How to Create New Habits

Habits are an amazing thing. Their influence on our day to day lives is nothing short of profound. In fact, some research suggests that habits may comprise up to 40% of our daily behaviors. Habits, therefore, constitute a powerful tool; one that can either serve us well or ill depending upon what sorts of behaviors a given habit reinforces.

What Is a Habit?

According to Robert Duhigg in his book The Power of Habit, habits have three components:

1. A Cue
2. A Routine
3. A Reward

These three components make up a three-part loop that, over time, can become neurologically embedded in our minds. We learn our habits by associating certain cues, routines, and rewards with one another. 

Take, for example, a common habit that most of us have: brushing our teeth. Many of us have learned to associate the reward of having fresh, clean smelling breath with the routine of brushing our teeth. The cue to brush our teeth often comes from seeing our toothbrush and toothpaste sitting next to our bathroom sink first thing in the morning. Once we see them, we are reminded that our mouth is brimming with halitosis, and we thus brush our teeth to purge our mouths from the scourge of bad breath. Our behavior is rewarded by the minty and refreshing taste of the toothpaste, and the vain, maniacal pleasure we get from seeing our white smiles in the mirror.

While many of us no doubt know that brushing our teeth is a good practice, many of us would likely fail to brush our teeth on a regular basis if their were no reward involved. Habits reinforce behaviors, in effect, by instilling within us the desire to do said behaviors. Without a reward to reinforce our desire, what would there be left to motivate us--will power? Will power alone can only take us so far. Eventually, our ability to will will exhaust itself, as anyone who has ever tried to will themselves to do anything for an extended period of time can attest.

To borrow from the language of Aristotle, there are primarily four ways of acting in the world:

1. Acting Viciously
2. Acting Incontinently
3. Acting Continently
4. Acting Virtuously

If a person acts viciously, she has a mistaken knowledge of what is good, she desires this mistaken good, and she acts accordingly.

If a person acts incontinently, he has a correct knowledge of what is good, yet he desires what is not good, and he acts according to his desire.

If a person acts continently, he has a correct knowledge of what is good, yet he desires what is not good.  Nevertheless, he acts according to his knowledge, despite his desire.

If a person acts virtuously, she has a correct knowledge of what is good, she desires what is good, and she acts in accordance with the unity of her reason and her desire.

Of course, the ultimate goal is to become virtuous--to not only know what is good, but also to want to act according to what is good. Our desires are exceedingly powerful, and if we fail to reconcile our desire with our reason, we'll inevitably find ourselves exhausting our will power to act according to what's good, in spite of our desire. We may be able to live continently for a while, but inevitably we'll lapse into incontinence.

Changing Habits

According to Duhigg, habits cannot be truly eliminated. They can only be replaced. More specifically, the routine that falls between the cue and the reward can be replaced. But, before the routine can be changed, one must first ascertain what the cue and reward are.

Cues can come in any number of forms, whether it be a specific place, time, emotion, person, or preceding action. Rewards, likewise, can take on a number of forms. Some cues and rewards are easy to figure out, but others may be tricky. Duhigg, for example, describes how he used to have the habit of eating a cookie every day at 3:30 in the afternoon. It appeared clear that the cue for his behavior was a sudden desire to snack at 3:30, but he had to do some self experimenting to nail down the reward for this behavior. He tried going for a walk at 3:30, going out for coffee, and eating an apple, yet none of these behaviors seemed to properly reward his cue to snack. As it turned out, his desire to get up and go snack was in fact reinforced by the reward of socializing, and the cookie turned out to be an appropriate excuse to get up and do just that.

Having nailed down the relevant cue and reward associated with his routine, Duhigg was able to replace his habit of getting up to eat a cookie at 3:30 with finding someone to gossip with for 10 minutes. Duhigg consequently lost 21 pounds. It's amazing the positive change that can come from replacing even one bad habit!

Going back to Aristotle, desire is a powerful, emotive force. Most people, however, only desire what they perceive to be the greatest good. This good is often the reward obtained from enacting a certain routine. Nevertheless, despite the fact that most people don't desire what is ultimately bad for them, they may make mistakes in terms of what they perceive to be good. Furthermore, their routines for getting what they think is a good can also be mistaken.

For instance, an alcoholic, despite what onlookers might suppose, does not desire anything bad, at least within their own perspective. The routine of drinking to excess can often be cued by a number of things, such as the sight or smell of alcohol, the presence of a given person, or a particular emotional state. The reward may often be a sense of escapism from the demands of everyday life, from stress, from family problems, or any number of issues. The question the alcoholic must therefore ask is what sorts of cues spur them, ultimately, to seek an escape from life, or whatever else it is that may reward their behavior? If the cue and the reward can be ascertained, it becomes much easier to begin the process of replacing the negative routine of excessive drinking with a positive one.

This same scenario can prove true for a number of negative behaviors, whether they be staying at work late or eating too much unhealthy food. If you can figure out the cue and the reward associated with a given routine, you can change the routine.

Final Thoughts

The practical implications seem clear. To change a given habit, we need to:

1. Pick an unhealthy routine that we would like to change.
2. Figure out what the cue and the reward for this routine are.
3. Replace this negative routine with a positive one.

Without a doubt, this process will take time. Don't make the mistake of trying to change all of your negative habits at once. Tackle them one at time.

Good luck, and may you live virtuously!

A Surefire Formula for Fat Loss & Muscle Building

It's been a good long while since I've written a post. In my defense, I've been busy.

Busy doing what?

Busy writing a book, that's what!

The health and fitness industry is writhing with pseudo-theories and bogus science, and aside from the work of a few exceptional individuals, most of what constitutes the bulk of bodybuilding literature is depressingly devoid of simple, actionable recommendations that are founded upon rigorously tested scientific principles.

Ridiculous supplement regimens, complex training programs, and voodoo diets that espouse eating no carbs past 6:17 PM because they'll disrupt x, y, and z are nowhere to be found in what I'm writing. Though the science behind my recommendations may be complex, the practical implications of the science are straightforward and simple.

Not only will I show you how to effortlessly lose fat and build muscle, I'll also cover various topics such as: "clean" eating, how often you should eat protein, what sorts of foods will help you to fill satisfied during a diet, and much more.

When will this book be available?

Not for awhile, I must admit. As it turns out, writing a book requires time. I don't want to skimp on any details or leave anything to chance with my book. My goal is to do my best to deliver a quality product, and quality does not come rapidly. Just know that the book is coming, and it's coming soon (hopefully!).

The One Thing You Should Be Doing to Improve Your Health

A lot of factors go into a healthy lifestyle, such as lifting weights, eating the right foods, getting good sleep, and staying active. A recent study suggests, however, that one particular lifestyle factor may be the most important contributive element in creating long-term health.

Some Context

In the past several decades, certain everyday practices have compounded into a deleterious environment for robust health. Sedentary behaviors, like TV watching, computer use, video gaming, and riding in a car for extended periods of time can negatively impact mortality risk [1]. Moreover, research by Hamilton et al. suggests that excessive sitting is inextricably linked to a risk for obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease [2]. 

Now, to clarify the matter, the issue at hand is not, as some might suggest, the result of too little exercise; rather, according to Owen and associates, the source of this issue is too much inactivity [3]. This common misunderstanding has resulted in the emergence of, what some might call, "active couch potatoes." These active couch potatoes assume that they've magically escaped the negative effects of a sedentary lifestyle by getting in an hour or so of physical activity to make up for the eight or more hours of inactivity they've experienced throughout their day. If Owen's team is right, then these active couch potatoes are making a grave mistake.

Active Couch Potato in it's natural habitat.

A primary problem that arises from too much sitting is, according to researchers from Indiana University, the pooling of blood in the legs, with the result being that "the ability of blood vessels to expand from increased blood flow can become impaired" [4]. In fact, it takes no more than one hour of inactivity to start seeing negative effects [5].

A Way Out

Recent research from the journal of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise suggests that, while prolonged sitting can negatively impact our health, breaking up our sedentary time with intermittent bouts of light activity can reverse the negative effects of excessive inactivity [6]. To be more specific, the researchers had participants engage in three 5 minute intervals of light activity during a three hour period. These intervals took place at 30 minutes, at 90 minutes, and at 150 minutes into the study. What did the researchers discover? This protocol seemed to allow the participants to counteract the negative effects of sitting for one hour.

A Walking Primer--The One Thing You Should Be Doing

According to the American Heart Association [7], regular walking can help to:

• Reduce the risk of coronary heart disease
• Improve blood pressure and blood sugar levels
• Improve blood lipid profile
• Maintain body weight and lower the risk of obesity
• Enhance mental well being
• Reduce the risk of osteoporosis
• Reduce the risk of breast and colon cancer
• Reduce the risk of non-insulin dependent (type 2) diabetes

With such a litany of health benefits, walking may stand as one of the most important exercises anyone can do. However, we must remain cognizant of what Owen and his team assert: that too much inactivity, and not too little exercise, is the primary culprit undermining our health. 

While I certainly think it can be good to set aside a certain amount of time each day for the purpose of doing some light, formal activity, if we spend the rest of our time sitting at a desk, in front of a TV, or in our cars, then we've done far from enough to avoid the negative effects of a sedentary lifestyle. 

Avoid, at all costs, becoming an active couch potato! 

Rather, here's my challenge for you: for every hour you spend sitting during your day, I want you to get up and walk (or at least do something active) for five minutes; or, if your schedule doesn't permit getting up and moving around once an hour, just try to do something active as often as possible.

Now get up and move! It's the best thing you can do for your health.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Lifting Heavy Weights

Like almost anything that's worthwhile in life, the rewards offered by weight training come at cost; whether that cost be time, effort, pain, or injury.

Anyone who has seriously lifted weights for an extended period of time will unashamedly admit that the ratio between reward and cost is a delicate balancing act; one that requires critical thought, research, and experience in order to yield the greatest reward while only costing the smallest amount.

When this ratio works in our favor, a lot of good can come of it. However, sometimes things can get out of hand.

Maybe we start to cross the threshold from hard work to overtraining. Maybe we start to notice some nagging sore spots. Perhaps we've begun to notice some pain in our joints.

In any event, weight training has a good side and a bad side, and also a deep dark ugly side.

Some Context

I'm writing this article primarily as a result of an injury (the ugly part of weight training) that I suffered this past week. While I was barbell squating (low-bar style) I had a spasm on the right side of my lower back. Needless to say, this was painful! Immediately after I racked the weight (and I have no idea how I was able to rack the weight...maybe adrenaline) I noticed a sharp tightness in my back. The pain was so acute that I had to slowly crumple my way to floor in the squat rack. My friends who were in the weight room with me tried to help me up, but to no avail. I couldn't move without being in pain.

Long story short, after about 45 minutes of immobilization (and after some pathetic attempts to get moving) my friends were able to (very slowly and awkwardly) walk me out of the gym and into a car so they could take me to the local clinic. The doctor gave me a prescription for an anti-inflammatory and a muscle relaxer, along with a two week ban on heavy lifting.

So here I am now, five days later, here to tell you that I regret my decision to lift weights...

Nah! Just kidding!

I actually regret nothing about what's happened. Lifting weights is a passion for me. I've always been well aware that the risks involved in weight training (specifically using barbell squats) were high; but, the rewards have always been worth it. 

Nevertheless, this injury has forced me to reevaluate my goals and my weight training program.

Weighing Risks and Rewards

I'm writing this article for another reason as well: To get you to start thinking critically about your own training (or perhaps other ventures in your life that are both risky and rewarding). 

Whenever you start to think about whether you should follow any sort of training routine, you need to carefully consider your long term goals in reference to the potential long term risks involved in achieving these goals.

For instance, I like barbell squats, deadlifts, bench presses, and standing presses (the proverbial "big 4"). However, I also like being healthy and mobile, and using these exercises presents a potential risk to my health and mobility. 

Up to now, I've had little trouble while using the "big 4." However, since my circumstances have changed, I have to consciously consider whether it's "worth it" to continuing using the "big 4" without further modification (for instance, I may replace barbell squats with a more "back friendly" alternative, such as pistol squats).

Here you see the process of weighing risks and rewards. It is a process I hope you will take to heart, practice, and eventually make a habit (not just in terms of lifting weights, but also in terms of anything you do in life).

Stay Healthy!

The Latest Research on Low Carb vs. Low Fat Diets for Weight Loss

I've written previously regarding the issue of low carb diets, whether they're effective, and for whom they're effective. If you're a regular reader of mine, then you undoubtedly know my stance on carbs: That they can be good, bad, or neutral depending on the circumstances within which you find yourself. And the latest bit of research conducted on this subject only adds to the relativism.

The Latest Research

Lydia A. Bazzano et al. recently conducted a randomized, parallel group trial on 148 obese men and women without cardiovascular disease and diabetes (1). The researchers' goal was to compare the effect of a low fat diet against the effect of a low carbohydrate diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors. The participants were divided into two groups, with one being instructed to limit their carbohydrate intake to less than 40 grams per day, and the other being instructed to limit their fat intake to less than 30% of total daily calories, with less than 7% of those fat calories coming from saturated fat (These instructions just so happen to reflect NCEP guidelines for reducing cardiovascular risk factors). Dietary counseling was given to both groups throughout the trial. Data on weight, cardiovascular risk, and diet composition was collected for both groups at the beginning of the trial, at three months in, six months in, and at 12 months.

What Did the Researchers Find?

By the end of the 12 month study 82% of the low fat group remained and 79% of the low carb group remained. While both groups experienced weight loss (though not a significant amount) and a reduction in cardiovascular risk, the low carb group saw a greater improvement. However, it should be noted that the low carb group didn't exactly follow the guidelines established for them by the researchers. Rather than limit their daily carb intake to less than 40 grams, participants consumed an average of 97, 93, and 127 grams of carbs per day at three, six, and 12 months respectively. Thus, the low carb group was not following an extremely low carb diet. This distinction is notable because the instructions given by the researchers to consume less than 40 grams of carbs per day would have put the low carb participants into a ketogenic state; thus meaning that the results from this study reflect what one might experience when following my own advice, which is that people who are relatively overweight or obese should limit their daily carb intake to 100-120 grams.

Regarding the low fat group, participants limited their average intake of fat to 45, 46, and 52 grams per day at three, six, and 12 months respectively. This amount of fat reflects my low-end recommendation of grams of fat per day for relatively active and fit individuals. Though the low carb group saw greater improvements than the low fat group, it's comforting to know that the low-end of my recommended daily fat intake didn't play havoc with the health of the low fat participants.

In terms of body composition and weight loss, the low carb group lost an average of about 12 lbs by the end of the trial while the low fat group lost about 4 lbs. Despite these differences in weight loss, both groups saw similar reductions in waist circumference, which suggests a similar reduction in abdominal fat. Upon considering the difference in weight loss vs the negligible difference in waist circumference, I'm led to think that the greater weight loss experienced by the low carb group could reflect glycogen depletion in the muscles and a loss of water weight. Without having accurate body composition measurements, however, I'm fain to declare certainty regarding this speculation. 

Beyond body composition, the low carb group had greater improvements in their ratio of LDL ("bad" cholesterol) to HDL ("good" cholesterol). This improvement reflects a particular theory regarding cholesterol health, which states that high cholesterol and an imbalanced ratio of LDL to HDL is caused, in part, by low level systemic inflammation. This low level systemic inflammation is purportedly caused by, among many factors, insulin resistance, which of course leads to inefficient and unfavorable partitioning of dietary glucose within the body. It therefore makes sense, within the framework of this particular understanding of the cholesterol issue, that the low carb group fared better in terms of cardiovascular health than did the low fat group. I should note, though, that the low fat group actually saw slightly better improvements in fasting insulin and glucose levels; however, these improvements border on statistically insignificant (nevertheless, this finding does somewhat refute my claim that a low carb diet should better address the problem of insulin resistance than should a low fat diet).

Why This Study Matters

Good scientific studies are hard to come by these days. This particular bit of research is an example of one such "good" study. Diet adherence by the participants was relatively good (yes, the low carb group did consume double the amount of carbs per day than they were supposed to, but at least they were consistent!), and the results of this study were such that they offer potential answers to two important questions: 1) the results of this study support the claim that low fat diets can lead to weight loss, and 2) the results of this study reveal that low carb diets can be compatible with cardiovascular health.

This study also reveals certain shortcomings that arise from simple dietary guidelines, which call for the mere elimination or restriction of one particular macronutrient sans other, more critical, intervention strategies--such as calorie restriction and food choice. As the results from this study reveal, while both groups saw reductions in body fat, these reductions were minor. To quote obesity researcher Dr. Stephan Guyenet, who did his own right-up on this study: "Both groups went from obese to slightly less obese" (2). Big Whoop!

Way more needs to go into a weight loss strategy than the reduction of fat or carbohydrate alone. 

The Take-away

The science of obesity and cardiovascular risk is multifaceted and complex; though our response to both of these issues need not be. Yes, we do need more complex solutions than restricting carbs or fat or certain food groups, but these solutions don't have to be much more complex.

Is Bread Really that Bad?

Bread--Some call it manna from heaven; others call it death from above. Somewhere between this dichotomy of options lies the truth.

Whole Grains: Healthy or Poison?

Unless you've spent the past several years living under a rock, you likely know of the current anti-bread, anti-whole grain movement that has prevailed in making many of us question our consumption of wheat-based foods. I must admit, the arguments offered against bread consumption seem rather condemning:

• Wheat has been genetically hybridized to support its mass production at the cost of its healthfulness.
• Whole grains contain anti-nutrients, which have this annoying tendency to block the absorption of vital nutrients.
• Whole grains can lead to leaky gut syndrome.
• Etc.

Now, I don't plan to refute any of these claims; however, I would like to widen your perspective a bit by putting these claims into a broader, and hopefully more complete context.

Considering Our Heritage

Grain has been a staple of the human diet for thousands of years. The emergence of agriculture radically altered the way we as a species have lived and worked communally, and without agriculture (especially grains) society would not have advanced to the level that it has today. So why all this animosity towards grains?

Well, the way that we grow and process our grains today is radically different from the way that people traditionally have grown and processed grains for the past few thousand years. Our ancestors (both recent and ancient) took great care to ensure that their grains were properly processed so as to ensure optimal nutrition.

Methods such as soaking, sprouting, and fermenting were just some of the ways by which people would eliminate many of the nutrient blocking characteristics of unprocessed whole grains. In fact, only recently has the idea (the incorrect idea) emerged that eating whole grains, sans processing, is healthy.

Based on the evidence (which various authors and researchers have covered), I'm inclined to say that our ancestors were right, whereas modern conventional wisdom is wrong.

The "Nutritional" Value of Whole Grains

It is true that contained within the bran of whole grains there exist various vital nutrients. However, do these nutrients warrant the unbridled devotion many people have for consuming whole grains? I tend to think not.

Let's consider the fact that whole grains, when compared to fruits, vegetables, and dead animals, are nutritionally unimpressive. Calorie for calorie, fruits, vegetables, and meats offer far more micronutrients, fiber, amino acids, and essential fatty acids than do whole grains. 

The fact that a certain food contains certain nutrients is sufficient, but not necessary cause to eat it, unless said food is the only viable source for obtaining said nutrients. As far as I am aware (based on the research, and my own personal intuitions) whole grains are sufficient, but not necessary, since the nutrients found within whole grains can be viably obtained from other sources of food.

In my opinion, it is a gross mistake to eat any sort of grain, whether it be wheat, oats, rice, etc., for the sake of its micronutional value alone. 

If you're going to eat grains, eat them for their starch, period. This advice is most apt for athletes and regular exercisers who deplete their glycogen stores on a regular basis. If, however, you fall into the category of sedentary, obese, and/or diabetic, I would caution against the consumption of starchy grains (and most starches in general) until to you've gotten yourself into a metabolically healthier state.

Ezekiel Bread is a better option than most, but if you eat it, eat it for the starch.

The Problem of Gut Permeability and Wheat

Other than the anti-nutritional effects of whole, unprocessed grains, many people also argue that certain proteins in wheat can lead to a leaky gut. While some evidence does support this claim, we should avoid putting all the blame on wheat alone. Other factors such as sleep deprivation (including just one night of bad sleep), chronic stress, genetic predisposition, smoking, etc. can increase one's susceptibility to getting a leaky gut.

So I must ask: Do grains lead to a leaky gut, or do they merely exacerbate the already present problem of a leaky gut that has been brought on by poor sleeping habits and chronic stress?--"What came first: the chicken or the egg?"

Chronic inflammation can also lead to a leaky gut; and, in turn, a leaky gut will contribute to chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation can also be brought on by over-consuming calories, by eating foods that contain factory processed hydrogenated vegetable and seed oils, high-fructose corn syrup, added sugar, and trans fats; and, most of these ingredients can be found in foods (including wheat based products, among other foods) that tend to induce an unnaturally high reward response in the hypothalamus of our brains, which tends to lead to eating more of these foods (I'm talking about chips, cookies, pizza, and ice cream here). Worse yet, not only does eating too many calories contribute to chronic inflammation, eating too much can also lead to excess weight gain, which also leads to more chronic inflammation.

Hence we have a feedback loop consisting of chronic inflammation, poor sleep, leaky gut, chronic stress, unwanted fat gain, diabetes, hear disease, etc.

The cycle just goes on and on.

Did wheat start this cycle? It would be hubris to offer a definitive yes or no, so I'll just offer a definitive I-don't-know.

Just Tell Me! Can I Eat Bread?!

Whether you're religious or not, I think you can glean immense wisdom from these words of the Apostle Paul: 

"Everything is permissible, but not not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive."

In other words, you can do whatever you want, but you need to always be aware of what sorts of consequences may follow from your actions. The consequences will always be subject to the context relative to a given situation.

So, yes, you can eat bread, but just be sure to ask yourself whether eating bread is beneficial or constructive relative your personal circumstances.

In my experience, eating bread, as an action in and of itself, doesn't really effect me that much. White breads and white rice in particular tend to give me the least amount of trouble, while purportedly "healthy" whole grains seem to cause me digestive discomfort and room clearing flatulence! I therefore stick to eating mainly white rice and, now more so, non-whole grain breads to support my regular exercise.

Do I care that I'm missing out on the fiber and nutrients in whole grains? No! I'm not missing out on any vital nutrients so long as I make fruits, veggies, and meats the foundation of my diet.

My advice to you is that you consider your own situation, as I have, and make a beneficial and constructive choice.

--Is bread really that bad? You tell me.--

Yeah, if I ate this, you would want to clear the room relatively soon. ;-)

The Easiest Way to Make Healthy Food Choices!

I have a confession to make: I know very little about all the myriad effects that factory processed foods and their ingredients have on the human body. People with far more impressive pedigrees than what I possess have plunged deep and wide into the murky ocean of scientific research to discover exactly what compounds and food products we need to consume and what compounds and food products we need to avoid. While I respect the efforts of these individuals, I think their work often leads would-be fitness enthusiasts down rabbit holes that they just aren't ready to go down (yet). While it might make for a flashy add or news article, most people don't need to worry about the latest research on the effects of raspberry ketones, the orac value of a strawberry vs that of a banana, or whether white potatoes are better for you than sweet potatoes.

We spend so much time fretting and stressing over the details that we often fail to count it as a blessing that we have the spare time and the disposable resources to care about the details.

In any event, I'm here to tell you that making healthy food choices is really, really, really simple.

Are you ready?

Prepare to have your mind blown!

You can meet virtually all of your nutritional and performance needs with whole cuts of protein and fat rich meat, poultry, fish, and eggs (the whole egg!), fibrous and nutrient dense fruits and vegetables, starchy tubers such as white and sweet potatoes, white rice (if your eating plenty of animal sources of food, along with fruits and veggies, you don't need a lick of the nutrients found in brown rice, or in any whole grain for that matter--plus you'll skip on the "anti-nutrients" found in the bran of whole grain foods), and you can use whole food sources of fat such as cold pressed virgin coconut and olive oil, butter from grass fed cows, avocado, and whole nuts.

Eat whole foods 80-90% of the time!

In short: Eat foods composed of only one ingredient.

That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to say that you should never eat anything that contains more than one ingredient. I am saying, however, that you can simply the process by which you live a healthy lifestyle by making whole foods the foundation of your diet (at least 80-90% of your food choices).

Who has the time to assess the healthfulness of every single ingredient of a Snickers bar, or of a slice of Domino's pizza, or of a fresh batch of homemade cookies? I certainly don't, and it's for just such a reason that I'd rather focus on that which I know to be healthy rather than on that which could potentially be healthy, unhealthy, or neutral.

Even if it's made of whole food ingredients, a cookie is still a cookie.
It's healthfulness is an emergent quality, and the emergent quality of a cookie (paleo or otherwise) is to cause me to overeat. :( 

Think about how people are taught to tell a counterfeit dollar bill from a real one. People aren't taught all the various ways a bill can be counterfeited; rather, they're taught what a real dollar bill is supposed to look like.

In the same way, there are a lot of purportedly healthy and unhealthy foods that make up the interior of a grocer. You could spend a good chunk of your time worrying about these foods and their various ingredients, or you could simply follow the periphery of the grocer and pick out foods that are, generally speaking, unambiguously healthy.

But keep in mind too that no one food is healthy or unhealthy. Diets are either healthy or unhealthy. Lifestyles are either healthy or unhealthy. Our individual food choices are mere components of the whole emergent system that is "healthfulness."

Just worry about making 80-90% of your food choices "healthy" (i.e., one ingredient foods) and don't waste your time worrying about the other 10-20%.

No diet is perfect. No diet can prevent death. So stop worrying about every last detail of what constitutes "healthy" food. Just be thankful that you're alive and that you have the ability to pick and choose your food (some people aren't so lucky!).

If you think about it, a first world problem can actually be a third world solution. How's that for perspective?

Supplement Review: Arnold Iron Cuts

It's time yet again for another supplement review. The subject of scrutiny today is the "3-in-1 Fat Metabolizing & Cutting Agent" called Arnold Iron Cuts, which is part of MusclePharm's Arnold Schwarzenegger Series.

Some of the purported benefits of Iron Cuts include:

• Increased thermogenesis and fat metabolizing.
• Harder looking muscles.
• It will give you that "cut" look.
• Supports healthy estrogen balance and cortisol leves.

A serving of Iron Cuts, which is to be taken either once or twice daily, consists of 3 capsules. One serving contains the following*:

• 400 IU of Vitamin D (100% DV)
• 50 mcg of Chromium (42% DV)
• "Thermogenic & Fat Metabolizer," which contains 930 mg of:
• L-Carnitine Tartrate, Green Tea Leaf Extract, Caffeine Anhydrous, Panax Ginseng Root Powder, N-Acetyl-L-Tyrosine, "Thermodiamine" (98% Evodiamine), Vinpocetine, Inositol.
• "Muscle Building Maximizer," which contains 900 mg of:
• Maca 4:1 Root Extract, "AminoShield" Eriobotrya japonica Leaf Extract Proprietary Blend of 20% Pentacyclic Triterponiods, Alpha Lipoic Acid, Boron Citrate, Fenugreek Seed Extract 50% Saponins, Pumpkin Seed Extract.
• "Estrogen & Cortisol Metabolizer," which contains 383 mg of:
• Gymnerna Sylvestre Leaf Extract, Grape Seed Extract, Diindolylmethane (DM), Cinnamon Bark Powder, Banaba Leaf Extract 1% Corosolic Acid, Chromium Picolinate.

*I think I just stumbled across a new form of torture: writing out the ingredients of supplements!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Good

It's easier for me to talk about the "good" (a.k.a., likely effective) ingredients in this supplement first, since precious few are actually present.

To start, I like that Iron Cuts has some Vitamin D--100% of the daily recommended value. Vitamin D plays an important role in all sorts of important bodily functions and in preventing various diseases [1].

The fact that Iron Cuts contains Chromium is also a plus. Though not much is known about the mechanism by which Chromium works within the body, some evidence suggests that it may help regulate insulin function [2]. Insulin, of course, plays a vital role in how the body metabolizes dietary carbohydrate, protein, and fat.

Turning to the "Thermogenic & Fat Metabolizer," we can see some rather unsurprising ingredients. Green tea extract, which has a good track record when it comes to aiding fat loss and improving mental clarity, makes sense as an ingredient in a fat loss supplement; though, the reasons for its effectiveness are likely due to the caffeine found within green tea [3]. 

Caffeine anhydrous, likewise, is a solid ingredient to put in this supplement. The research seems clear: caffeine can certainly help for weight loss, mental alertness, and athletic performance [4]. While I'm not certain as to how much caffeine is actually present in Iron Cuts (the supplement facts on the bottle aren't as transparent as I'd like them to be), I'm willing to bet that the majority of the 930 mg of "Thermogenic & Fat Metabolizer" is comprised of caffeine (a safe bet given that caffeine is just about the only ingredient in the "Thermogenic & Fat Metabolizer" that's backed by solid research).

The Bad

Just about everything else falls into the "bad" (a.k.a., likely not effective) category. Now don't get me wrong, some of these "bad" ingredients aren't completely useless; however, regarding the particular function they are purported to have for this sort of supplement, many of the ingredients in Iron Cuts simply don't make the "cut" (yes, this is my attempt to make a very bad pun).

For instance, the Alpha Lipoic Acid found in the "Muscle Building Maximizer" is an antioxidant. While one might naturally assume that having an antioxidant in a supplement such as Iron Cuts is a plus, in reality, research demonstrates that antioxidants, when taken around an intense weight training session, may inhibit post workout recovery [5].

Another example of a "bad" ingredient is the cinnamon bark powder. While some research suggests that cinnamon may be effective at improving blood glucose following the consumption of carbohydrate, much of the evidence is inconclusive. Moreover, like with the Alpha Lipoic Acid, cinnamon can work as an antioxidant (a no go for workout recovery) [6]. 

I could go on and on here, but I would only bore you with the research. Suffice it to say, aside from the Vitamin D, Chromium, Caffeine, and a few other substances, many of the ingredients in Iron Cuts seem questionable at best. Most are proven ineffective at doing much of anything, while others (such as the Alpha Lipoic Acid and cinnamon bark powder) may actually be counter productive.

The Ugly

Well, to be honest, there's not much that's "ugly" about Iron Cuts. I just needed to have an "ugly" section.

The Verdict

While there are some questionable ingredients in Iron Cuts, the "good" ones may outweigh the "bad." Moreover, if you check out the anecdotal reviews on Bodybuilding.com, many people claim to have gotten great results while taking this supplement. However, when considering these anecdotal reports, we must also bear in mind that many of the people who have good things to say about Iron Cuts likely are using an intelligently designed diet and weight training routine. We also can't rule out the placebo effect.

In the end, though, the only way to find out if Iron Cuts will work for you is to try it yourself. Would I use it? No. I'd rather drink coffee, take Vitamin D, and get all of the essential nutrients that I need from my diet. But, I'm stubborn and cheap. If Iron Cuts works for you, then that's great. If it doesn't work--and it likely won't without the accompaniment of a proper diet and training routine--then I'm sorry that you wasted your money.

Like I've said before, supplements can have their place in one's fat loss/muscle building arsenal, but only once all the other lifestyle and dietary factors required for you to achieve your goals have been nailed down.

When Low Carb Dieting Is a Bad Idea

If there's one thing that I hate, it is the never ending saga of low carb dieting that is often used by relatively fit and active guys and gals who just want to lose some "stubborn" body fat. Low carb diets definitely have their place in the fat-loss tool kit, but, like any other tool, they aren't suited for all situations. In this post, I aim to talk about those times when going low carb is a bad idea.

Low Carb, Low IQ

When I started out on my fitness journey, the very first diet program I used was Atkins'. Let me tell you, it worked! Well, it worked until it didn't.

By using Atkins, I managed to successfully lose up to 40 lbs.; however, not all of that weight lost was fat. Not only was I losing weight, I was losing strength in the gym (usually a sign of muscle-loss). 

After I did Atkins', I had the wonderful idea of doing low-carb paleo. Sure enough, I lost another 20 lbs., and I lost more muscle and more strength. I felt irritable and low on energy. I was down to 155 lbs. at 5'9", but these were just numbers. I looked weak, and I felt like I looked.

Sure enough, after I did some research I started to see past the low carb dogma for what it truly was: A load of BS!

While low carb works well for obese, sedentary people, it yields counter productive results for those who are lean and active. In my case, I was lifting weights 3-4 days/week, running a few miles most days of the week, and sprinting a couple days/week. 

What do all the above activities have in common? They require glucose for optimal performance.

So, I decided to work my way out of the low carb fad and start regularly eating carbs again. Since weighing 155 lbs. in the summer of 2012, I now weigh about 185 lbs. I feel good, full of energy, and my strength in the gym has improved leaps and bounds from where it was 2 summers ago.

I used to think that carbs were evil, but now I know that they are merely a tool; and an effective tool at that.

Carbohydrate Ranges for the Sedentary and Overweight

Generally speaking, I've come to find that relatively low levels of carb intake tend to work well for sedentary and overweight people. While in some circumstances a ketogenic diet might be called for, which would entail a daily carbohydrate intake below 50g, most people will fair well with a daily intake at or around 100-120g. This amount of carbohydrate will keep liver glycogen stores full, and thus allow your body to properly maintain healthy levels of serum glucose and razor sharp brain function (not to mention improved testosterone levels). Any carbs beyond this 100-120g are unnecessary and potentially counterproductive for sedentary, overweight, and chronically inflamed individuals who lack the insulin sensitivity required to efficiently partition dietary carbohydrate.

Carbohydrate Ranges for the Active and Lean

I categorize "active" as doing some sort of high intensity, anaerobic exercise (such as weight training, sprints, HIIT, etc.) 3-5 times per weak. I categorize "lean" as having a body-fat percentage below 15%. If these terms fit you, then you should probably pay attention to my advice if you want to start seeing improved fat-loss and improved performance.

Targeted Numbers for the Wayward Dieter

In addition to the 100-120g of carbohydrate required to keep liver glycogen stores full, active individuals require additional carbs to fuel their high intensity activity.

How many carbs do you need? There is no set amount, but you can't go wrong with the following base template:

1. Set total calories at about 12 calories per lbs. of desired body-weight (most people require about 14-16 calories per lbs. of actual body-weight to maintain their weight, so we are obviously putting you in a caloric deficit).
2. Set protein at about 1g per lbs. of desired body-weight.
3. Set fat at about .4-.5g per lbs. of desired body-weight.
4. Make up the remainder of your total calories with carbohydrate.

Here's an example using a male whose target weight is 170 lbs.

1. 12 calories x 170 lbs. = 2,040 calories.
2. 1g of protein x 170 lbs. = 170g of protein.
3. .4g of fat x 170 lbs. = 68g of fat (let's round up to 70g for simplicity's sake).
4. 2,040 calories - (170g of protein x 4) - (70g of fat x 9) = 730 calories remaining.
5. 730 calories/4 = 182.5g of carbohydrate (let's round down to 180g for simplicity's sake).

So, for the above individual, his targeted macros are 170g of protein, 70g of fat, 180g of carbohydrate, and 2,040 calories. He has enough protein to support the maintenance of lean muscle, enough fat to keep his testosterone levels up, and enough carbohydrate to support his weight training (The weight training, by the way, is what will actually allow our male dieter to maintain his muscle while dieting. Dietary carbohydrate facilitates, but does not trigger, muscle maintenance or growth! The same idea holds true for dietary protein). And, let's not forget, this individual is in a caloric deficit, which will facilitate fat loss.

It's Application Time!

If you're an active guy or gal struggling to lose some excess weight, and you happen to be using a low carb diet, stop! Throw whatever voodoo concoctions of insulin control/bio-hacking hormonal regulation non-sense that you've bought into out the window. It's about calories first, then nutrients, then food choice when it comes to physique oriented goals. Get your calories in line, then make sure that the composition of those calories will support your performance goals. Trust me, I've slogged my way through the low carb circle of hell, and it was not pretty. If you follow my advice, you might just avoid the issues that I went through two years ago.

Scientific Evidence vs Real World Experience: When the Wheels of Science Meet Real World Traction

On this site, I've used various scientific studies to back up my claims. When I talked about supplements--such as creatine, protein powders, and pre-workouts--I backed up my claims with peer reviewed research. Likewise, when I discussed matters regarding diet--such as protein, carbs, fat, and food choice--I also used scientific literature as a source. However, when it comes to practical recommendations that are based upon solid research, real world results must serve as the ultimate barometer of success.

Just because a scientific study says that X supplement yields Y results in Z group of people, many mistakenly believe that if they use X on themselves, they will also see Y results.

Such an assumption is a mistake-and-a-half.

Broscience vs Proscience

Many people seem to posses undue reverence for science, and conversely, many people seem to lack faith in real world experience.

Broscience serves as an excellent example of a form of real world experience that many people (including myself at times) like to ignore; due much in part to the stigma attached to broscience: That it is nothing more than gym myth and lore and premised upon little to no actual evidence. To a certain extent, this stigma holds some partial truth. 

For instance, take broscience spewed from the mouth of a 20 year-old wannabe gym-rat who reads tons of muscle-building magazines, and who makes religious pilgrimages to GNC in order to buy the latest and greatest supplement to hit the shelves. The advice gleaned from this guy will more often than not be based upon little real world experience and a lot of hearsay (a.k.a., myth).

On the flip side, take broscience (or in this case, proscience) from a guy who has 20 years of hard-earned experience training both himself and his athletes. Much of the advice gleaned from this guy will likely be based upon a mix of scientific evidence and real world results; both of which, when combined, create an atmosphere of creative innovation tamed by the need to produce consistent results.

From which of the above people do you think I'm going to accept advice? I think you know my answer.

Don't go over to the dark side of the gym!

Scientific Results vs Real World Results

If you take a moment to think about it, scientific studies are really nothing more than glorified observations. We consider scientific observations weighty because they're "peer reviewed," and we often disregard anecdotal observations because they're not "peer reviewed." 

This is an example of yet another mistake-and-a-half.

In reality, there are a lot of pretty bad (and I mean really bad!) peer reviewed scientific studies out there. Real gems are hard to come by, but even when you do find a gem, you have to polish it so that it can really start to shine. The same analogy holds true for anecdotal observations. 

FYI, not going to happen!

Using All the Tools in the Tool Bag

In my experience, you need the best of both worlds. You need good peer reviewed and published research, and you need real world, anecdotal experience. Scientific research can serve as good starting place for creating practical recommendations. These practical recommendations, however, must first be fine-tuned (polished) by experience in the trenches. 

In that same vein, it's often a good idea to test your anecdotal experience against the scientific literature.

You need to polish scientific evidence with real world results, and you need to polish real world evidence with the scientific method.

Now go forth, and polish some gems!