Losing Fat: A Guide for the Lazy (Part III - Resistance Training)

Thus far in this series, I've covered effective weight loss tools such as food choice and intermittent fasting that are simple, reliable, no BS methods for improving our health.  But, there is yet one more tool that we must consider before we go about losing weight.  This tool is very simply resistance training.

Now, before you decide, "OK, thanks for the weight loss advice thus far, but I'm not lifting weights!"; just hear me out.

You see, whenever we go about losing weight, we run the very real risk of losing lean mass.  Study after study have shown that when we follow a hypocaloric diet plan (that is, when we eat fewer calories than we need to maintain our weight), lean mass is often lost in addition to fat mass.

Even more, higher protein diets (despite what some "experts" espouse) are not a surefire insurance policy for holding on to our muscle mass while losing weight.  Grant it, they do help, but we need to do more if we want to better ensure we hold on to our lean mass while dieting.

Interestingly, one thing, and one thing only, may be more (yes more!) effective than high protein for maintaining lean mass while one endures a caloric deficit.  This one thing is resistance training.

Kidney Disease May Hold the Clue

It's well known that very low protein diets can lead to muscle wasting in inactive individuals, but what about active individuals?

Some interesting research conducted by Castaneda et al. in 2001 can tell just what happens.  Researches wanted to assess what effect resistance training would have on older individuals with renal dysfunction.

For some background info, people with renal dysfunction (i.e. kidney disease) cannot safely metabolize high amounts of protein.  Thus, patients with this disease are prescribed very low protein diets.  Subjects in this study were only given .6 grams of protein per 1 kilogram of body weight (about .3 grams per pound of body weight).  Not only is this amount much lower than the USDA guidelines for protein (which are arguably too low anyway), but this amount is also way, way, way lower than what typical broscience and gym lore proselytizers advocate.

So what happened to these poor souls who endured such a low protein diet?

Well, researches divided subjects into two groups.  One wherein subjects did not practice resistance training, and another wherein subjects participated in resistance training 3x per week.  Unsurprisingly, the non-resistance trained group lost muscle mass (even though subjects were not actually trying to lose weight).  However, very surprisingly, the group that did participate in resistance training maintained and even gained muscle mass and strength (despite the fact that subjects were consuming relatively low amounts of protein).

What can the results of this study tell us?

That resistance training (not protein per se) is going to be a perhaps more reliable asset in retaining muscle mass during a diet than protein alone.  This hypothesis can be further confirmed by the numerous studies comparing the effects of weight loss in resistance trained vs non-resistance trained individuals.  The people lifting weights time and again effectively maintain, and in some cases increase, their lean mass while dieting.

Think of this in terms of "use it or lose it."  Muscle is metabolically "expensive," and if your body perceives that it no longer needs it in order to survive, it will allow its muscle tissue to waste away for the sake of energy efficiency.  Why maintain something, if it no longer serves an important survival purpose?

We can avoid muscle loss, however, if we provide the body with an adequate reason for it to hold on to our muscle (i.e. we need to resistance train).

But How Much Resistance Training Is Required?

Researchers have been looking for definitive answer to this question for years.  Moreover, they're still searching for an end all be all answer.

Work by Taaffe et al suggests that progressive resistance training done with 3 work sets at 80% of one's 1 repetition max performed just once a week "improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults."  Moreover, training just once per week did not yield noticeable differences in comparison to subjects who trained more frequently.

In another study from the British Journal of Sports Medicine researchers determined that "[o]ne set of exercises performed once weekly to muscle fatigue improved strength as well as twice a week" in older adults.

Research on younger subjects reveals similar findings.  Work conducted by researchers, published by The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, reveals "that for pubescent male athletes, a 1-day-a-week maintenance program is sufficient to retain strength."

A research review conducted by Wornbom et al in 2007 suggests that differences in the frequency, intensity, and volume of resistance exercise do not yield noticeable differences in muscle hypertrophy and strength.  The researchers state, "[t]he results demonstrate that given sufficient frequency, intensity and volume of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at an impressive rate and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training."  Thus, we may conclude that most any type of resistance training can, and will work.  

This research review in particular may serve as a potential explanation for why so many different effective weight training and muscle building programs seem to saturate the internet.  

Why do so many seemingly contradictory methods of weight training work?  

They work because they do.

This answer may seem a tad redundant (and it is), but it may just be the truth.  So long as we provide some form of resistance training, whether high volume, low volume, high frequency, low frequency, high intensity, or low intensity; so long as we provide some sort of external stress that necessitates the maintenance of or increase in muscle mass and strength, we're in good shape.

My Recommendation

While I could just say "do whatever, because anything will work," doing so would be rather fallacious and irresponsible.

By looking at the above research, particularly the first two research studies I mentioned, I recommend that you do between 1-3 work sets done to muscular fatigue in 6-8 reps with pertinent exercises at a frequency of once every 5-7 days.  Additionally, you should ensure that the resistance you're using progressively increases over the course of time.  Continue to add 5-10 pounds of resistance to your exercises so long as you continue to be able to perform 1-3 sets of 6-8 reps for said exercises.

So what exercises do I recommend?

The following program ought to do the trick:

Any sort of Chest Press/Dip 1-3x6-8

Any sort of Military/Shoulder Press 1-3x6-8

Any sort of Row 1-3x6-8

Any sort of Lateral Pull-down/Chin-up 1-3x6-8

Any sort of Leg Press/Leg Extension/Squat 1-3x6-8

Any sort of Leg Curl/Straight Leg Deadlift/Glute Raise 1-3x6-8

This program should be enough to allow you to maintain, and perhaps even build, muscle mass while you lose weight in conjunction with the methods I outlined in Parts I & II of this series.

What About Cardio?

I've actually already discussed cardio in a previous post entitled Exercise in Review: "Cardio".  Rather than repeat myself, you can just read the post.

That's All She Wrote! (Well, Actually He, That Being Me)

This 3 part series only scratches the surface of potential options for effective fat loss methods.  Give them a try, but know that there's nothing truly revolutionary about them.

Understand, however, that there are no quick fixes.  A healthy life demands a healthy lifestyle.  Yo-yo dieting often results from an inability or a lack of willingness to make effective changes in one's habits.  Too many people like to make extreme changes in their diet/exercise, fully expecting that will power will be enough to keep them on track.  It just won't work (I think the popular TV show Biggest Loser adequately illustrates this point).

Don't make a reliance on will power your long term means for achieving health.  Rather, use will power as a short term tool (sort of like a scaffolding) for developing long term habits.  (For a closer look at the subject of addiction and habit, I recommend the book Addiction and Virtue:  Beyond the Models of Disease and Choice).

Losing Fat: A Guide for the Lazy (Part II - Fasting)

In Part I of this series, I covered some elements of food choice, and, more specifically, how we can cause ourselves to spontaneously eat in accordance with a much healthier level of food intake, conducive to a lower, more natural, level of defended body-fattedness.

Today, I want to turn to another effective tool that can allow us to spontaneously eat less; though this method may seem a bit more controversial.  As you may have guessed by the title of this post, I'm talking about fasting.

In My Defense

Now, before you decide to hang my neck to high heaven for suggesting that fasting can be a viable (and healthy) tool in our fat loss arsenal, understand that I'm not talking about starvation dieting.  There's a very real difference between an occasional "break" from food, and chronic deprivation from food.  Moreover, realize that what I'm proposing we do is nothing radical or "new."

Cultures across the world have been practicing some form of fasting for thousands of years.  Even in early Christianity, fasting 2 days a week was a regular and common practice.

Also, relatively recent research seems to suggest that fasting can be an effective tool for improving health and aiding in weight loss.

If you really want to dig into the potential benefits of fasting, there are two experts (who in my mind at least) are the most coherent and logically oriented thinkers on this issue:  Martin Berkhan (a Swedish nutritionist and one "shredded" son of gun) and Brad Pilon (a nutritionist from Canada ay!).

These two are considered the leading giants in the field (if you want to call it a field) of fasting research.  These two both have done an excellent job of tackling many of the myths and fears surrounding fasting.  I strongly recommend checking out Berkhan's site (linked above.  Warning!  Berkhan is not averse to using less than savory word choice) and Brad's book, Eat Stop Eat (probably one of the best resources on fasting research I have ever seen).

While these two differ in their implementation of fasting, their justifications for its usage are complimentary.

But, my goal today is not to defend fasting (Brad and Martin have already made a powerful case for me).  Rather, my goal is prescriptive, not descriptive.

Let's Do Some Math (Yeah! Math!)

Now, we know that losing fat is a mater of eating less energy in the form of calories than your body expends. But, does it make a difference if we look at the implications of this equation of energy balance over the course of a longer time span than a day?  What I'm asking is, say we need a weekly caloric deficit of 3,500 calories to lose 1 pound of fat (ruling out the fact that weight loss doesn't intrinsically work so simply).  Does it really make a difference if I eat at a 500 calorie deficit every day of the week, or if I eat at a 1,750 calorie deficit just 2 days out of the week, all the while eating a normal amount of calories the other 5 days a week.

Brad, Martin, and I say "no."  You of course won't lose 1/2 a pound of fat by not eating 1,750 calories in a single day.  But, the long term implications of this acute caloric deficit will play out over the course of the next several days.  Thus, over the span of a week, your weight loss would be no different whether you ate at a caloric deficit every day of the week or if you implemented 2 big caloric deficits 2 days out of the week.

It doesn't matter what we eat or when we eat.  It matters how much we eat. (read that again!)

Now, I'm not saying that we don't have to eat plenty of whole foods.  Understand, though, that diets of strictly whole foods such as paleo, or elimination diets such as Atkins, cause us to spontaneously eat less.  This is because these diets do a number of important things which decrease our psychological drive to eat to excess.  1) they reduce the variety of foods we have to choose from.  2) the foods they allow us to eat are often higher in protein, fiber, and water (characteristics which have been shown to improve the satiety of food).  Thus, diets which restrict our food selection or force us to eat foods higher in protein, fiber, and water change our brain's perception of how much food it should impel us to eat.  WE EAT LESS!

Fasting, likewise, can be used to allow us to eat less.  By simply taking a "break" from food for 1 or 2 days out of the week, and by continuing to eat "normally" for the rest of the week (by normally, I mean not using the "breaks" from food as an excuse to overeat or eat more than you otherwise would when you do eat), we can achieve weight loss.

Moreover, if we can combine fasting with the dietary guidelines I offered in Part I of this series, we can perhaps greatly improve our chances of losing weight (which were already quite high to begin with!).

But How to Go About Fasting?

There are really two types of fasting we have to choose from.  The first is called "intermittent fasting" (IF).  This consists of taking intermittent breaks from eating, such as a 24 hour fast 1-2x per week.  This is the method espoused by Brad Pilon.  Brad's method is really quite simple.  Just don't eat anything for a 24 hour period 1-2x a week (with at least 48 hours between fasts), and eat normally the rest of the time.

The other method we might refer to as "intermittent feasting."  This is the method used by Martin Berkhan.  This method entails a daily fast of 14-20 hours and a 4-10 hour "eating window" in which you consume your daily allotment of calories.  Some people have even taken this method to the extreme by eating just one meal a day (and a monstrous meal it is!).

Which one is for you?

Ultimately, the choice is yours as to which method would best suit you.  One is not in and of itself better.  It's just a matter of which one is better for you and your life circumstances.

Some people find the intermittent fasting approach much more convenient and less invasive to their daily lives.  This is because you can, with this method, begin your 24 hour fast at any time of the day (i.e. you can fast breakfast to breakfast, lunch to lunch, dinner to dinner, etc.).  In my experience, lunch to lunch and dinner to dinner seem to work pretty well from a psychological stand point (but do what suits you best).

Others, however, find a 24 hour fast too intrusive and difficult to accomplish.  For these people, a more moderate daily fast of 16-18 hours might be a more attractive option.  This method permits people to eat some incredibly massive meals.  Many may find that the sacrifice of daily fasting is well worth the rewards of eating large and filling meals.  In my personal experience, this method can be pretty fun.  I've used this method of intermittent feasting to eat entire boxes of crispy rice cereal in one sitting with protein powder "milk," to great effect.  Moreover, I ate these sorts of massive meals at night (a time when mainstream health "experts" claim I would be primed for storing my food as fat!), without gaining any amount of fat.  In fact, I lost fat.  Grant it, I did count calories, but this fact only serves to illustrate the point which I've already made:  It's how much we eat, not what or when, that determines weight loss or weight gain.  I've yet to see any legitimate research that has proven otherwise.

So, whatever method of fasting you choose (intermittent fasting, intermittent feasting, or some conglomerate of both), understand that it's the long term balance of energy in vs. energy out that will ultimately determine whether you gain or lose fat.  Don't deceive yourself, and don't be deceived by the flashy promises of health and wellness gurus (Dr. Oz) who just over-hype this or that weight loss tool in order to convince you that anything other than eating less is what truly matters.

Concluding Remarks

We've covered two viable tools that we can use to lose weight:  food choice, and fasting.  

Whether you want to use one, the other, or both is purely up to you.  People have reported seeing results with both independent of the other.

The Big Picture

We can see that by manipulating both the what and the when of eating, we can lose weight.  But, ultimately, changing the what and the when only work because they lead to a change in how much.

I tend to think that an effective lifestyle change requires us to manipulate the what and when to a certain extent, but how this change manifests itself can vary from person to person.

Keep in mind that the changes in food choice I proposed in Part I of this series, and the changes for when you eat that I've suggested in this post, will only be effective in the long term if you can make them work as a part of a lifestyle change.  My overriding admonition to you is this:  FIND SOMETHING THAT WORKS WELL AND WORKS WELL FOR YOU.  If that's a certain "diet," that's great!  If it's fasting, awesome!  If it's just counting calories and macros, that's cool too!

To be as redundant as possible:  IF IT WORKS, IT WORKS!

So what will work for you?  Well, only you can figure out the answer.

That's it till Part III of this series wherein I'll talk about resistance training and other modes of activity which can greatly improve the effectiveness and healthfulness of our weight loss efforts.

A Push/Pull/Legs Split That Will Make You Look Like a Man!

I was a tad board, so I thought I'd just go ahead and make the dreams of any 18 year old - 20 something male come true.

That's right, I'm talking how to build musclez!

Don't tell me that you've never thought about how awesome it would be to look like Captain America or Thor!  I won't believe you for a second!

So come closer now as I tell you my secretz!

Secret #1:  Get stronger using progressive tension overload (i.e. lift progressively heavier weights).

I hope I just blew your mind.

Secret #2:  Get stronger in relevant exercises (i.e. don't you even dare touch P90X.  I might just have to take away your intelligence card.)

Secret #3 (Related to #2):  Muscle confusion is a concept for hamsters who want to continuously spin the wheels of stagnation.  If you're not consistently getting stronger in a select few exercises, how are you going to measure progress or even achieve any?

Secret #4:  Work hard, and understand that change requires time and commitment.

*Note:  This program is for intermediate/more advanced trainees who have been working out consistently for at least 6 months - 1 year.

You're welcome!

The Weight Training Routine

Pull

Cable Row 4x4-6

Weighted Chins 4x4-6

Cable Face Pull 6x8-12

Close Grip Chins 3x6-8

DB Curl 3x8-12

Cable Curl 2x1’

Push

Incline Bench (do at a 30* angle to the floor) 4x4-6

Weighted Parallel Bar Dips 4x4-6

Lateral Raise 6x8-12

Close Grip Bench 3x6-8

Triceps Extension 3x8-12

Push-ups 2x1’

Legs

Hex Squat/Front Squat 4x4-6

Leg Press 4x4-6

Calves 6x8-12

Leg Extension 3x6-8

Leg Curl 3x6-8

Planks 2x1’

The Schedule  Week 1                Week 2                   Week 3              

Monday              Push                      Pull                        Legs     

Tuesday             off                           off                          off                          

Wednesday       Pull                        Legs                       Push                     

Thursday           off                           off                          off                          

Friday                Legs                       Push                       Pull                       

Saturday           Push                       Pull                        Legs     

Sunday               off                           off                           off

The Diet             Rest Days                          Workout Days

Kcals                     12-14/lb of BW                 16-18/lb of BW

Protein                 90-120g*                            120-150g*

CHO                      60-70g*                              115-125g*

Fat                        4.2g/lb of BW*                  4.2g/lb of BW*

*Ranges represent minimum values for each nutrient. 

The Cardio

On your rest days, do some form of low intensity cardio for 40-60 minutes, as well as full-body stretching.

The Questions

How much weight should I use?

*As much as you can within the prescribed set and rep range.  Say the volume is 4x4-6 – if you can lift a weight for 6 reps on the first set, and do no less than 4 on the remaining 3, bump up the weight by 5-10lbs for the next workout.  Progressive tension overload is the magic “secret” to getting stronger and more muscled.

How fast should I lift the weight?

*Lift the weight slow enough to ensure that your muscles, and not the laws of physics, are doing the work.  Don’t throw around the weight or use crappy form just to get a rep out.  Be honest with yourself and check your ego at the door.  Also, DO NOT (NO NEVER) DO KIPPING CHIN-UPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do I need to warm-up, or should I just jump right in?

*Do a warm-up, but keep it simple.  There’s no need to over-exert yourself to the point that you can barely stand.  Just do some warm-up sets for the first lift of each session:  1^st set = 12x50% target weight; rest 1 minute; 2^nd set = 10x50% target weight; rest 1 minute; 3^rd set = 4x70% target weight; rest 1 minute; 4^th set = 1x90% target weight; rest 2 minutes; begin work sets.  If you workout in the morning, do between 5-10 minutes of cardio just to get your core body temperature up; otherwise, don’t worry about it.

You mentioned resting between warm-up sets.  What about for the rest of the workout?

*For the 4-6 rep range, rest 2-3 minutes between sets.  For the 6-8 rep range, rest 1-2 minutes.  For the 8-12 rep range, rest 1 minute.  For everything else, I don’t care.

Should I do anything at the end of my workout?

*Some light stretching.

That schedule doesn't work for me.  Can I switch it up?

*So long as you ensure you average between 4-6 days between sessions of a certain kind, you can change up the schedule however your little heart desires.

What about a pre-workout supplement?

*I like coffee.

And post-workout?

*Just eat some protein and carbs in the 24 hours after you workout.  The only supplement you might find worth the time is creatine monohydrate (don’t get any of the fluffed up varieties.  The plain kind will do just nicely.).

How often should I eat?

*Eat whenever you feel like.  Just make sure your average calorie consumption and macronutrient consumption falls with the parameters listed above.

So I should eat every 2-3 hours?

*If you want to.  Meal frequency has nothing to do with metabolism, or your ability to more efficiently lose or gain weight.  Eat when it’s convenient.

So what if I only ate 1 meal a-day wise guy?

*Do it if you want.  You can conceivably go up to 72 hours without food, and you’d be fine (no muscle loss, no nothing).  You'd get a little hungry though.

Well, what should I eat then?

*I generally recommend eating lots of whole foods like meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, potatoes, rice, etc., but food choice doesn’t actually matter in terms of body composition.  Your long term energy balance does, however.  Eat responsibly (whatever that should mean to you).

Can I do HIIT or sprints or run a mile on my off days rather than walk?

*Do want you want, just don’t work yourself into the ground in a vain attempt to lose fat.  This routine is geared toward muscle building, and muscle building requires caloric adequacy (not a surplus mind you).  Doing excessive amounts of cardio may cause an otherwise adequate amount of calories to turn into insufficient calories.

Wait.  What’s “caloric adequacy?”

*It’s as many calories as you can eat without gaining fat.  You need a little more than maintenance calories to build muscle, but not a ton.  Muscle is built very slowly at the cellular level, and more calories will not force more growth.  Calories are permissive, not coercive.  If you start putting on fat, you’re eating more than is necessary to permit optimal muscle growth.

I’m not growing?

*Are you getting 8-9 hours of sleep every night?  Are you eating enough?  Are you progressively adding weight to your lifts?  Are you using un-compromised form?  Are you following the dietary guidelines I gave you?  Are you dead or dying?

If you have any further questions, leave a comment, and I'll get to you as fast as possible.  I may have been a little cheeky in this post, but it's all in fun.  I'm not a total jerk!

Losing Fat: A Guide for the Lazy (Part I - The Diet)

As the title of this post suggests, I'm about to tell you the laziest way ever that one can lose lose fat.

This is not to say that what I'm going to propose is "easy" per se.  Rather, it's simple and effortless in the sense that you won't have to count calories, and you won't have to do much more for exercise than perform some form of resistance training once per week and just get in a good 40-60 minute walk every day.

The Diet

What We Were Made For

I've mentioned previously the concept of food reward and how the satiety of the food we eat on a regular basis can negatively or positively effect the level of "body-fattedness" that our bodies try to defend.  If you'll remember, I mentioned that protein, fiber, and water content were most associated with a high satiety index (SI) value, and that foods which contain ample amounts of such are shown to reduce hunger and in general promote lower calorie consumption.  

It's speculated that natural foods, which are high in protein, fiber, and water, are what our bodies have been designed to handle.  Before the advent of agriculture, and long before the industrialization of food production, we as a species lived off the land; eating whatever wild game, fish, or foul we could kill (protein), and scavenging for any sort of wild growing fruits, vegetables, and tubers (fiber & water) we could find.

Not only did living in such an environment promote much "healthier" levels of calorie consumption, but such living conditions also necessitated a higher level of activity (i.e. a lot of walking, some sprinting, and occasionally having to contend with a heavy object or two).

What Happened?

Contrast this environment with our modern one, and you can easily see that there is a great discrepancy between the sort of environment we were made to live in, and the environment which we have created for ourselves via agriculture and industrialization.  Nowadays, for the most part, we make a living by exerting very little physical energy, and our food often comes in colorful packaging (filled with excessive sugar, fat, and artificial flavors to promote chronic consumption).  

In our market economy, great care is taken to ensure that we gleefully and readily eat mass-produced foods such as chips, boxed cookies, sugary cereals, etc.  These foods have, believe it or not, been specifically and meticulously designed  by food researchers and scientists to be the most addicting/habit forming substances possible.  As a result, when we expose ourselves to such foods, our homeostatic system (which was designed to live in a "hunter-gatherer"-esque environment) is overloaded.  While we would otherwise only be motivated to seek out food to survive, in an environment rich in calories, tastes, and textures, we can't help but capitalize on the situation by eating to excess.  After all, such foods would have been the "jack-pot" for our ancestors, and they would have happily taken advantage (oh would they have taken advantage!) of a stack of cookies and ice cream if they ever were to come upon such things in the wild.

It's not intrinsically your fault if you've found yourself on the verge of, or in the midst of, obesity.  It's not you, it's the environment to which you've exposed yourself.

Now, I don't want us to overly demonize the industrial food market.  Food producers are just looking to create a profit, and sure enough, they've found that we the costumers are willing and ready to divulge cash for cheap, tasty, and calorie rich foods.  Supply and demand is the name of the came, and the conspiracy goes no further.

How We Can Reverse Things

I don't think I have to go to great lengths to describe what to do.  We know what sorts of foods promote moderation, and we know what foods favor excess, so, if we want to get ourselves to a healthier and more natural level of body-fattedness, we need to avoid the foods (for the most part.  I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy a piece of pie ever again in your life) which promote excessive eating, and we need to instead eat natural whole foods.

If you were to eliminate all processed foods and replace them with ample amounts of fish, meats, raw & steamed vegetables, whole fruits, potatoes, sweet potatoes, plain rice, and properly prepared grains and legumes, you would be surprised at how easily the pounds would fly off.

Suggestions

In general, the more fat you need to lose, the more simple and bland you should make your diet.  By reducing you daily food options to only the bare essentials (protein, fiber, and water) your body's homeostatic systems should respond by defending a lower body-fattedness quite readily.  Moreover, because you won't be fighting your body, but rather working with it, the process will be fairly painless and effortless.  That's not to say that avoiding packaged and sugary foods won't be challenging, but at least you won't go hungry.  You may suffer withdrawals, but nothing more.

I should also add that, while things like plain potatoes are actually quite filling (more than meats!), carrying around excess fat is associated with chronic inflammation and insulin resistance.  As a result, your body's ability to properly handle carbohydrates is somewhat impaired.  Thus, I recommend, at least early on, that you avoid eating large quantities of carbs in general.  Instead, stick to green and fibrous vegetables and limited quantities of berries as a fruit source (apples and citrus fruits are an exception since they are some of the more satiating fruits, not to mention excellent sources of vitamins and minerals).  You don't need to count carbs, just limit your carb options to mostly vegetables and some fruit to make it harder to consume higher quantities.

Dietary fat is also something important which must needs addressing.  You need fat in order to ensure healthy hormonal regulation and, in lieu of carbs, fat is an excellent source of long term energy.  Use fat sources like olive oil, coconut oil, butter, and ghee for cooking and using on salads.  I recommend you avoid things like nuts (especially salted and roasted varieties), nut butters, and cheese in the beginning stages.  I've personally found that I have a hard time putting these foods down once I start to eat them, thus, at least for myself, they promote excess.  While I believe such foods can be healthy additions do one's diet, hold off on them for a while until you start getting close to or reach your goal weight.

Eat plenty of protein.  Protein is the most satiating macro-nutrient of all, and higher levels of protein consumption have been associated with better retention of lean body mass while one loses fat.  Include plenty of protein at every meal.  Wild caught fish and grass fed meats are the best sources as they are less inflammatory than conventionally fed and farm raised varieties.  You are what you eat so to speak, and if you eat an unhealthy, obese animal, you might just find yourself suffering for it in terms of chronic inflammation and joint pain.  These issues arise in part because conventionally fed animals, which consume a diet high in grains rather than grass (the thing they're supposed to eat) and suffer obesity, have imbalanced ratios of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids (greater levels of omega 6 to omega 3 are associated with inflammation).  As a result, when we eat these inflamed animals, we are taking in this same pro-inflammatory balance of fatty acids.  With that said, grass fed meats and wild caught fish can be on the expensive side of things, and in some situations they can be hard to come by.  If you must buy conventional meats for the sake of convenience, get leaner cuts so as to avoid over consuming excessive amounts of omega 6.

Concluding Remarks

Let's recap:

*Avoid packaged, factory processed, hyper-rewarding foods.

*Stick to whole foods high in protein, fiber, and water content.

Seems simple enough eh?

Next time, I'll discuss yet another tool that you can use in your arsenal to lose fat.

A Case for Creatine

If I were ever to endorse any one supplement, and only one supplement ever, it would be creatine monohydrate.  No fillers, no "junk," just pure creatine monohydrate.

Why?

Because it may be one of the only true "supplements" that has ever been proven effective (and significantly so) at allowing both men and women (independent of any other variable, dietary or otherwise) to more quickly build muscle.

Do a quick search of creatine monohydrate on Google Scholar if you don't believe me.  There are truly countless studies out there which yield consistent results regarding its effectiveness.

Moreover, supplement companies know this, and marketers and supplement producers take great care to ensure that you don't realize that creatine is truly one of the only effective and worthwhile ingredients one can put in a product.  This is because creatine, when bought alone and its pure state, is very cheap (I was able to buy a 400 days supply of the stuff for just $40).  Thus, its potential to produce a significant amount of revenue for supplement companies is somewhat thwarted.  However, if supplement companies put creatine into a "performance enhancing product," replete with a host of added ingredients (many of which are pure junk despite what the colorful packaging may say), they can turn an honest $10 product into a $30-$80 dollar act of thievery.

Why It Works

Brad Pilon*, in his book How Much Protein?, has this to say about creatine:

Here’s a quick ‘insider tip’ for you – if a protein powder has a claim on its label that it ‘builds muscle’ look in its ingredient list – chances are, you will find creatine monohydrate as an ingredient.

As far as I am aware, creatine is one of the only ingredients that has enough evidence behind it to make this strong claim (131).

Brad then goes on to describe the theoretical process for why creatine may be so effective.

Let me summarize as concisely as I can.

Imagine if your muscle fibers were like a chain of interlocking rubber bands.  Each individual rubber band represents a nucleus, and the elasticity of the rubber band represents the potential domain which the nucleus controls.

Now, we can cause this chain to increase in size in 2 possible ways.  1) we increase the size of the rubber bands' domains.  2) we increase the number of rubber bands.

In terms of muscle growth, the muscle fiber itself is essentially one cell.  This one cell, however, contains countless nuclei which are "in charge of" a given domain or area of the muscle cell.

When we lift weights, we cause damage to be done to the cell, thus, setting off a complex cascade of chemical events which will, hopefully, lead to an increase in the size of the muscle fiber.

Like the metaphor above, the muscle fiber can increase in size in 2 ways.  1) the domains themselves can increase in size.  2) more nuclei can be added to the muscle fiber.  In the case of 1, only limited growth can occur.  There is a limit to how far the domain of a nucleus can spread before more nuclei are needed to further facilitate growth.  Thus, if we want to achieve greater growth, we need to up-regulate the process by which more nuclei are added to the muscle fiber.  We need more satellite cells (essentially stem cells found in muscle) to integrate themselves with the muscle fiber.

Post workout, both 1 and 2 occur naturally in response to the survival stimulus afforded by lifting weights.  Now, we of course need dietary protein and sufficient calories and carbs to support this effort, but such things are only the building blocks necessary to fuel this effort.  Creatine is the only supplement currently known that will actually enhance the muscle building process by further increasing satellite cell activity post workout beyond the activity already induced by weight training itself.

Thus, creatine helps you to build muscle faster than you otherwise would be able, because it permits a greater number of nuclei domains to develop on the muscle fiber (protein powders don't do that!).

Note, however, that I say "faster" and not "more."  The only thing really proven to give you "more" is intravenous testosterone (aka steroids), and these come with a host of issues that I think we should rather not like to deal with.

Creatine will speed up the muscle building process, allowing you to build muscle faster, but not more muscle in the sense that it will not allow you to exceed your genetic potential for muscle growth (sorry!).  It will, however, bring you to your potential genetic limit much faster than otherwise.

Side Effects

There are a few side effects associated with creatine; however, these don't really present much of an issue at the clinically effective dose required to actually experience the muscle building effects of creatine.  The research seems to suggest than no more than 3-6g of creatine, taken once every day, is needed.

Some people suggest using a "loading phase" for the first 5-7 days of supplementation during which time you consume upwards of 20g per day.  I tend to think this step is unnecessary in the long term, however, since daily supplementation of 5g from the outset of supplementation will effectively "load" your muscles, but over the course of a couple weeks rather than 5-7 days.  I'd personally rather just save my money and keep things simple by taking 3-5g every day.  That's just me though.  If you would want to use the loading phase, be my guest, but don't think that you need to.

Additionally, for the best effect, some research seems to suggest that post workout supplementation with creatine is more effective than pre, but not by much.

I also recommend drinking plenty of water (upwards of a gallon) per day while taking creatine.  Really, you should already be drinking a lot of water in the first place, but be sure that you especially take care to stay hydrated while taking creatine.

Conclusion

Just get some creatine monohydrate already!  If your on a budget, the stuff is cheap.  Even better, its cheaper than protein powders, and way more effective than them at building muscle.

A Minimalist Routine For Gaining Size & Strength

It's been awhile since my last post, but I've been busy lately with the end of my college semester nearing.

With that said, this post isn't going to be overly technical.

Take a second and ask yourself:  "how much time do I actually want to spend in the gym building muscle?"

"How often should I go to the gym?"

"5 times a week?...More?"

No and no.

While there's certainly no one "correct" frequency for working out, there is a generally accepted range of effective frequencies, volumes, and intensities that have been proven most effective.

For our purposes today, I want to lay out what the bare minimum is for the cost of time commitment in exchange for maximal reward.

I plan to do a more in-depth and sciency post about this subject later on, but, that will have to wait till I get off for Christmas break.  For now, you'll just have to take my word for it.  Trust me!

In terms of frequency, hitting a muscle group twice per week (aprox. every 3-5 days) is often considered optimal.  The truth, however, is that this higher frequency is not actually proven to be proportionately more effective than working out just once a week (aprox. every 7-10 days).

Though you may be able to put on a little more muscle for the extra time spent in the gym, that extra muscle gain is not, in fact, equivalent to the extra time.  Working out twice as often does not allow you to build twice the muscle.  According to much of the scientific evidence, double the frequency will only yield about a 30% increase in results.  If we think about this in terms of money, it's as if a grocer gave you an option between 1lb of potatoes for $1 and 1.3lbs of potatoes for $2.  The first option is obviously the better deal.

I'm not saying that working out more frequently is wrong.  I'm just saying, if you're ever strapped for time, or if you have a busy schedule that only permits a couple hours per week to workout, you can still see results.  Even more, these results will come at a more reasonable cost for the reward achieved.

Now lets assess workout volume and rep ranges.

It's generally accepted that working out in the 4-8 rep range is incredibly effective at building solid muscle.  Moreover, 2 work sets seems to be the minimally effective dose per body part if you workout in the 4-6 rep range, and 3 work sets is the minimally effective dose per body part if you workout in the 6-8 rep range.  As a note:  the 4-6 rep range will put a greater emphasis on myofibrilar hypertrophy (that's growth of the actual muscle fibers), and the 6-8 rep range will give you a mix of myofibrilar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (that's growth of the muscle fibers and the fluid in the muscle); though, there will still be a greater emphasis on myofibrilar growth.

So, with these thoughts in mind, let's set up a minimalist program that will give you the greatest reward proportionate to time spent:

Workout A

Weighted Chin/Pull-ups 2x4-6
Cable/BB/DB Row 3x6-8

Cable Face Pull/Rear Delt Fly 3x6-8 or 10-15
EZ-Bar Curl 2x4-6
DB Curl 3x6-8

Workout B

Weighted Parallel Bar Chest Dips 2x4-6
Dumbbell/Barbell Incline Bench Press 3x6-8

Lateral Raise 3x6-8 or 10-15
Skull Crushers 2x4-6
Cable Extension 3x6-8

Workout C

Trap-Bar Squat 2x4-6
Romanian Deadlift 2x4-6

Jump Squat/Box Jumps/Step-ups 3x45 seconds/1 minute rest between sets

Calf Raise 3x10-15 (calves seem to respond best to higher rep ranges)

Seems pretty spartan eh?  But, when the demands of life get in the way, sometimes this sort of routine is just what the doctor ordered.  Some notes:

*Warm-up with 1 set of 12x50% of your target weight for the day on the first lift, then do 1x10x50%, 1x4x70%, and finally 1x1x90%.  There's no need to warm-up for any other lift than the first.

*The weight should be heavy.  You should be able to get no more good reps than the max number of reps prescribed per workout.

*The tempo for each rep is 2 seconds down, 1 second pause, 2 seconds up.

*Don't compromise form, and give every rep and set your all!  When you limit yourself like this, everything you do counts!

*When you can get the top number of reps listed on the first set, and stay within the prescribed range for the following set(s), add 5-10lbs to the bar or weight belt or dumbbells.

*You could either do these workouts on a 7 day or 10 day cycle (or anywhere between really).  If 7 days:  A, off, B, off, C, off, off.  If 10 Days:  A, off, off, B, off, off, C, off, off, off.

Please know that I'm not saying this is the perfect routine by any means.  Only you know if this routine is "perfect" for you, because you know your schedule and your commitments.  

All I'm saying is:  You don't have an excuse!

Carbs: How Much Is Enough?

Warning:  A long post awaits you! (But it's a good one)

Dietary carbohydrates are often the source of a considerable amount of debate.

*Should we cut carbs for weight loss?

*Do we need carbs for muscle building?

*How much is too much?

*How little is too little?

If you were to take a diverse group of people (experts or lay) and ask them to qualify and quantify answers to the above questions, you would most assuredly get a diverse set of answers.  Context means everything when we ask questions having to do with "shoulds" and "should nots."

Rather than give a universally relevant qualitative and quantitative answer to these questions, I'm going to give a more subjective answer (this is all I can do really).

If we condense the context of this issue to people who participate in regular weight training and to those who have an interest in building muscle and/or losing fat, making pertinent recommendations is a little more doable.

Problems with Super Low Carb Diets

In terms of muscle building and exercise performance, going extremely low carb may be a bad idea.  When you lower carbohydrate consumption, you necessarily have to rely more heavily on proteins and fats for fuel.  While it certainly is possible for your body to use fat and protein as fuel sources, carbohydrates are a superior option if you're performing any sort of high intensity/explosive activity (such as lifting weights) (1).

Fat as a fuel source is better suited to low-moderate level activity.  Anything that requires a long term endurance effort (done at a low level of exertion) will cause your body to preferentially burn fat as fuel.  If this sort of activity was all you were doing, a high fat, low carb diet would work just fine.  However, as a study from the Journal of Applied Physiology, conducted by L. Havemann et. al., reveals, a low carb diet may compromise high intensity efforts (2).  The test subjects were tested on their endurance and high intensity sprint performance.  While all subjects performed  equally in terms of endurance, the low carb group experienced "compromised high intensity sprint performance, possibly by increased sympathetic activation or altered contractile function."

Dietary protein, as opposed to fat, can be converted into glucose within the body, but this process is rather inefficient and more of a survival response to low blood sugar.  When liver glycogen levels get low, your body needs to find another source of glucose, and it inevitably turns to your muscle (1); moreover, your body, in an effort to survive, will start breaking down your actual muscle tissue.  Your muscle glycogen (the glucose stored in your muscles) is only burned locally from activity-specific use of the contractile elements of your muscle.  It cannot be used to fuel other bodily needs such the maintenance of blood sugar (3).  The amino acids which comprise your muscles, however, are free game.  Thus, it's incredibly important that we consume enough carbohydrates on a regular basis to keep liver glycogen stores adequately supplied.

Furthermore, in work done by Benjamin et. al., researchers determined that, at least for novice trainers, carbohydrates may be a more important nutrient than protein for recovery from weight training (4).  I should note, however, that the sort of weight training the researches tested was eccentric in nature; whereas most weight trainers put a greater deal of emphasis on the concentric portion of the lift.  Nevertheless, this research reveals that we should not ignore the important role carbs play in exercise recovery and performance.

Is There an Upper Limit?

Going further, though, we have to consider whether there's an upper limit to the amount of carbs necessary to optimize training and muscle growth.

In an experiment conducted by Van Zant et. al., test subjects were given either a relatively high or low carb diet, then tested on their performance on isokinetic leg extensions and contractions, and on the bench press (5).  The researchers didn't find any real variation in performance for either group; however, this result may have been the case because the lower carb group was getting approximately 42% of their calories from carbs, and the higher carb group was getting approximately 62% of their calories from carbs.  Also, fat comprised 40% and 20% of both groups calories respectively.  These percentages for the ratio of carbs to fat fall very neatly within the lines of proposed dietary ranges for weight trainers; thus, the relative significance of this study is questionable (at least in terms of its intended purpose).  However, I do think we can establish from this study that, since no additional benefit was seen from consuming more than 42% of calories from carbs, we might say that no more than that amount is necessary.  For a person whose maintenance energy needs are 2,800kcals, that would mean consuming no more than 295g of carbs on average.

Another study conducted by Hatfield et. al., revealed similar results to the aforementioned (6).  Subjects were tested on their performance for repetitive jump squats, and they were assigned either to a low or high carb diet.  No difference was observed in performance, but, like in the study above, the low carb group was not really assigned a low carb diet per se.  Rather, they were assigned 4.4g of carbs per kg of body weight.  For a 175 pound man, that would come out to 350g of carbs.  Once again, despite the fact that this study didn't reveal much in terms of what the researchers were initially looking for, for our purposes we can see that there may be something to this idea of a limit to how many carbs are necessary for optimal performance.

What About Fat Loss?

Aside from muscle building, however, we should also look into the effects of carbohydrate consumption on fat loss.

A research study conducted by Volek et. al., offers us some clues (7); but, only if we read between the lines a bit.  The researchers conclude that a low carb, hypocaloric diet (wherein carbs make up 15% of calories consumed) can lead to superior fat loss and preservation of lean mass, when done in conjunction with regular weight training.  Notably, however, the higher carb groups they looked (groups which experienced a greater loss of lean mass) at had only 25% of their calories coming from fat.  I've established before that fat should ideally comprise 30-35% of your energy needs, and, moreover, I tend to think the amount of fat this percentage entails should remain constant, even when cutting calories.  Thus, if 100g of fat is 30% of your maintenance energy needs, if you cut calories to lose weight, you ought to maintain that 100g of fat (while also keeping protein levels elevated), and you should thence cut calories by lowering carbohydrates.  However, we should strive not to lower carbs so much that we run into the above mentioned issues which can arise with lower carb diets.

Going back to the research study, let's take a look at the climax example they give to support their recommendations (all results are with hypocaloric diets):
*Women high carb - Lost 5kg of fat mass & 1kg lean mass
*Women low carb - Lost 5.9g of fat mass & 2kg lean mass
*Women high carb + resistance training - Lost 5.5kg of fat mass & 1kg of lean mass
*Women low carb + resistance training - Lost 8.8kg of fat mass & 0.4kg of lean mass
*Men high carb - Lost 3.4kg of fat mass & 1.4kg of lean mass
*Men low carb - Lost 6.2kg of fat mass & 3.2kg of lean mass
*Men high carb + resistance training - Lost 3.5kg of fat mass & gained 1.8kg of lean mass
*Men low carb + resistance training - Lost 7.7kg of fat mass & gained 1kg of lean mass

As you can see, not lifting weights was clearly associated with a greater loss of lean mass.  Also note that the lower carb diet actually resulted in a greater loss of lean mass when compared to the lower fat protocol (that is, when weight training was not performed regularly).  However, when we include weight training in the mix, the results change.  In women, the low carb diet helped to preserve more lean mass (though participants still lost some) than the low fat diet when in the context of regular weight training.  Moreover, the low carb group lost more fat mass.

For the men, similar results were seen when no regular weight training was involved.  But, when weight training was performed, the men were actually able to build some lean mass (despite being in a caloric deficit).  Now, this is where things get a little hinky.  It seems that, for the men who regularly weight trained, the higher carb diet allowed for better muscle building with some fat loss.  Meanwhile, the low carb group's results reveal greater fat loss while gaining a little muscle.

What We Need:  Some Nuance With a Side of Moderate

While the authors of the study concluded that a low carb diet was superior, they only looked at two extremes.  I'm curious to know what would have happened if they would've also included a more moderate diet in their findings.  I suspect that a more "middle of the road approach" would have allowed for a better mix of results.  I tend to think a diet comprised of enough fat to support maximal testosterone levels and enough carbs to support training would be the best option.

What Should We Do?

Having sifted through this sea of confusion, let's make our return to the safety of dry land.

Out of all the experts I follow, one of the more prolific is Lyle McDonald.

In an article he wrote entitled "How Many Carbohydrates Do You Need?," Lyle tackles this very issue I've wrestled with thus far.  If there's anyone as obsessed with such issues as I am, it's this guy, and I have the utmost respect for his work and his research.  Below is a chart of his recommended ranges of carbohydrates based on needs and context:

Circumstance	Carbohydrate Requirement1	Grams for an athlete with 160 lbs. LBM
Physiological Requirement	0 g/day	0 g/day
PracticalMinimum to Avoid Muscle Breakdown2	50 g/day	50 g/day
Practical Minimum for Individuals Who Function Poorly In Ketosis3	100-120 g/day	100-120 g/day
Additional Amount to Sustain Low Intensity Exercise	Minimal approaching zero	Minimal approaching zero
Additional Amount Needed to Sustain Weight Training	5 g carbs. per 2 work sets4	5 g carbs. per 2 work sets4
Average Recommendations in Bodybuilding Nutrition	1-3 g/lb.	160-480 g/day
Average Recommendations by Mainstream Nutritionists	2-3 g/lb	320-480 g/day
Average Intake for Endurance Athletes	2 g/lb	320 g/day
Recommended Intake for Endurance Athletes	3-4.5 g/lb	480-720 g/day
Practical Maximum for Non-Carb Loading Individuals	4 g/lb	640 g/day
Maximal Intakes for Carb-Loading	~7 g/lb	1120 g/day

Let's Break It Down!  

According to Lyle...

*The physiological requirement for carbs is 0g.  Carbs are a conditionally essential nutrient and not necessary for survival.  There are, however, essential fatty acids and amino acids.

*A minimum of 50g of carbs/day is necessary to prevent muscle breakdown (and this number seems to be pretty universal); however, many people may require 100-120g (also pretty universal) if they find they don't function well at 50g of carbs (I tend to think of 100-120g as a practical minimum for most people given the issues with low testosterone, lack of energy, and poor sleep that can ensue with lower levels of carb consumption.  Moreover, 100-120g of carbs are typically what we require to maintain liver glycogen stores).

*Lyle, after doing quite a bit of research and calculating, believes that for every 2 work sets you perform, you'll likely burn about 5g of muscle glycogen (assuming your sets last at least 30 seconds).

Now We're Cooking With Peanut Oil!

Taking all of this into consideration, we may make the following conclusions.

1)  On average, consume no fewer than 100-120g of carbs (However, if you're severely obese or insulin resistant I would consider going lower, but that's another issue for another day).

2)  To support your weight training, eat 5g of carbs for every two work sets you perfom.  I might add that if you do some sort of interval training, I would consider consuming 5g of carbs for every 90 seconds you spend doing high intensity effort.

3)  This amount of carbs should allow for more than 30-35%+ of your total calories to be comprised of good fats; something not to be neglected for the sake of performance.

There you have it!  Now you know how much is enough. (At least if you managed to get this far along with the post.)

Protein Powders: Are They Necessary?

* Before I begin, let me start by saying that I've amended my goal for having a new post every day.  Doing so is just flat out impractical and un-doable at the moment.  Instead, I'm shooting for at least 2-3 new blog posts per week.  I'll, thus, have more time to do adequate research and get my thoughts organized.  I'll have fewer posts, but I should be able to produce better quality work.  With that said, on with it!

While I'm a firm advocate of eating the bulk of my calories (including protein sources), sometimes schedules and convenience necessitate the use of liquid calories and protein.

But, beyond mere convenience, are there any otherwise un-had benefits to supplementing with protein powders?

As far as protein powders go, there are primarily two sorts of protein powder that I consider worthy options - whey protein and casein protein.  In general, animal sources of protein seem to be a superior choice (1), and, since whey and casein are actually derived from milk (which comes from an animal), they fall into the category of animal sources of protein.  In this sense, whey and casein are "superior" choices, but only if we consider their value in comparison to other, plant based, protein powders.

Whey is widely consider a fast acting protein.  It's given this qualification, not because it gets into your system faster; rather, it's called fast because, once it hits your system, it's absorbed faster.

How fast?  Well, the research is mixed, but the general consensus seems to be that, when consumed alone, it can be completely absorbed into your bloodstream 2-3 hours after ingestion (2).  This speed is contrasted with whole food sources of protein which take much longer to be fully absorbed by your system; save for beef protein which is actually absorbed faster than whey (3).

Casein on the other hand is absorbed much more slowly.  Though it hits your system at the same time as whey, casein can take 7+ hours to be fully absorbed (2).

This slower rate of absorption, as apposed to the rapid absorption of whey, leads to a moderate and extended down-regulation of protein break down.  Thus, while whey is often labeled as anabolic (since it seems to cause a spike in protein synthesis), casein is widely considered to be anti-catabolic.

Supplement marketeers often play up these supposed differences between whey and casein.  They advocate taking whey in conjunction with your workouts to spike protein synthesis, and they advise taking casein throughout the day and before bed so as to keep protein break down at a minimum.  (This is not to say that casein cannot be an effective post workout supplement.  Some research suggests that it too can yield similar results to whey if taken pre and post workout (4).)

This theory regarding the timing of whey and casein ingestion sounds great on paper (and as a marketing scheme it brings in tons of $ for supplement companies), but I'm not altogether convinced that either whey or casein are necessary.

It's incredibly easy to pinpoint studies that support protein supplementation, but for every study that lends support, there are others that indicate protein supplementation yields no effect.

Furthermore, there can often be researcher bias underlying any given study or experiment (5).  We live in a market economy after all, and despite what you may think, scientists are just as biased and as susceptible to the influence of money as the rest of us.

So what am I getting at here?

If it makes you feel better to use protein powders (whey or casein), do it.  There's no harm in making sure you have your bases covered (I really like Gold Standard's Natural line of products personally).  Nevertheless, I don't think there is a dire need to get fast acting protein into your system post workout.  Protein synthesis remains up-regulated 24-48 hours post workout independent of dietary protein (6), meaning that any protein containing meal you eat within that time frame will likely contribute to muscle building, and, moreover, dietary protein may not be the sole factor which ensures that you successfully build muscle. (Intelligent workout design and consistent hard work are more crucial for muscle building than the protein powder you take following a workout).

Still, if your at all concerned about proper pre or post workout nutrition, a pre-workout meal of carbs and protein will mitigate any "need" for a post workout meal (7).  I'm not saying you need to eat a pre-workout meal, though.

So, in wrapping things up, here's my advice:
*  Eat plenty of protein in general (shoot for 1g of protein per pound of goal body weight).
**  Focus on eating whole food animal sources of protein, and use whey and/or casein if you don't have the time nor the energy to worry about preparing a whole food meal (I'm not advocating that you should ever totally depend on protein powder for your nutrition, so just don't do it).
***  You have a 24-48 hour window in which to eat your protein, so make sure you have your entire diet in check, and only worry about pre or post workout supplementation once you've nailed down your daily nutrition.
****  Focus on getting progressively stronger in the weight room, and don't sweat the small stuff.

Let me know what you think.  This is a conversation, not a monologue.

Exercise in Review: "Cardio"

Today's exercise in review (the first!) is an all too often misunderstood and ill-practiced one.

It's often touted as "healthy" in the eyes of conventional wisdom, and, if you've had the pleasure of taking a health class at any point in your life, you're probably quite familiar with the purported benefits of this over-hyped exercise.

If you couldn't guess from the title of this post the exercise to which I'm referring, I'm talking about "cardio."

In particular, I mean long distance cardio (think endurance work done at a moderate to high intensity for up to an hour+, sometimes every day of the week).

Now, I'm not opposed, nor will I ever be, to any mode of exercise that takes a chronically sedentary person from couch potato to avid fitness enthusiast.  If you take an overweight/obese individual, put them on a treadmill for an hour a day thus causing them to be more active than they were previously, said person will likely lose some fat and have some amount of improvement in health.  However, eventually you start to incur diminishing returns.

This point of diminishing returns is where we must draw the line between healthy activity and chronic stress.

To further extrapolate this line to which I'm referring, consider this:

* Evidence suggests that endurance athletes may be at an increased risk in comparison to the general populace to suffer from atrial fibrillation (that's a fast and irregular heartbeat) (1).  This puts them at a higher risk for suffering from a stroke and/or experiencing cognitive decline (2).
* Meanwhile, light to moderate exercisers are at a lower risk for developing these health issues (3).

** In comparison to others, marathoners (a group we might expect to be exemplars of health and fitness) are at an increased risk for developing atherosclerosis (4, 5, & 6), thus putting the at risk for developing other health woes such as stroke and dementia (7).

*** Long distance/duration efforts, furthermore, seem to cause a good amount of oxidative damage in participants (8), which may be fine in the short term (after all, we get better by enduring a stressor then adapting to it), but if taken to a chronic extreme, your body has scant chance of adequately adapting.

**** Moderate exericise seems to improve the fat loss of overweight individuals, while more intense exercise seems to induce a compensatory response, causing subjects to eat more and expend fewer calories post workout (9).

***** In general, there seems to be an eventual trade-off between health and performance if you take things too far (10).

So what should we do?  Just sit on our buts all day?

Of course not!  There are excellent alternatives to getting up in the morning and running four miles (something I used to do 6 days a week, and to my own detriment I might add).

Let's take a second now and consider our options.  I think this wonderful categorization of cardio types (courtesy of Mark Sisson) will do just the trick:

The benefits of low level aerobic work (walking, hiking, cycling, swimming)

- increases capillary network (blood vessels that supply the muscle cells with fuel and oxygen)

- increases muscle mitochondria

- increases production of fat-burning and fat-transporting enzymes

- more fun, because you can talk with a partner while doing it

The benefits of interval training (sprinting in short intense bursts)

- increases muscle fiber strength

- increases aerobic capacity (work ability)

- increases muscle mitochondria (the main energy production center in muscle)

- increases insulin sensitivity

- increases natural growth hormone production

The costs of chronic (repetitious) mid- and high-level aerobic work

- requires large amounts of dietary carbohydrates (SUGAR)

- decreases efficient fat metabolism

- increases stress hormone cortisol

- increases systemic inflammation

- increases oxidative damage (free radical production)

- boring!

 So let's take a minute to break this down:
* Exercises like walking can be a much more preferable alternative to slaving away on a treadmill for an hour.  I'm all for this!  I would much rather go for an easy walk than kill myself (in a misguided design for the sake of my health).  Some evidence even suggests that walking is just as effective as a vigorous run in terms of risk reduction for hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes (11).

** Additionally, high intensity intervals such as sprinting can effectively increase muscle fiber strength, increase our aerobic work capacity, increase muscle mitochondria, increase insulin sensitivity (meaning we can better metabolize and partition carbohydrates), and up our natural growth hormone production.
Note:  lifting weights can also be an effective tool for improving one's metabolic health (12).

*** We ought to avoid chronically over-stressing ourselves via "chronic mid- and high-level aerobic work."  Otherwise we increase our risk for a host of health issues.  Furthermore, if building muscle is a concern of yours, the systemic inflammation induced by chronic cardio can hamper your ability to recover from a weight training session (13), thus, your ability to grow muscle will be hampered.

I think the best course of action seems pretty obvious:  Do a lot of low level walking, sprint or do some sort of high intensity interval workout every once in while, and don't make running marathons a career.

So what's your take on this?