Why I have a Problem with Vegetarianism (Part II: The China Study - Cholesterol, Animal vs Plant Based Foods, & Risk of Cancer)

In Part I of this series, I briefly covered one of the more powerful claims made by T. Colin Campbell in his book The China Study; that claim being that all sources of animal protein are carcinogenic.  While my analysis was far from comprehensive, I hope I was, at the very least, able to convey the fallacy Campbell makes by categorically subsuming all animal sources of protein under the cancer-causing label by using nothing more than some studies done on casein protein in isolation of other variables.  As I stated previously, casein is not representative of all animal sources of protein.  Other sources of animal protein, such as whey, have anti-carcinogenic properties.

This discrepancy demonstrates the dangers of using inductive reasoning (reasoning which starts with a particular observation and, thus, is used to infer general laws and theories).  Indeed, I think many of Campbell's claims are founded on isolated phenomena (and also hubris and observational bias to a certain extent), and, therefore, lead to untenable general conclusions (general conclusions which are not supported by the majority of scientific research).

Don't misunderstand my negative tone for absolute disdain of Campbell's work.  I commend him for his passionate attempt at pointing out many of the flaws which inundate the scientific and Big Pharma industry.  Additionally, I think he is absolutely correct in asserting that the SAD (Standard American Diet) foods we're exposed to, in copious amounts, are tearing away at our health as a nation, and in the West in general.  Nevertheless, I like to call BS when I see it, and BS there is aplenty in many of Campbell's conclusions.

Over the course of the next several days, I'm going to cover a host of issues with The China Study.  I'll be relying heavily upon Denise Minger's critique of Campbell's work, entitled - The China Study: Fact or Fallacy*

*Actually, I'm more or less summarizing her work.  Her knowledge regarding this subject is simply too extensive for me to ignore.

Point #1 of Minger's Critique - Unhealthy Levels of Cholesterol Are Causative of Cancer, and Animal Sources of Food Are to Blame? (Nope!)

I think the heading above adequately conveys Campbell's thesis here.  He believes that having a serum cholesterol level between 90-170 milligrams/deciliter is positively associated cancer mortality.  Moreover, he believes animal protein is causative of this unhealthy cholesterol measurement, and he further believes that plant protein is, inversely, protective against cancer.  But, does the evidence support this hypothesis?  Minger says no.

Where Campbell's Right

According to Minger, Campbell is right on one account.  Animal protein, according to his data, does correlate with higher serum levels of cholesterol.  Moreover, unhealthy levels of cholesterol have been associated with higher risk of cancer.

Where Campbell's Wrong

Minger further points out, however that - 

when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None.

According to Minger, none of the data Campbell uses shows a direct correlation between animal protein and cancer.  In fact, looking at the data, we can see that animal protein was, in actuality, negatively associated with cancer risk in several instances -

Lymphoma: -18

 Penis cancer: -16

 Rectal cancer: -12

 Bladder cancer: -9

 Colorectal cancer: -8

 Leukemia: -5

 Nasopharyngeal: -4

 Cervix cancer: -4

 Colon cancer: -3

 Liver cancer: -3

 Oesophageal cancer: +2

 Brain cancer: +5

 Breast cancer: +12

Note:  (-) Negative numbers indicate a negative association, and (+) positive numbers indicate a positive association.

Though you will likely have noted that animal protein does seem to be correlated (correlation does not logically infer causation) with oesophageal cancer, brain cancer, and breast cancer, there are 10 other types of cancer with which animal protein is negatively associated.

But What About Plant Protein?

Another component of Campbell's hypothesis is that plant protein offers protection against most types of cancer.  This portion of Campbell's hypothesis arises from looking at his initial claim from another angle - 

Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol associates with animal protein, and therefore we infer that animal protein associates with cancer. Or from another angle: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol negatively associates with plant protein, and therefore we infer plant protein protects against cancer (Minger).

We've already established that the claim incriminating animal protein as causative of cancer is unfounded, but, what of the inverse claim?

Though plant protein does correlate (once again, this does not infer causation) with lower serum levels of cholesterol (according to Campbell's data) -

we also have more positive correlations [between plant protein and cancer] than we saw with animal protein (Minger).

Looking at the data -

Nasopharyngeal cancer: -40**

 Brain cancer: -15

 Liver cancer: -14

 Penis cancer: -4

 Lymphoma: -4

 Bladder cancer: -3

 Breast cancer: +1

 Stomach cancer: +10

 Rectal cancer: +12

 Cervix cancer: +12

 Colon cancer: +13

 Leukemia: +15

 Oesophageal cancer +18

 Colorectal cancer: +19 

Looking at these numbers, we can clearly see that plant protein is more highly correlated (I've said it already, but here it is again, correlation does not mean causation) with risk of cancer than animal protein.

Wait....What!?

That's right, when we look solely at the correlation between protein source and risk of cancer, we have greater reason to indict plant protein.  As Minger states - 

when we look solely at the variable “death from all cancers,” the association with plant protein is +12. With animal protein, it’s only +3. So why is Campbell linking animal protein to cancer, yet implying plant protein is protective against it?

Only Campbell can answer Minger's question, so, rather than put words in Campbell's mouth, I'll let the question stand.

Points of Research Campbell Likely Missed

By putting the bulk of his focus on trying to indict animal protein of high crimes against humanity, Campbell may have missed several other factors which more strongly correlate with elevated cholesterol and cancer.  Minger points to a number of potential factors, such as:  "schistosomiasis infection (correlation of +34*) and hepatitis B infection (correlation of +30*)."

Minger further states - 

Not coincidentally, cholesterol’s strongest cancer links are with liver cancer, rectal cancer, colon cancer, and the sum of all colorectal cancers...[S]chistosomiasis and hepatitis B are the two biggest factors in the occurrence of these diseases. So is it higher cholesterol (by way of animal products) that causes these cancers, or is it a misleading association because areas with high cholesterol are riddled with other cancer risk factors? We can’t know for sure, but it does seem odd that Campbell never points out the latter scenario as a possibility.

In Closing

I will readily admit that Minger's claims hardly exuding total certainty.  As I discussed in a post entitled "The Truth About 'Proof'", science is, by necessity, a tenuous enterprise.  I can't say with total certainty that animal protein is always going to be more or less protective against or causative of cancer in relation to plan protein.  I can only speak in probabilistic terms.

Nevertheless, probabilistically speaking, I would like to assert that there is no strong link between animal protein and cancer.  Additionally, I believe we would be better served by looking at more strongly associable dietary and lifestyle variables and their correlation with disease risk.

Such is my opinion, but I think it's an opinion worthy of our attention.  

Next Time...

In my next post, I'll discus Campbell's claims regarding links between breast cancer and dietary fat.

Why I Have a Problem with Vegetarianism (Part I: The China Study, Animal Protein, & Cancer)

I could list ad nauseum a number of proliferate dietary myths, misconceptions, and falsities.  Few, however, compare to the meta-fallacy of vegetarianism.

I'll be blunt.  I think veganism/vegetarianism is a poor lifestyle choice, period.

For that matter, I consider any dietary path that requires strict attention to supplementation (by necessity) to be inherently inferior.

I'm not implying, here, that all vegetarian diets are bad per se (the people who have success with vegetarianism know how to supplement their diets properly in order to maintain their health).  I'm merely stating that, if you aren't careful, going vegan/vegetarian can lead to a host of maladies; many of which can be easily avoided by keeping animal products in your diet.

So, in this series of posts I'm going to cover a number of issues with vegetarianism.  Additionally, I'll cover several mistaken conceptions people commonly have regarding animal products.

Let's dig in!

Problems with The China Study - Animal Protein Causes Cancer?

For those unaware, The China Study is a book written by one T. Colin Campbell.  In it, Campbell lays out a "scientific" argument against high protein-animal product based diets.  He, in turn, espouses a low protein-vegetarian diet, basing his claims on research that indicates a causal relationship between animal protein, dietary cholesterol, and high levels of dietary fat with cancer and other sorts of deadly diseases.

Where to Begin?

Let me start off my critique of Campbell's work with a quote from Anthony Colpo (independent researcher, physical conditioning specialist, and author of The Fat Loss Bible and The Great Cholesterol Con) - 

I have read a lot of truly awful health and diet books in my time, but without question, one of the very worst was The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. Never have I read a book so audaciously misleading, one whose author pontificates so vigorously about the importance of the scientific method but then unabashedly proceeds to write page after page of scientifically untenable garbage (1).

Colpo makes some indicting claims here, but are they justified?  What does Colpo mean when he refers to Campbell's work as "scientifically untenable garbage"?  Chris Masterjohn may have an answer -

Campbell [in his book] tells the story like this.  In 1965, he took a faculty position at Virginia Tech, then still an advocate of animal protein as good, nourishing American fare.  In 1967, he accepted an invitation from a department head at that university to travel to the Phillipines with the task of alleviating childhood malnutrition and making sure peanuts could provide good protein without the potential harms of aflatoxin, a carcinogenic mold toxin with which peanuts are often contaminated. 

A shocking revelation then came in two-fold form: first an epidemiological study suggested that liver cancer was rampant among Filipino children and that the “best-fed” rather than the malnourished children were the ones most ravaged by the disease; then, in 1968, ”a research paper from India surfaced in an obscure medical journal” showing that aflatoxin only produced liver cancer in rats when they were fed high levels of casein, a milk protein.  Campbell was surprised and skeptical, but he attempted to replicate these findings, and thus was born his two-decade research program showing that animal protein, but not plant protein, was the single most important trigger that turns cancer “on” like a light switch.

Campbell never tells us, however, that these Indian researchers actually published this paper as part of a two-paper set, one showing that low-casein diets make aflatoxin much more acutely toxic to rats (1), and the other showing that these same diets make aflatoxin much less carcinogenic (2).

In the very paper (2) that Campbell cites as “a revelation to die for,” showing that a high-protein diet turns the cancer switch to the “on” position, the low-protein diet proved lethal to the animals.  The investigators gave rats a small dose of aflatoxin every day for six months and fed them either a 5 percent casein or 20 percent casein diet.  The experiment carried on for two years, in fact, but they stopped administering aflatoxin at six months for the simple reason that half the animals on the low-protein diet had died.  They had typical symptoms of aflatoxin toxicity including liver necrosis (cell death), proliferation of bile duct tissue, and fatty liver. 

All the animals receiving 20 percent casein, on the other hand, were still alive at that point.  For the remainder of the two years [rats are lucky if they live to be 2 years old], the rats receiving 20 percent casein continued to live longer, but many of them developed liver cancer or pre-cancerous changes, while none of the rats fed 5 percent casein developed liver cancer (2).

So....according to the research Campbell elucidates, the only reason a higher protein diet may lead to cancer is because it will allow you to live long enough to get cancer.  Thus, if you want to avoid getting cancer, you should eat a low protein diet so you won't live to see the day that you do get cancer!

What I find most interesting about Campbell's methodology is the lack of nuance.  First off, this study should have been used to assuage people from eating foods containing aflatoxin (i.e. peanuts), not to convince them that they should avoid high protein diets per se.  Moreover, Campbell, epistemologically speaking, could only (at least potentially) have used this research to indict casein as a source of protein.  Admittedly, casein has been associated with a number of autoimmune/cancerous diseases.  However, not all animal sources of protein are casein.  Whey, for example, is an animal protein (one found in milk in addition to casein) that has been shown to have anti-carcinogenic properties.  Rather than pay heed to such a discrepancy with his thesis, however, Campbell asserts in his book that all sources of animal protein are carcinogenic and causative of disease (this is quite the leap in logic given what little data he brings forth).

I think Denise Minger says it best -

As ample literature indicates, other forms of animal protein—particularly whey, another component of milk—may have strong anti-cancer properties. Some studies have examined the effect of whey and casein, side-by-side, on tumor growth and cancer, showing in nearly all cases that these two proteins have dramatically different effects on tumorigenesis (with whey being protective). A study Campbell helped conduct with one of his grad students in the 1980s showed that the cancer-promoting abilities of fish protein depended on what type of fat is consumed alongside it. The relationship between animal protein and cancer is obviously complex, situationally dependent, and bound with other substances found in animal foods—making it impossible extrapolate anything universal from a link between isolated casein and cancer (3).

 Minger further indicates in a separate critique of The China Study -

I propose that Campbell’s hypothesis is not altogether wrong but, more accurately, incomplete. While he has skillfully identified the importance of whole, unprocessed foods in achieving and maintaining health, his focus on wedding animal products with disease has come at the expense of exploring—or even acknowledging—the presence of other diet-disease patterns that may be stronger, more relevant, and ultimately more imperative for public health and nutritional research [such as grain products (Read This), hydrogenated seed and vegetable oils (This), an imbalanced ratio of omega 6-omega 3 fatty acids (This), the over-consumption and over abundance of hyper-rewarding/nutrient deficient foods (and This), etc.] (4).

Looking at the Big Picture

There's certainly more to come in this series (so much to come in fact!), but for now, let's focus on the take home point for today:  We should avoid a reductionist perspective, one which leads us to make unwarranted categorical statements (yes, even my somewhat ignorant rant at the beginning of this post) that ignore the emergent qualities inherent in any given complex system.  Thus, the statement that animal protein is, in and of itself, causative of cancer is epistemologically unfounded, and, moreover, it is blatantly wrong if we consider the fact that whey protein (an animal source of protein) has anti-cancer properties.

Health is not something that we can reduce to any one or small number of factors; rather, it is an emergent system, that being something which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Nevertheless, I still believe there is ample evidence to suggest that a diet lacking in animal sources of nutrition is a more or less unhealthy (or at least sub par) way to go about eating.

So stay tuned for my next post, wherein I will offer a critique of yet another unfounded claim from The China Study.

After that, I'll go on to cover such issues as nutrient deficiencies, and misconceptions about the nutritive value of plants vs. animals (spoiler alert:  diets that consist of just plants or just dead animals are inferior to a diet which contains ample amounts of both plants and dead animals).

A Critique of Shine's 5 Workout Myths

My Dad recently pointed my attention toward a fitness article on Yahoo Shine entitled "5 Biggest Workout Myths."

Unlike most Yahoo articles out there, I actually agree to a certain extent with what the author states, however, I've decided to go into more detail, and give a fuller picture than what the author of this article did herself.

Here's the article -

Myth #1: Walking is a great way to lose weight. "Going for a walk is fantastic, but if you're in the market for serious weight loss, you're going to have to start changing gears," Michelle says. "Gradually build yourself up." Jogging for 10 minutes burns 100 calories, while walking for the same amount of time burns just 20.

Myth #2: Never work out on an empty stomach. "Training on an empty stomach means that you're going to go straight into your glycemic levels," Michelle explains. "You're going to be burning fat immediately."

Myth # 3: Pilates and yoga are great for weight loss. Michelle says that while these classes improve flexibility, "if you want to lose weight quickly and get fit fast, you need to get into something with a little more intensity."

Myth #4: You shouldn't train with weights every day. Michelle recommends varying what muscles you work and the intensity. "Work on your upper body one day and your lower body the other day," she suggests.

Myth #5: Weight training builds bulk. Michelle says that weight training will provide a great "engine" for burning more fat. "You're going to get a beautiful toned look, but with lean muscle mass, you're going to be burning more calories," she says. (5 Biggest Workout Myths)

Tackling Myth #1

The author, here, is partially right, but mostly wrong (See my post on cardio).  To keep things short and sweet, suffice it to say that walking is in fact a wonderful way to stay active.  Moreover, it most assuredly can lead to fat loss, counter to what the author of the Yahoo article espouses.

The author, additionally, sets the reader up with a false dichotomy by using a comparison between 10 minutes of walking vs 10 minutes of jogging.  Firstly, depending on how fast you go, you can actually burn quite a few calories by walking.  Secondly, I have no idea where the author got her calorie numbers.  Though she's right to say that jogging can burn more calories than walking (depending on the circumstance), I disagree that this calorie comparison is enough to uphold the entire argument.  Interestingly, grand chest masters can purportedly burn up to 6,000-7,000 calories in a day while playing a chess tournament (all the while doing very little physical activity).

I also dislike the fact that the author recommends using walking as a means to work your way up to jogging.  Instead, you ought to stick with walking on a regular basis, and also work on sprinting, or doing some form of high intensity interval training, 1-2x per week.  Sprinting is a more time efficient and metabolically advantageous way to burn calories than jogging ever will be.

Tackling Myth #2

Read this, this, and this to get a more comprehensive take on this subject.  

Also, I think the author of this study should have referred to "fasted training", not training on an empty stomach.  The two are not inherently one in the same.  If you workout about 4 hours after having eaten a meal, you'll be working out on an empty stomach, but you likely won't be in a fasted state (and thus will not likely achieve the "burning fat immediately" scenario the author mentions).  The reason is, depending on the size of your last meal, your body will likely be deriving energy from said meal for several hours post consumption.  You won't start sliding into the fasted state until 6-7 hours after you've eaten (once again, depending on how much you ate).

Moreover, I've also started to shy away from training fasted.  The reason being is that liver glycogen levels will be quite low after even 16 hours of not eating.  If you start doing some sort of high intensity exercise like lifting weights or sprinting with low levels of liver glycogen, you may experience a quick drop in blood sugar, and consequently, your performance.  

Since the liver is tasked with maintaining blood sugar, and since your liver glycogen levels will be rather low, your body will have to start converting its muscle tissue into glycogen in order to maintain healthy blood sugar levels.  This is why, if I do train after a fast, I usually have a piece of whole fruit or a protein shake prior to beginning my workout.  By doing this, I give my body an external, rather than an internal source of glucose or protein that it can use to maintain my blood sugar.

Going back to training on an empty stomach, there's really no one size fits all scenario here.  Some people find it easier to workout with food in their stomach, while others find just the opposite easier.  Genetics, lifestyle, age, and health status all play a role in what will and will not work for you.  Go by your own experience with your body, and not off of my recommendations, or anyone else's.  You should know your body better than anyone.

Tackling Myth #3

While I agree that doing something such as sprinting (or any other high intensity exercise) will offer greater weight loss benefits than yoga or Pilates, don't rule them out just because they don't allow you to burn a lot of calories.  

One study shows that yoga can reduce the symptoms of breast cancer in women.  Yoga can also serve as a type of psycho-therapy, for people with mental illness.

We shouldn't rule out any activity on the basis of calorie burn.  Rather, we should look at the whole host of health benefits achievable.

Tackling Myth #4

While I agree that weight training is a great exercise (well duh!), I don't think it's an activity one should be doing every day.  

There are a lot of contradicting voices out there about how to properly weight train.  One of the voices I listen to says this:

•Work each major bodypart once every 2-7 days. The exact frequency will be determined by factors such as rep range, intensity and exercise selection. These factors, in turn, are influenced by bone-structure and nervous system recovery ability.

•Do 3 'hard' sets per free-weight compound exercise.

•Do 2-3 'hard' sets per isolation exercise.

•The vast majority of your workout should be devoted to free-weight compound exercises. Do relatively few isolation exercises - unless you are genetically gifted, or on drugs, they will not accelerate your progress, they will hinder it.

•Weight train no more than 3 times per week. Large-boned and genetically gifted individuals may progress well on 4 days-per-week split routines, though such high frequency is not necessary to produce optimal strength and size gains..

•Be cautious about, and respectful of, training to failure. Unless you are large-boned/jointed with excellent nervous system recovery abilities, you will likely find that excessive training to failure imposes extended rest periods between body part training sessions, and does not result in faster muscle growth. For small-boned trainees, training to failure must be avoided or done so only on the last set of an exercise. The majority of your sets should end with maybe another one or two reps left in you. (Making A Strength/Size Routine Part IV).

You should be weight training on a regular basis, just don't do it every day.

Tackling Myth #5

Since the author was writing for a female audience (a demographic which mistakenly thinks that weight training will cause them to build unseemly amounts of muscle), this myth is quite pertinent.

Suffice it to say that muscle is built incredibly, incredibly, incredibly slowly.  There is simply no way you could "accidentally" build too much muscle!

Moreover, there is no such difference between lean muscle and bulked muscle.  There are muscles, period!  They can vary in size, but there's only one kind.

Read this article for a more comprehensive take on this subject:  Workout Routines For Women - Why Your Weight Training Workouts Suck

And read this:  Top Three Reasons Women Don't Lift

Conclusion

Whether you're a man or a woman, young or old, there are many myths floating around in cyber space.  If there's a myth you'd like to see me address, let me know in the comments section.

Volume vs. Frequency: Two Distinct Variables or Are They One in the Same?

In weight training, there are, for the most part, 3 proposed variables which dictate the nature of your workouts.  These variables are the volume of work done (both in a given workout and also over the course of a week), the frequency of work done (how often you perform a certain amount of volume for a specific muscle group), and the intensity of work done (how heavy or light the weight is).

For today's post, I just want to focus on the first two variables (volume and frequency).  Intensity is an issue all its own; deserving of a post dedicated solely to it.  Volume and frequency, however, are very much interrelated.  This is the case because, as we will soon see, it's very hard to distinguish whether its the total volume of work performed or the frequency of volume performed that has the greatest impact on muscle growth.

The Ontology of Frequency and Volume

There is, admittedly, quite a lot of conflicting evidence comparing the relationship between frequency and volume.  As a result, it can be rather hard to hash out exactly what's going on when we use one particular method vs. another.  However, some evidence I ran across may clarify things for us (at least a little).  

A meta-analysis conducted by Peterson et al. back in 2005 suggests that there is a "dose-response" between the volume and frequency of work done and the muscle growth thus achieved.  The authors indicated that the effectiveness of a training routine will vary depending on the person doing the training (whether that person is untrained, recreationally trained, or an athlete).  Thus, we can see that both the volume and frequency of work done will have an effect on muscle building outcomes; though to variable extents depending on a given person's age, health, and training history.

Another meta-analysis from Sports Medicine by Wernbom et al. further reveals that a dose-response relationship seems to exist between the volume and frequency of work done in relation to the amount of muscle growth achieved.  The authors of this study end with very specific recommendations that are in my opinion not well founded on the meta-analytic data they used for their study.  Nevertheless, their work does correlate with past studies revealing that volume and frequency do play a role in muscle growth.

But This Begs the Question...

The issue I often have with studies that compare volume and frequency has to do with the underlying ontology they use to assess data.  Ontology is very simply the model or explanatory theory used to explain things.  The ontology of most sports science researchers seems to entail that a very real difference exists between volume and frequency.  I'm not entirely certain, however, that the two are in fact different.

The question I would like to ask is this:  is an increase in frequency nothing more than an increase in total volume?  If it is, then might total volume (and not frequency) be the true determinant factor of a routine's effectiveness?  Is a volume of 9 working sets done at a frequency of once per week something truly different from a volume of 3 sets done at a frequency of three times per week?  Moreover, if it should turn out that a volume of 6 working sets done once per week was less effective than a volume of 6 sets done twice per week, would this difference in effectiveness be a product of an increase in frequency (going from hitting a muscle group once per week to twice per week) or an increase in total volume (going from doing 6 total working sets per week to 12 working sets per week)?  

The only way to tell for certain would be to test two programs, both with an equal amount of total volume, but with differences in frequency.  

The Study

Sure enough, after looking for quite some time I finally found a study that provided me with an adequate (though still tentative) answer to my question.

The study itself is a master's thesis by a guy named Michael H. Thomas from the Depart of Kinesiology at the University of Central Missouri, entitled Increasing Lean Mass and Strength: A Comparison of High Frequency Strength Training to Low Frequency Strength Training.  This work compares differences in strength and lean mass following 8 weeks of strength training with a total volume of 9 working sets per muscle group, done either once per week or spread out over three days in a week.

What were the results?  "No mean differences between [the tested] groups were significant."

While this study is far from conclusive (things is science really never are), it does lend credence to the notion that total volume, and not frequency per se, has the greatest impact on muscle building.  Moreover, it may suggest that frequency is really nothing more than a modal/methodological subset of volume.

What results from this new ontology of muscle building is a decrease in variables.  Now, instead of 3 variables (volume, frequency, and intensity) we have just 2 (volume and intensity).

Applications

No post on muscle building variables would be complete without a muscle building routine at the end.  So, based on information gleaned from the studies above (you can read them all yourself if you'd like to come to your own conclusions), the work of other knowledgeable experts I know of, and personal experience, the following routine will be quite effective, both in terms of total volume and in the modality said volume takes.

While some may yet argue that hitting a muscle group just once per week is ineffective, I tend to think just the opposite.  If Thomas' thesis is correct, then we can achieve a comparable amount of muscle growth and strength improvement by hitting a muscle group, with the appropriate total volume, just once per week.  

Training in such a way gives us a number of advantages, both psychologically and in terms of efficiency. Rather than stretch our focus across a gambit of exercises and muscle groups, we can focus on just a few muscle groups per workout and thus improve our mental intensity.  Moreover, since we don't have to worry about doing so many different types of exercises in a given workout, we won't have to add extra time to our lifting sessions by performing warm-up sets for every exercise we perform.

So, we can thus see that from a psychological and a time manage standpoint, getting our total volume in for a given muscle group in one training session per week is a much better option as opposed to spreading that volume out over the course of 2-3 days per week.

Here's the routine:

Monday:  Back, Calves & Biceps

A1 – Deadlift:  warm-up then 3 working sets of 4-6 reps

B1 – Barbell Row:  3 working sets of 4-6 reps

B2 – Calves:  3 working sets of 8-12 reps

C1 – Chin-ups:  3 working sets of 4-6 reps

C2 – Calves:  3 working sets of 8-12 reps

D1 – Dumbbell Curl:  3 working sets of 6-8 reps

E1 – Barbell Curl:  3 working sets of 6-8 reps

Wednesday:  Chest, Abs & Triceps

A1 – Flat Bench Pess:  warm-up then 3 working sets of 4-6 reps

A2 – Cable Crunch:  3 working sets of 8-12 reps

B1 – Incline Bench Press:  3 working sets of 4-6 reps

B2 – Hanging Leg Raise:  3 working sets taken to burnout

C1 – Chest Dips:  3 working sets of 4-6 reps

C2 – Air Bicycles:  3 working sets taken to burnout

D1 – Lying Triceps Extension:  3 working sets of 6-8 reps

E1 – Seated Triceps Press:  3 working sets of 6-8 reps

Friday:  Shoulders, Legs & Traps

A1 – Seated Military Press:  warm-up then 3 working sets of 4-6 reps

A2 – Lateral Raise:  1 light warm-up set then 3 working sets of 4-6 reps

A3 – Seated Rear Delt Raise:  3 working sets of 4-6 reps

B1 – Barbell Squat:  warm-up then 3 working sets of 4-6 reps

C1 – Barbell Shrug:  3 working sets of 6-8 reps

C2 – Leg Curl:  3 working sets of 4-6 reps

Notes

Lifts with the same letters (such as A1 & A2, etc.) should be done as alternating sets with 90 seconds of rest  in between them.  Otherwise, you should take between 3-5 minutes rest between sets of a given exercise.

Unless otherwise specified, warm-ups for a given exercise should consist of 1 set of 12 reps at 50% of the targeted intensity for the day, then 1 set of 10 reps at 50%, 1 set of 4 reps at 70%, and finally 1 set of 1 rep at 90%.  Take about a minute rest between warm-up sets.

If you workout in the mornings, you should also do some form of moderate intensity cardio for 5-10 minutes before you begin the day's workout in order to get your core body temperature elevated. 

If you can get the top number of reps prescribed for an exercise, add 10lbs of weight to the lift until you can only get the bottom number of reps listed.  From this bottom number, you should work your way back up to the top number of reps prescribed before you add more weight.  You must try to get stronger!  You won't see any results if you fail to progressively overload your muscles with evermore challenging demands.

Make sure you give each and every rep your all.  Don't throw the weight or cheat on your form.  Check the links attached to each exercise if you're unsure about how to properly perform them.

Good Luck!

5 Strategies for Dieting in College

If you're in college, and you're trying to diet, you don't need me to tell you that you've got your work cut out for you.  After all, it's one thing for me to suggest calorie ranges and macro-nutrient ratios for someone who has complete control over their food (i.e. most adults living on their own and not confined to getting their food from a dining commons).  It's another issue entirely for me to offer precise dieting protocols for someone who, quite frankly, has very little means to measure and control his/her food.

While not all colleges are the same, my college has a buffet style dining commons.  Moreover, the food selection is often limited (especially in terms of finding a satisfying meal that also happens to be healthy and nutritious).  What makes things worse, however, is that, in addition to an unsatisfactory variety of healthy food, I'm also constrained to an environment that prevents me from making quantifiable evaluations of my food (i.e. I can't guarantee an accurate portion size, and thus I can't accurately monitor my macro-nutrient ratios or my total caloric intake).

It would be incredibly easy for me to just say "screw it!"  After all, what viable options for diet control do I still have?

A lot, actually.

Here are 5 strategies to get you started -

1:  Be a Picky Eater!

Yes, you heard me!  Be picky about what you eat.  Picky eaters seem to have a much lower likelihood of having a higher BMI (though so long as they don't choose to only eat incredibly calorie dense junk food!).  Moreover, as a I've discussed in the past, food variety can have a significant impact on perceived hunger and satiety.  The more types of food you permit yourself to eat, generally speaking, the more food you will end of up eating in the long term.  

However, we can't just say "OK, so I'll just eat nothing pizza and ice cream at my dining commons!"

Bad idea.

2:  Be a Picky Eater (but be the weird kind that only wants to eat a lot of fruits, vegetables, & unprocessed meat)

I've also discussed in previous posts about food reward, and its potential implications for causing either spontaneous increases or decreases in our total energy consumption (depending on whether the foods we eat are hyper-rewarding or only moderately rewarding).  Eating foods high in protein, fiber, and water content (meats, fish, poultry, vegetables, fruit, etc.) will, in a sense, cause our homeostatic feed back systems to start wanting to defend a healthier/lower body fat set-point.  

In English, this means that if you eat mostly whole foods, and not processed junk, you'll likely lose fat.

3:  Keep a Food Journal

I said earlier that, at least in my situation, accurately measuring my food is not a viable option.  When this is the case (as it often is for most college students), we can still roughly keep tabs on how much we eat in a more qualitative sense.

For instance, today for dinner I made 3 total trips to my dining commons buffet.  The first time I went I got about a fist size serving of carved turkey breast and approximately 3x3oz scoops of plain white rice (the scoop I used was marked as 3oz, but I have no way of knowing if all the scoops I took were uniform).  For the second trip, I got some more turkey breast and rice (about the same amount), and for my third trip I got an apple and about 4 spoon fulls (each one a completely different size) of peanut butter.

I could try to transpose these food quantities to an online database, but ultimately, the calorie and macro nutrient ratios I would get would not likely be accurate.

So why do I keep track?

For starters, some evidence seems to show that keeping a food journal is correlated with (not necessarily causative of) better diet adherence and less over eating.  This makes sense.  I can't plead ignorance and tell myself "oh, I haven't eaten that much today," when I know, at least in a qualitative sense, that I actually did eat quite a bit.

Secondly I can use this food journal and compare my long term food choices and food quantities with...

4:  Keep Tabs on Your Body

As I was saying, you can cross reference your food journal with trends in your waist circumference and body weight (or just waist circumstance if you don't have access to a scale).  

In a sense, I actually like doing this better than counting calories because, very simply, a calorie count does not dictate whether or not you're losing or gaining weight.  Rather, your body mass will dictate whether or not you're gaining or losing weight. 

To put this in less complex terms:  Imagine that your body is like a bank account.  There's just one problem, though.  You can't accurately measure how much money you're making and spending.  All you have is a debit card, you don't the exact price of anything (though you might have a rough idea), and you only make a certain amount of money according to what your boss dictates, and he never tells you what specific tasks can earn you more or less money (though you might have a rough idea).  Some days you may spend more and make less.  Other days it may be the reverse.  You do, however, get a banking statement once per week that tells you what your current account balance is.  If your balance increased, you know you spent less money than you made.  If your balance decreased, you know you spent more money than you made.  If your balance stayed the same, you know you made the same amount that you spent.

While it would be incredibly inconvenient if this scenario was how a real job and financial situation worked out, this sort of inconvenience is exactly the type of thing we're dealing with in terms of our body's energy balance.  Even if we did count calories, or use some sort of BMR calculator with an activity multiplier, these numbers would only be guesses.  The only way to know for sure that our energy account (our stored fat) is decreasing in size is to actually keep tabs on it by tracking our waist circumference and weight (at the same time of the day, under the same or similar circumstances, once per week).

Once you're able to start noticing trends and correlations between your waist circumference, weight, the amount of average activity you perform, and the amount of food you eat in general, you will be better able to judge whether or not you need to eat less or more or neither.

5:  Intermittent Fasting

Intermittent fasting is another helpful tool you can use to lose weight if you don't really have the means to keep accurate tabs on your nutrition.  After all, if you need a caloric deficit to lose fat, there's no greater deficit than a complete deficit (i.e. not eating anything).

If you're at all concerned about whether intermittent fasting might be a harmful practice, be assured that I'm not promoting starvation dieting.

Moderate fasting (either a daily fast of 16-20 hours or a 24 hour fast every 3-4 days) seems to be a fairly harmless practice based on the evidence.  It does not appear to negatively impact your metabolism, nor does it cause you go into starvation mode and start cannibalizing your own muscle tissue.  Such things will only occur once your ability to mobilize your stored fat for oxidation has become insufficient to support your energy needs.

The more fat you have to lose, the more fat your body can mobilize to use for fuel.  Once you start getting lean, however, you may want to cut back a bit on the fasting, because, eventually, your fat mass will no longer be able to keep up with the demands of your deficit (but this really doesn't become much of an issue until you start approaching 6-8% body fat).

So What Are You Waiting For?!

So, if you're a college student and in a bind as to how you should go about doing a diet with your limited resources, give these 5 tips a try and see if you don't start making progress.

And don't forget to include an intelligently designed weight training routine (such as the one found here:  A Push/Pull/Legs Split That Will Make You Look Like a Man) in your plans for awsomeness!

The Truth About "Proof"

How many times have you heard an advertised muscle building or fat loss add espouse something to this effect:

"X product/program/diet is scientifically proven to make you stronger/leaner/a fat burning machine!"

We hear these sorts of marking ploys all the time, but what exactly is meant by the phrase "scientifically proven" (or any other such phrase)?

In short, this phrase simply means that the person/company/doctor/whoever else who was doing the advertising has no real understanding of how science works.

Logical Proofs vs. Scientific Probability

Many lay people, and even some scientists, make the common mistake that science is a tool which allows its practitioner to prove things.  In reality, science cannot be used to prove anything.

Without getting too technical, suffice it to say that "proofs" are a component of logic and mathematics, not science.  Logic and mathematics deal with formulas and abstract concepts that are considered to fall within the realm of universal truths.  For instance, 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept that is true, independent of the actual existence of 2 as a real, physical object.  In the case of logic, take this very rudimentary logical formula:  

All A are B.

X is an A.

Therefore, X is a B.

This logical formula is abstractly provable, despite the fact that our terms A, B, and X may not refer to anything in actual existence.  These terms are provable because, as we are dealing with abstract terms and not real things, we essentially are dealing with a closed system wherein the only variables with which we have to contend are those provided in our logical phrase.

In the world of science, however, things become much, much, much more complicated.  A phrase such as "all A are B," if it is going to apply to actual things in existence, necessitates that we know it to be true that all things "A" really are "B."  For example, the phrase "all swans are white" necessitates 1) that all the swans we have observed are white and 2) that all the swans we have observed are all the swans there are in existence for us to observe.

I don't think I have to go into too much more detail to demonstrate the very real epistemological (that having to do with the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity) problems which arise from this very simple phrase.  How do we know all swans are white?  How can we be sure we've observed all the swans that ever were, are, or will be in existence?  Are we just referring to all the swans in existence now?  I could raise one question after another ad nauseam, but I think you get the picture.

This issue of epistemology is the very reason why science cannot deal in proofs.  It can only deal in probabilities.  Moreover, these probabilities can only be inferred from a very small subset or fraction of the whole system or scientific theory in question.  In order for my theory to stand as highly probable, that all swans are white, I must demonstrate after repeated observation that all the swans I have observed thus far have not been anything other than white.  The fact that all the swans I have observed have been white does not prove anything.  Thus, my goal in conducting continual observation is to falsify my theory, not prove it.  If I find just one black swan, my theory is falsified.  Grant it, one might say "well, can't we thus prove a theory is false?"  Perhaps, if we wanted to get cutesy with our terms, but let's not digress.

Reality as a Deck of Cards:  A Very Big Deck of Cards

If there's anything that we could most liken scientific experimentation to, it could be a deck of cards.  On top of that, make it an infinite deck of cards.

Say I start drawing cards from the deck, and I notice that all the cards I've drawn are aces of spades.  From this observation I make a hypothesis that all the cards in this infinite deck are aces of spades.  So, in order to gain further support for this hypothesis, I make repeated observations by continuing to draw cards from the deck.  Each time I draw another card and it turns out to be an ace of spades, my hypothesis gains credibility.  Eventually, my hypothesis becomes a theory (which is a well tested and as yet un-falsified hypothesis).

Now, because this deck is infinitely large, I can never know or prove that all the cards in the deck are aces of spades.  I can only say it seems probable that all the cards in the deck could be aces of spades. 

Let's shift gears and imagine the whole of the human race as a deck of cards.  Say I have a hypothesis that X supplement will yield Y result in whoever takes Z milligrams of it daily.  In order to demonstrate the probability that this hypothesis is probable, I must make a number of repeated observations of humans who take Z milligrams of X supplement daily to see if they experience Y.  I thus set out "draw" several people out of the deck of humanity.  We could even add some complexity here and say there are multiple human decks, each presenting a different demographic.  There could be a deck for the elderly, the young, the healthy, the obese, athletes, recreational exercisers, sedentary people, etc.  If I only draw from one deck, not only can I not make any inferences about the other decks, but I cannot say with certainty that all the people in the deck tested will experience Y if they take X.

To further confound the situation, these decks that I'm drawing from are continually changing.  After all, demographics change in size and scope all the time.  People die, they are born, they could start out healthy then become obese, or start out obese and become healthy.  So, what of these people who move from one demographic to another?  Should we just move them to one of the other existing decks, or, because their situation is not entirely like that of the people who have been long time members of a given deck, must we create entirely new decks for these people who change their status?

This situation is even more complex in the real world (as if it wasn't already complex enough!).  In the real world, not even everyone in a given experiment or observation will see exactly the same results with a given supplement, diet, or training regimen.  Thus, when scientists examine data from their experiments, they have to base their conclusions on the average or mean result gotten when crunching the numbers of the wide range of results obtained from experimentation.  Some people may not respond well to supplement X, others may have benefited greatly.  When scientists look at their results, they have to make very tentative suggestions based on their findings (one common suggestion researchers make is that more testing and research should be conducted), because, not only may supplement X not have universally worked in all subjects tested (say the product was effective for 70% of subjects tested), we still have no idea whether supplement X will benefit the same percentage of people in the entirety of the demographic the scientists chose to observe.

People with a descent awareness of these issues (not necessarily and understanding of them) will be open and honest about the limits thereof afforded to the conclusions made from scientific experimentation.  Now you too can be one those people who are aware that, if anyone ever says such and such as been scientifically proven to do this, that, and the other, said anyone has no idea what kind of fallacious statement they're actually making.

The Importance of Self-Experimentation and Knowing Your Own Body

While I hope I've not entirely destroyed your faith in science (though I hope I have somewhat diminished any romanticized views of science you may have previously had), be aware that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.  If anything, these issues faced by scientists' attempts to extrapolate the various uses of supplements, exercises, and diets ought to free us somewhat to make our own conclusions about how said supplements, exercises, and diets can work for us.

It's incredibly difficult to make a universal claim about A being B.  It's by far easier to assess whether a particular a exists as a particular b.  Though we can certainly use universal probabilities as a starting point, ultimately we must be willing to look out our own bodies and personal experiences to assess whether a universal probability is our particular reality.

We should never feel obligated to dismiss our anecdotal experiences, or those of others, just because some dimwit looking to make a buck sensationalized a scientific experiment for the purpose of pedaling some supplement, workout, or diet as a "proved" reality.  

Keep these ideas in mind as you peruse the web and are attacked by popups and advertisements espousing proven methods or supplements for weight loss, muscle gain, or life extension.  Nothing in science is proven.  

Now that you know this, you can confidently disregard 99% of all online, radio, and television marketing ploys.  

Links Worth Checking Out

Being back in the swing of things can be both a welcome relief and a pain in the you know what all at once.

Such is the case for me at the moment with school work and side projects (like writing a book) taking up the majority of my schedule.

But, rather than take the easiest way out of my endeavor to continue blogging by not blogging for a period of time, I've chosen to take just the easy way out by suggesting some reading that I've found particularly interesting.

1)  First up is an article by Mark Sisson about the benefits of walking (something I've alluded to in a past post).  It's entitled - 17 Reasons to Walk More This Year

2)  Secondly, Brad Pilon (author of Eat Stop Eat) has a blog which I like to follow called "Eat Blog Eat."  He recently posted an article entitled - The Truth About Calorie Deficits

3)  Next up is a free offering from obesity researching Stephan Guyenet.  I always find his articles on obesity research, food reward, and nutrition interesting, and I think this free e-book of his (which he has just recently released) would be an incredibly helpful tool for anyone looking to lose weight.  I admittedly haven't read it myself, but I've read enough of Guyenet's work to know that this is quality work.  So check it out - Free E-Book and Ideal Weight Program 2.0 Announcement

4)  Lastly, here's an interesting article by a guy named Mike Matthews (if you recall from my last post, I'm doing his weight training program this whole year, which I think is excellent by the way).  It'll be of interest to anyone looking to shed "stubborn body fat" around the abdominal muscles - The Simple Science of Losing Belly Fat...for Good

There's some great food for thought in these articles so Bon Apitite! (or however you spell that!)

Things to Come In 2014

With the dust from the holiday season having settled, and the sugar highs long gone, it's time to begin a new year.

While I hope that you haven't broken your New Year's Resolution(s) just yet, be aware that perfection is something that is both desirable and undesirable in and of itself.  Though it's important to always strive to be better, it's equally important not to give up once you've fallen off your horse once or twice.

We don't fail once we fall.  We fail when we refuse to get up!

Keep that idea in mind no matter where you are in life, or what your goals and aspirations are for the new year.

With that said, here are some of my aspirations for the following year:
1)  Follow a weight training routine for an entire year, and one that I didn't come up with myself.
I have a tendency to hop from one routine to another.  I always feel compelled to change my rep scheme, change the frequency of my workouts, change my diet, etc.  Even though I think I've created some wonderful and potentially effective programs for myself in the past, I always tell myself "this could be better."  What would be best, however, is sticking to a program long enough to actually see results.  I have the necessary knowledge to make a good program, but I've established the habit of being inconsistent.  So this year I'm turning potential knowledge in to to actual knowledge by following a program that I know will work.  (If you're interested in the routine I'm going to use for this whole year, I'm using Bigger, Leaner, Stronger by a guy named Mike Matthews.  It's a great program based on simple, time tested principles.)

2)  Write a book.
Yes, you read that right.  I'm going to start writing a book.  It's going to be about bodybuilding, but it's going to have a unique twist.  It'll be an interesting, and rather unconventional take on bodybuilding as seen from an Aristotelian lens.  It often seems as though most fitness and health authors are just beating a dead horse at times.  Even though different "experts," doctors, and bodybuilders alike have produced a wealth of literature, it's all pretty well the same message in different packaging.  Aside from intermittent fasting (even this one's a stretch), I've yet to see anything truly revolutionary or unheard of in the sphere of health and wellness.  Most health ideas seem to fade in and out of use like any other trend.  One minute it's all about the glycemic index, the next it's about going low carb, then about carb cycling, then back to the glycemic index mixed with carb cycling, then it's about standing on your tip toes, clapping 3 times, and getting round housed by Chuck Norris 3.26 minutes before you eat dinner so you won't store any fat, or some other non-sense.  The programs that work, work for a very small handful of reasons, none of which are new.  This is why I'm taking an Aristotelian approach to my book.  I hope to show the timelessness and the effectiveness of applying 2,000+ year old principles to modern issues such as how to build muscle, lose fat, and be healthy.  I don't have a specific timetable for when I'll have the book completed.  I hope to have it completed before the end of the year in the worst case scenario, and by the mid to late summer in the best case scenario.  Keep your eyes peeled for updates!

That's that.  Here's some words of wisdom to cap this post off:

"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford