opinion, hypnosis sessions or hypnosis CD’s can be a valuable adjunct to a comprehensive fitness, nutrition and lifestyle program for some people, if you get them from a reputable and skilled hypnotherapist.
Even better, I believe the ideal type of session would include conscious coaching and education as well as traditional hypnosis, not just a passive situation where you listen and expect your mind to be positively “programmed.”
Then again, I think this is why weight loss hypnosis CDs sell like gangbusters, because they’re often sold under the pretense that you do absolutely nothing. Just listen and get slim - the perfect “quick fix.”
I don’t think it’s that simple or easy. You have to accept responsibility for change, take an active role in creating change and have a bias for action if you really want to be successful. You have to work on the physical and mental plane simultaneously not just “think positive” or rely on self help CD’s of any kind.
So while I DO believe hypnosis can be a valuable tool, at the end of the day, programming your mind for success all boils down to what you say to yourself (and see/read/listen to), most of the time. You can’t work with a hypnotherapist every day for the rest of your life, but you do talk to yourself non stop every single day, and repetition is a proven way to condition the mind.
The way you talk to yourself, most of the time, IS “hypnosis” if you think about it… it’s self-hypnosis.
If you already have a structured training and nutrition plan, Like Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, but you’re having challenges with the behavior change side of things, I hypnosis or positive mental programming CD’s might be worth trying as an additional tool in your “mental training” took kit.
Just remember that in the long run, you are your own best hypnotherapist and when it comes to the claims, let the buyer beware.
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.burnthefat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
www.burnthefatinnercircle.com
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
Friday, November 19, 2010
The See-Food, Reach-Food Diet
The See-Food, Reach-Food Diet
By Tom Venuto
www.BurnTheFat.com
You’ve heard of the “See-Food” diet haven’t you? No, that’s not the diet where you load up on fish, lobster, crab and mussels. The See-Food Diet is the one that so many of us crack jokes about – it’s the diet where you eat everything in sight! But don’t laugh too hard. Scientists at Cornell University and other research institutions have proven that you actually WILL eat more food if you see food more. In fact, if you can see it and it’s within arm’s reach, you could eat yourself obese within a few years and not even know what hit you because the eating happens unconsciously.
It should be common sense that when you’re constantly surrounded by food, you tend to eat more.
But one thing that hasn’t been clear until recently was how seeing food (visibility) and having it within reach (proximity) could influence unconscious eating (and how it influences what I call “eating amnesia”).
Developmental psychologists tell us that the more effort or time you invest in a unique activity, the more likely you’ll be to remember it.
In other words, if you have to go out of your way to get food, you’ll remember eating it. If the food is right there within arms reach, you’ll munch away and more easily forget it.
For years, Dr. Brian Wansink of the Food and Brand Laboratory at Cornell University has been conducting fascinating experiments to find out what really makes you eat more food than you need.
Some of his previous studies revealed that taste, palatability, mood, stress, social context, role models (parental influence), visual cues, visibility and convenience can all influence how much you eat (Eating behavior is environmentally and psychologically influenced – appetite is not just biological).
To explore the influence of food proximity and visibility on eating behavior, Wansink set up an experiment using 40 female staff members from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champain. The subjects were not told it was a weight loss or calorie-related study. They were told that they would be given a free candy dish filled with chocolates (candy “kisses”) and they’d be contacted and surveyed about their candy preferences. They were also told not to share the candies, take them home or move the dish.
Participants were divided into four groups:
1) Proximate and visible (can see and reach)
2) Proximate and non-visible (can reach but not see)
3) Less proximate and visible (can see but can’t reach)
4) Less proximate and non visible (can’t see, and can’t reach)
During each day of the four week study, 30 chocolates were placed in 20 clear containers and 20 opaque containers and delivered to the 40 subjects. The containers were replenished every afternoon. They were kept in the same location for 4 straight business days and then rotated on the following week. Researchers kept a daily record of the number of chocolates eaten from each container and comparisons were made from the data collected.
At the end of each week, each subject was given a questionnaire which asked them how much they thought they had eaten over the entire week and asked them about their perceptions regarding the chocolates (such as “it was difficult to stop eating them,” “I thought of eating the chocolates often,” etc).
When the results were tabulated, here’s what Dr. Wansink and his research team discovered:
The visibility and proximity of the candy dish also influenced the subject’s perceptions. Regardless of whether participants could actually see the chocolates, if the candies were sitting on the desk (as opposed to being a mere 2 meters away), they were rated as more attention-attracting and difficult to resist. Candies in the clear containers were also rated as more difficult to resist and more attention attracting.
Most interesting of all, this study confirmed that when food is close by and visible, you’ll not only eat more, you’ll also be likely to forget that you ate them and therefore, underestimate how much you’ve eaten (I like to call that “eating amnesia.”)
Is a few extra candies a day really a big deal?
If it becomes habitual it sure is! Over a year, the difference between the candy dish placement would mean 125 calories per day which adds up to 12 extra pounds of body fat over a year.
When given the advice to keep junk food out of the house and office, I often hear complaints that it’s “impossible” to do because the rest of the family would have a fit, or simply not allow it. As for the office, one of the biggest excuses I’ve heard for diet failure is that the temptations are always there and it’s out of your control to change. Invariably someone else brings doughnuts or candy to the office.
Now you know what to do to reduce temptation and successfully stick with your program more effectively:
If you can’t keep it out of your office or house, keep it out of sight and out of arm’s reach. That alone is enough to reduce consumption.
At home, if your significant other or family is not willing to remove all offending foods from the premises, then get their agreement that their food is not to remain in plain sight - it goes in the back of a refrigerator drawer and not on the shelf at eye level, or if non-perishable, it goes inside a cupboard that is exclusively the domain of the other person.
At work, tell your office pals to keep the candy, doughnuts and other temptations off your desk, at a distance and out of sight. If they put any unhealthy snacks on your desk, promptly remove them!
Environmental cues can trigger you to eat impulsively. If you can see it and reach it, you’ll eat more of it, and you’ll forget how much you ate. So get the junk out of your home and office now and if you can’t, then get it out of your sight. If you can’t do that, get it out of arms reach.
Better yet, setup an "environment for success" with a lifestyle program like my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle system.
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.burnthefat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
http://burnthefat.hop.clickbank.net/?page=inner_circle
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
You’ve heard of the “See-Food” diet haven’t you? No, that’s not the diet where you load up on fish, lobster, crab and mussels. The See-Food Diet is the one that so many of us crack jokes about – it’s the diet where you eat everything in sight! But don’t laugh too hard. Scientists at Cornell University and other research institutions have proven that you actually WILL eat more food if you see food more. In fact, if you can see it and it’s within arm’s reach, you could eat yourself obese within a few years and not even know what hit you because the eating happens unconsciously.
It should be common sense that when you’re constantly surrounded by food, you tend to eat more.
But one thing that hasn’t been clear until recently was how seeing food (visibility) and having it within reach (proximity) could influence unconscious eating (and how it influences what I call “eating amnesia”).
Developmental psychologists tell us that the more effort or time you invest in a unique activity, the more likely you’ll be to remember it.
In other words, if you have to go out of your way to get food, you’ll remember eating it. If the food is right there within arms reach, you’ll munch away and more easily forget it.
For years, Dr. Brian Wansink of the Food and Brand Laboratory at Cornell University has been conducting fascinating experiments to find out what really makes you eat more food than you need.
Some of his previous studies revealed that taste, palatability, mood, stress, social context, role models (parental influence), visual cues, visibility and convenience can all influence how much you eat (Eating behavior is environmentally and psychologically influenced – appetite is not just biological).
To explore the influence of food proximity and visibility on eating behavior, Wansink set up an experiment using 40 female staff members from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champain. The subjects were not told it was a weight loss or calorie-related study. They were told that they would be given a free candy dish filled with chocolates (candy “kisses”) and they’d be contacted and surveyed about their candy preferences. They were also told not to share the candies, take them home or move the dish.
Participants were divided into four groups:
1) Proximate and visible (can see and reach)
2) Proximate and non-visible (can reach but not see)
3) Less proximate and visible (can see but can’t reach)
4) Less proximate and non visible (can’t see, and can’t reach)
During each day of the four week study, 30 chocolates were placed in 20 clear containers and 20 opaque containers and delivered to the 40 subjects. The containers were replenished every afternoon. They were kept in the same location for 4 straight business days and then rotated on the following week. Researchers kept a daily record of the number of chocolates eaten from each container and comparisons were made from the data collected.
At the end of each week, each subject was given a questionnaire which asked them how much they thought they had eaten over the entire week and asked them about their perceptions regarding the chocolates (such as “it was difficult to stop eating them,” “I thought of eating the chocolates often,” etc).
When the results were tabulated, here’s what Dr. Wansink and his research team discovered:
The visibility and proximity of the candy dish also influenced the subject’s perceptions. Regardless of whether participants could actually see the chocolates, if the candies were sitting on the desk (as opposed to being a mere 2 meters away), they were rated as more attention-attracting and difficult to resist. Candies in the clear containers were also rated as more difficult to resist and more attention attracting.
Most interesting of all, this study confirmed that when food is close by and visible, you’ll not only eat more, you’ll also be likely to forget that you ate them and therefore, underestimate how much you’ve eaten (I like to call that “eating amnesia.”)
Is a few extra candies a day really a big deal?
If it becomes habitual it sure is! Over a year, the difference between the candy dish placement would mean 125 calories per day which adds up to 12 extra pounds of body fat over a year.
When given the advice to keep junk food out of the house and office, I often hear complaints that it’s “impossible” to do because the rest of the family would have a fit, or simply not allow it. As for the office, one of the biggest excuses I’ve heard for diet failure is that the temptations are always there and it’s out of your control to change. Invariably someone else brings doughnuts or candy to the office.
Now you know what to do to reduce temptation and successfully stick with your program more effectively:
If you can’t keep it out of your office or house, keep it out of sight and out of arm’s reach. That alone is enough to reduce consumption.
At home, if your significant other or family is not willing to remove all offending foods from the premises, then get their agreement that their food is not to remain in plain sight - it goes in the back of a refrigerator drawer and not on the shelf at eye level, or if non-perishable, it goes inside a cupboard that is exclusively the domain of the other person.
At work, tell your office pals to keep the candy, doughnuts and other temptations off your desk, at a distance and out of sight. If they put any unhealthy snacks on your desk, promptly remove them!
Environmental cues can trigger you to eat impulsively. If you can see it and reach it, you’ll eat more of it, and you’ll forget how much you ate. So get the junk out of your home and office now and if you can’t, then get it out of your sight. If you can’t do that, get it out of arms reach.
Better yet, setup an "environment for success" with a lifestyle program like my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle system.
Tom Venuto, author of
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
www.burnthefat.com
Founder & CEO of
Burn The Fat Inner Circle
http://burnthefat.hop.clickbank.net/?page=inner_circle
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
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Real Way to Stop Eating Fast Food
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)