Michael Matthews's Blog, page 146
July 24, 2013
Why High-Intensity Interval Training is Best For Weight Loss
I’m going to start this article bluntly:
Unless you just love going for long jogs, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to do steady-state cardio instead of high-intensity interval training (HIIT).
By the end of this article, I think you’ll agree.
Let’s begin.
High-Intensity Interval Training and Burning Fat
Cardio machines often show pretty graphs indicating where your heart rate should be for “fat burning” versus “cardiovascular training.”
You calculate this magical heart rate by subtracting your age from 200 and multiplying this number by 0.6. If you keep your heart rate at this number, as the story goes, you’ll be in the “fat burning zone.”
There’s a kernel of truth here.
You do burn both fat and carbohydrates when you exercise, and the proportion varies with the intensity of exercise.
A very low-intensity activity like walking taps mainly into fat stores, whereas high-intensity sprints pull much more heavily from carbohydrate stores. At about 60% of maximum exertion, your body gets about half of its energy from carbohydrate stores and half from fat stores (which is why many “experts” claim that you should work in the range of 60–70% of maximum exertion).
Based on the above, you might think that I’m actually arguing for steady-state cardio, but there’s more to consider.
The first issue is total calories burned while exercising. If you walk off 100 calories, 85 of which come from fat stores, that isn’t as effective as spending that time in a moderate run that burns off 200 calories with 100 coming from fat. And that, in turn, isn’t as effective as spending that time doing sprint intervals that burn off 500 calories with 150 coming from fat.
Calories burned while exercising isn’t the whole story, though.
Studies such as those conducted by Laval University, East Tennessee State University, Baylor College of Medicine, and the University of New South Wales have shown that shorter, high-intensity cardio sessions result in greater fat loss over time than longer, low-intensity sessions.
A study conducted by The University of Western Ontario gives us insight into how much more effective it really is. Researchers had 10 men and 10 women train 3 times per week, with one group doing 4-6 30-second treadmill sprints (with 4-6 minutes of rest in between each), and the other group doing 30-60 minutes of steady-state cardio (running on the treadmill at the “magical fat loss zone” of 65% VO2 max).
The results: After 6 weeks of training, the subjects doing the intervals had lost more fat. Yes, 4-6 30-second sprints burns more fat than 60 minutes of incline treadmill walking.
Although the exact mechanisms of how high-intensity cardio trumps steady-state cardio aren’t fully understood yet, scientists have isolated quite a few of the factors:
Increased resting metabolic rate for upwards of 24 hours after exercise.
Improved insulin sensitivity in the muscles.
Higher levels of fat oxidation in the muscles.
Significant spikes in growth hormone levels (which aid in fat loss) and catecholamine levels (chemicals your body produces to directly induce fat mobilization).
Post-exercise appetite suppression.
And more…
The bottom line is that high-intensity interval training burns more fat in less time than steady-state cardio.
But wait, there’s more…
High-Intensity Interval Training and Your Muscles
In most people’s minds, cardio and muscle growth don’t go together very well. And there’s some truth in this.
While I recommend that you always include some cardio in your programming regardless of whether you’re bulking or cutting (and I detail why here), there are right and wrong ways to do it.
For instance, research has shown that combing both strength and endurance training (concurrent training) can hinder your strength and muscle gains when compared to just strength training alone. This is why I recommend that people split their cardio and strength training into two separate workouts.
But, even if you do this, cardio can still have a negative impact on your muscle-related gains.
Research has shown that the longer your cardio sessions are, the more they impair strength and hypertrophy. That is, the shorter your cardio sessions are, the more muscle you preserve.
Thus, keeping your cardio sessions short is important when we’re talking about maximizing your gains in the weight room, and preserving your muscle. Only high-intensity interval training allows you to do this while still deriving significant benefits from the exercise.
The Best Form of High-Intensity Interval Training
I often get asked about what my favorite HIIT routine is, and my answer is cycling (recumbent cycling to be specific).
Why?
Well, not only is it convenient that I can bring my iPad and read or watch a show or movie while doing my cardio, it turns out that cycling itself has special benefits for us weightlifters.
These benefits were demonstrated in a particularly interesting study conducted by Stephen F Austin State University.
What researchers found is that the TYPE of cardio done had a profound effect on the subjects’ ability to gain strength and size in their weightlifting. The subjects that did running and walking for their cardio gained significantly less strength and size than those that cycled.
Why?
Researchers concluded that it was because cycling involves the use of more of the muscles used in hypertrophy movements (squats, for instance) than running or walking does. That is, it more closely imitates the motions that result in hypertrophy, and thus doesn’t impair hypertrophy.
Therefore, I recommend cycling for your high-intensity interval training (the next-bext choice would be sprinting, as this too involves many of the same muscles), and I recommend keeping your sessions relatively short (20-30 minutes).
In terms of an exact protocol, here’s what you can do.
You start your workout with 2-3 minutes of low-intensity warmup on the lowest resistance.
You then bump the resistance up to 4-5, and pedal as fast as possible for 30 seconds.
You then reduce the resistance to its slowest setting and pedal at a moderate pace (about 100 RPM) for 60-90 seconds. If you’re new to HIIT, you may need to extend this rest period to 2-4 minutes.
You repeat this cycle of all-out and recovery intervals for 20-25 minutes.
You do a 2-3 minute cool-down at a low intensity.
Have you tried high-intensity interval training before? Do you find it more effective than steady-state cardio? Let me know in the comments below!
July 22, 2013
Why You Shouldn’t Wear a Weightlifting Belt
People usually start using weightlifting belts for one or more of the following reasons:
They see other people using them, and figure it’s probably a good idea.
Their lower backs are becoming excessively sore, and think the belt might help.
They want to protect their lower back from injury or lift a few more pounds, or both.
At first glance, using a weightlifting belt might seem to make sense. By wrapping our core and lower back tight, we should be able to better maintain proper form with heavy weights, and there’s less of a chance of our back slipping out of place…or…something…right?
Well, like many health and fitness myths, the weightlifting belt isn’t anywhere near as useful as many people believe.
Occupational Use of the Weightlifting Belt
Just about everyone that uses a weightlifting belt believes that it helps protect their lower backs from injury while performing heavy lifts like the deadlift, squat, snatch, and so forth.
There are quite a few ways that people claim this works:
Reminding you to maintain proper form.
Helping your lower back deal with shearing force resulting from exercises like the deadlift.
Increasing the amount of intra-abdominal pressure, which reduces the amount of compression on the lower back.
Reducing the range of motion, which decreases risk of injury.
Reducing muscular fatigue.
And more…
Well, like much gymlore, these claims just don’t hold up under scientific review. Let’s start with studies on the occupational use of weightlifting belts, and then we’ll talk about their athletic use.
An 8-month study conducted by Texas A&M University involving 642 airline baggage handlers found that a weightlifting belt didn’t reduce the risk of lower back injury. In fact, the group that wore the belts had a higher incidence of injury after they ceased their use.
A study conducted by the University of Oklahoma analyzed data on 1316 workers at an Air Force base and found that while lower back training was effective at reducing injuries, the use of weightlifting belts wasn’t.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted a rather large study on weightlifting belts. After working with 13,873 people that handled materials for retailers for about 6 months, they concluded that “neither frequent back belt use nor a store policy that required belt use was associated with reduced incidence of back injury claims or low back pain.”
So, the research says that a weightlifting belt has little to offer to people whose jobs put continual stress on their lower backs.
How about weightlifters, though? Can we get anything out of a weightlifting belt?
Athletic Use of the Weightlifting Belt
According to Dr. Stuart McGill, professor of spine biomechanics at the University of Waterloo, the weightlifting belt can help weightlifters generate a little more power…if they use improper form, which increases the risk of injury. To quote him:
“Much of the occupational evidence has relevance for athletic use of belts. There is no question that belts assist in generating a few more Newton-meters (or foot-pounds) of torque in the torso through elastic recoil of a bent orso that is stiffened with a belt. However, if a neutral spine is preserved throughout the lift this effect is minimal. In other words, to obtain the maximal effect from a belt, the lifter must lift poorly and in a way that exposed the back to a much higher risk of injury!”
To get a better idea of why the weightlifting belt doesn’t provide any special lower back support, let’s take a quick look at the biomechanics involved.
While a weightlifting belt does increase intra-abdominal pressure, this effect has no bearing on the amount of force placed on the lower back muscles.
Wearing a weightlifting belt dramatically increases blood pressure, which may increase the risk of stroke or heart attack for those with pre-existing conditions. This may contribute to the incidence of hemorrhoids and hernias, although this is just conjecture.
Weightlifting belts tend to give people a false sense of security, enticing them to try to lift more than they normally would. This can increases the risk of injury.
So, if you’re a competing weightlifter and pulling 5 more pounds is the difference between winning and losing…and you’re willing to risk injury to get the lift…then a weightlifting belt might be for you.
But if you’re a recreational weightlifter, I don’t recommend that you use one. The only exception to this, McGill notes, is that people that have pre-existing lower back injuries may benefit from a weightlifting belt if they also remain very strict with their form, and don’t use the belt to try to push heavier weights than normal.
The bottom line is that instead of using a weightlifting belt, you’re much better off focusing on maintaining proper form and building your strength that way, instead of trying to set new PRs at the expense of risking injury.
What are your thoughts on weightlifting belts? Have you found them helpful? Let me know in the comments below!
July 20, 2013
Recipe of the Week: Kiwi-Banana-Mango Monster Shake
This is a great post-workout shake recipe is from my cookbook, The Shredded Chef.
I’m a big fan of making tasty smoothies for my post-workout meals because they’re fast and the need for large amounts of carbohydrate lets you have some fun. This “Kiwi-Banana-Mango Monster Shake” is particularly good. Give it a try!
(Oh and if you’re worried that eating so much fruit might be unhealthy, it’s not–check out my article on fruit and fructose to learn more.)
Servings
1
Calories Per Serving
459
Protein Per Serving
35 grams
Carbohydrates Per Serving
78 grams
Fat Per Serving
2 grams
Ingredients
1/2 medium kiwi, peeled and sliced
1/2 medium banana, sliced
1/2 medium mango, peeled and diced
1/2 cup fresh or canned pineapple, diced
1 scoop vanilla whey protein powder
1 cup skim milk
1/2 cup papaya, diced
1 lemon, juiced
1/2 tablespoon clover honey
1 packet (1 gram) stevia or other sugar alternative
Instructions
Place all of your ingredients in a blender, blend on high until desired consistency.
What You End Up With
July 19, 2013
Cool Stuff of the Week #5: Lotus Grill, Skull Ice Cube, Donut Maker, and More…
I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m kind of a sucker for cool stuff. I like nifty gadgets, quirky decoration pieces, nice clothes (and shoes!), good books, and fun games.
In this series of weekly posts, I share whatever currently has my fancy. Maybe some of it will catch yours as well!
LOTUS GRILL
The Lotus Grill is a smokeless BBQ grill. It works by forcing hot air over the charcoal, which creates high heat, but bypasses the smoking stage of the cooking process.
It’s perfect for grilling on a balcony, the beach, a boat, a picnic, camping trip, etc. It’s ready to BBQ within 3 minutes of firing it up, it has heat control, it’s very fuel efficient, mess-free, and dishwasher safe.
Buy now
LotusGrill USLotusGrill AU
“CRYSTAL SKULL” ICE CUBE TRAY
As you can see, this is a skull-shaped ice cube tray. The final product is pretty neat looking:
(Oh and FYI, I don’t recommend drinking alcohol regularly. 
)
Buy now
AmazonAmazon UK
SUNBEAM DONUT MAKER
I know I know…what the hell is this doing on a health and fitness website?
Well, you can make healthier donuts! And hey, we do have our cheat meals too!
Buy now
Amazon
THE WATCHMEN (GRAPHIC NOVEL)
The movie was cool, but the graphic novel is outstanding. One of my all-time favorites.
While The Watchmen has gritty action, gore, and sex to make it fun, what really sets it apart are the themes of the story (which, I admit, are a bit heavy-handed at points), and the depth of the characters and their subplots. By the end of this story, you feel like you’ve truly come to know an extraordinarily diverse cast of people and enjoyed a surreal, intellectual and emotional roller coaster together.
Buy now
AmazonAmazon UK
What do you think of this week’s picks? Have anything you’d like to add? Let me know in the comments below!
July 17, 2013
The Definitive Guide to the Paleo Diet
Like CrossFit and intermittent fasting, the Paleo Diet has taken the health and fitness world by storm.
And like CrossFit and IF, the Paleo Diet also has some big promises to make good on if you’re to listen to the hype.
According to its more fervent supporters, the Paleo Diet is the ultimate way to eat. The commonly touted benefits are quite impressive:
Rapid, easy weight loss without having to “count calories.”
High, balanced energy levels with no crashes.
No cravings for junk.
Better workouts.
Protection against various types of disease like cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Clearer skin and prettier hair and teeth.
Reduced allergies.
Improved sleep.
In short, many gurus sell the Paleo Diet as the ultimate “diet hack.” A way to put the power of genetics on your side and positively alter how your genes express themselves.
And if you combine it with CrossFit? Well, have you ever wanted to be superhuman?
Jokes aside, can the Paleo Diet actually deliver on these claims?
Let’s find out.
What is the Paleo Diet?
Paleo is a contraction of paleolithic, which refers to the Paleolithic era in history, which was a period from about 2.5 million to 10,000 years ago. During this time period, humans grouped together into small, roaming societies and developed simple tools to hunt and fish with.
The idea behind the Paleo Diet is to “eat how our ancient ancestors did”–a diet mainly consisting of fish, grass-fed meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts. That’s why it’s also called the caveman diet, the stone age diet, and the hunter-gatherer diet.
The foods excluded from the Paleo Diet are grains, legumes (peanuts, various types of beans, and chickpeas) , dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils (trans fats, as well as refined vegetable oils like canola, safflower, and sunflower oil).
As you can see, it’s an inherently high-protein, low-carbohydrate, high-fat type of diet, and has you eating a ton of animals and animal products.
If that sets off alarm bells in your head, warning of impending heart attacks or worse, hold your horses. We’re going to address the health aspects of the Paleo Diet in a minute, but first, let’s start with a quick review of its theoretical foundations.
Why Should We Eat Like Cavemen?
That’s the first question I wondered when I heard about the Paleo Diet.
Who cares how our ancient ancestors ate?
Well, the Paleo enthusiast would reply, for millions of years (before the Age of the Big Mac), us humans were hunter-gatherers. We had no agriculture, grocery stores, or ways to store and process food. We had to eat nuts, wild plants, and fresh meats. And, he will proclaim, we were much healthier back then–no arthritis, no cancer, no osteoporosis, and no heart disease. Thus, he will conclude, we should eschew modern dietary habits and return to our roots.
Well, while ancient humans may not have been as healthy as some people think, the idea still has an immediate appeal. With disease exploding over the last century, something is deeply wrong with how modern humans are living, and diet is a primary culprit.
But is a return to the Stone Age the answer?
Well, the first problem with the theory of the Paleo Diet is the assumption that just because a dietary behavior or method of food processing is more recent, it’s automatically worse than the ancestral model.
Our prehistoric forebears had one thing in mind, every day: survival. They ate whatever they could get their hands on, including each other sometimes. (Uh, is human flesh Paleo-approved?) The point is their food choices weren’t always optimal, and if we were transported back to the Paleolithic times, we would be smart to decline a dinner invitation.
Although it doesn’t have much bearing on the actual dietary protocols themselves, I found it slightly ironic that he Paleolithic humans didn’t follow the Paleo Diet.
The historical angle of the Paleo Diet is based on a set of findings by its founder, Dr. Loren Cordain, and other researchers, which proposes that humans during the Paleolithic era were primarily hunter-gatherers, with an emphasis on the hunting.
This paper is an important piece of the scientific underpinnings of the Paleo Diet, and is, in turn, based on the flawed Ethnographic Atlas, a database on many cultural aspects of 1167 societies.
Primate ecologist Katherine Milton wrote an insightful paper on the matter, and here are a few highlights:
The sources of data for the Ethnographic Atlas are mostly from the 20th century. We’ve since learned that some societies coded as hunter-gathers weren’t exclusively hunter-gatherers.
Some of the authors that helped compiled the Atlas were sloppy in their data collection. Furthermore, most of the researchers were male, and much of the collection and processing done by women was likely mis- or underreported.
The hunter-gatherers included in the Atlas were modern-day humans, not people living in the primitive conditions of our distant past. The wide variety of dietary behaviors seen don’t fall into a nice pattern that we can emulate. Furthermore, most of the hunter-gatherer societies lived off vegetable foods–an emphasis on hunting was rare.
These critiques have been borne out by other studies.
A study conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology reported that the diet our early human ancestors, dating from about 2 million years ago, consisted almost exclusively of leaves, fruit, wood, and bark–similar to chimpanzees today.
A study conducted by the University of Calgary found that the diet of ancient Africans (going back as far as 105,000 years) may have been based on the cereal grass sorghum. (Remember, grains are a big no-no in Paleo ideology).
Research conducted by the Center for Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology shows that the European Neanderthals ate starchy grains, nearly 44,000 years ago.
Researchers from the Italian Institute of Prehistory and Early History also found that grains were regularly eaten by our Paleolithic ancestors. Their findings suggest that processing vegetables and starches, and possibly even grinding them into flour, goes back as far as 30,000 years in Europe.
So, while the “eat like our ancestors” pitch makes for good marketing, the reality is actually doing it doesn’t equate to the Paleo Diet as we know it.
Now, even if that strips the Paleo Diet of a bit of its scientific legitimacy and luster, it doesn’t mean it’s not a healthy way to eat.
The new question, then, becomes:
Even if our ancient ancestors weren’t “Paleo,” is the diet worthwhile nonetheless?
Making a Case for the Paleo Diet
Here’s the premise of the Paleo Diet, as stated by its founder, Dr. Loren Cordain:
“With readily available modern foods, The Paleo Diet mimics the types of foods every single person on the planet ate prior to the Agricultural Revolution (a mere 333 generations ago). These foods (fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, and seafood) are high in the beneficial nutrients (soluble fiber, antioxidant vitamins, phytochemicals, omega-3 and monounsaturated fats, and low-glycemic carbohydrates) that promote good health and are low in the foods and nutrients (refined sugars and grains, trans fats, salt, high-glycemic carbohydrates, and processed foods) that frequently may cause weight gain, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and numerous other health problems. The Paleo Diet encourages dieters to replace dairy and grain products with fresh fruits and vegetables – foods that are more nutritious than whole grains or dairy products.”
Despite his revisionist version of how our ancestors ate, it seems like a pretty sensible way to eat, no?
“But wait!” You might be thinking. “Won’t eating a bunch of saturated fat cause your heart to explode?”
No, it won’t. The myth that saturated fat intake is associated with heart disease been thoroughly debunked, yet still lingers.
The reality is there are quite a few good things that can be said about following the Paleo Diet:
It’s a high-protein diet, which is quite healthy.
It emphasizes lean, and not fatty, meats, which is an effective way to control caloric intake and prevent an imbalance between omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acid intake.
It also excludes processed meats, which pose health risks.
It includes a lot of nutritious veggies and fruits, which decreases the risk of various diseases such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.
It emphasizes a higher intake of omega 3 fatty acids, which provides a wide variety of health benefits such as reduced blood pressure; reduced risk of kidney and cardiovascular disease, as well as risk of stroke and metabolic syndrome; improved cognitive function; and more.
It excludes added sugars, which function as “empty calories.” Diets high in added sugars are often deficient in various micronutrients, because the foods high in such sugars usually have little nutritious value.
It excludes high-glycemic carbohydrates, which, if eaten regularly and in large enough quantities, can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
It excludes trans fats, which increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, and induce insulin resistance.
There’s no question: the Paleo Diet is a healthy way to eat, and is supported by peer-reviewed literature.
A study conducted by the University of California found that compared to the subjects’ normal (poor) dietary habits, the Paleo Diet improved blood pressure, glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and lipid profiles.
Another study, conducted by the University of Lund, found that the Paleo Diet was better for type 2 diabetics than a traditional “diabetes diet” in terms of improving glycemic control (the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar levels) and cardiovascular risk factors.
So, clearly the Paleo Diet has its merits. But the problems with the Paleo Diet begin when we dive deeper into its dogma.
The Problems With Paleo
The first big problem with Paleo is the stance that one singular way of eating is superior to all others.
The longest living populations on the planet are the peoples of Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Nicoya, Costa Rica; Ikaria, Greece; and the Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California–the “Blue Zones,” as these geographical locations have been labeled.
These people are quite un-Paleo–they don’t eat much animal food, and instead live on starch-based diets. To quote an extensive review on their dietary patterns:
“…dietary patterns associated with longevity emphasize fruits and vegetables and are reduced in saturated fat, meats, refined grains, sweets, and full-fat dairy products.”
And further:
“Equally notable is the wide variation in other aspects of healthy diets, particularly macronutrient intake. Traditional Okinawan diets provide ≥90% of calories from carbohydrate (predominantly from vegetables), whereas the traditional Mediterranean diet provides >40% of calories from fat, mostly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat.”
The point is while it’s tempting to conclude that the diets of “Blue Zoners” are the best way to achieve optimal health, it would be erroneous to do so. There are too many other non-dietary factors that contribute to longevity. The same can be said for the Paleo Diet.
The second big problem with the Paleo ideology is not what it has you eat, but what it has you avoid.
By following the Paleo Diet strictly, you miss out on potential benefits from foods like dairy, legumes, and whole grains, and the reasons given for avoiding such foods are scientifically flawed.
For instance…
Dairy products are a good source of calcium, protein, and vitamin D. Potassium, magnesium, zinc, and several other vitamins. Research has shown that dairy can improve bone health, muscle mass and strength, and even weight management. Now, lactose intolerance is fairly prevalent and people can get these nutrients in other ways, but for those that do fine with dairy, it’s a highly nutritious food.
It’s worth noting that I’m a bit concerned with the quality of run-of-the-mill dairy here in the States due to the poor health of many of the dairy cows and the artificial hormones many are given that find their way into the milk. These issues aren’t part of the Paleo argument against dairy, though, which is simply that our ancient ancestors didn’t eat dairy so neither should we.
Whole grains have been shown to reduce inflammation in the body and decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, and even reduce mortality.
Paleo gurus will often say that whole grains damage the intestines, but there simply isn’t any reliable, in vivo (in living organisms) research available to support these claims.
Now, as with dairy, some people don’t do well with grains. Gluten intolerance is fairly common, and refined grains are not a good replacement for whole grains, as they lose many of their nutrients during processing, and have been associated with increased inflammation in the body. But for those that do fine with whole grains, they are a great source of carbohydrate, various nutrients, and fiber.
Non-soy legumes have been shown to decrease total and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels. They’re also a good source of protein, carbohydrate, and fiber.
Paleo proponents often say you should avoid legumes because they believe our ancestors didn’t eat them, and because they contain antinutrients that interfere with nutrient absorption. While legumes do contain these antinutrients, so do many other foods, and they are reduced by simple processing methods like soaking and cooking.
The bottom line is antinutrients found in whole grains and legumes are not a problem unless your diet is devoid of nutritious foods and horribly imbalanced in terms of macronutrients. Yes, if you mostly eat uncooked whole grains and beans all day, you will have some problems. However, there’s no research to indicate that such antinutrients are a problem at normal intake levels and as a part of a properly balanced diet.
As you can see, while Paleo’s “approved foods” are quite alright, its blacklisted foods just don’t make sense.
One last little point I would like to address is the claims that you can lose weight on the Paleo Diet without having to count calories.
This is a bit misleading because the fact is weight loss requires a caloric deficit, regardless of how you get there in terms of actual food eaten.
Don’t believe me?
Check out this professor that lost 27 pounds by eating junk foods like Twinkies, Little Debbie snacks, and Doritos. How did he do that? Simply by regulating the AMOUNT of food he was eating (total daily calories), not WHAT.
I’ve worked with scores of people that weren’t losing weight on the Paleo Diet simply because they had no concept of how many calories they were actually eating. Eating a healthy, low-carb diet doesn’t mean you automatically lose weight–you have to maintain a caloric deficit.
The Bottom Line
While its historical foundations are flawed, the Paleo Diet has a lot going for it. It’s a hell of a lot healthier than the average person’s diet, and you can derive many health benefits from it.
The mistake many people make with Paleo is accepting its extremes, which simply aren’t scientifically defensible.
I actually eat fairly Paleo, because I enjoy meats, fruits, and vegetables. I also enjoy grains like rice, quinoa, and whole-grain pasta and bread, as well as a bit of dairy and legumes here and there.
Unsurprisingly, some of less dogmatic and better informed Paleo gurus like Mark Sisson advocate this “80/20″ approach. That is, you mostly eat meats, veggies, fish, fruit, and nuts, but you include limited amounts of dairy, grains, legumes, and other “non-Paleo” foods as needed or desired.
What are your thoughts on the Paleo Diet? Have anything else you’d like to add? Let me know in the comments below!
July 15, 2013
The Truth About Protein Absorption: How Often You Should Eat Protein to Build Muscle
Many different numbers are perpetuated in this myth. Some “experts” claim you shouldn’t eat more than 40 grams of protein per meal, whereas others give lower numbers, and yet others higher.
Who’s right?
Well, as with many issues of nutrition, there’s no simple answer.
It would stand to reason that an NFL linebacker’s body deals with protein intake differently than a 120-lb weakling’s. Protein needs due to lifestyle and lean mass should influence the matter of protein metabolism, right?
Additionally, if it were true that a person can only absorb a relatively small amount of protein in one meal, then “super-dosing” daily protein needs into 2–3 meals would result in protein deficiencies. This assumption begs the question of how the human species survived the hunter-gatherer days, but the body IS incredibly adaptive.
So, how much protein can we eat and absorb in one sitting, and how often do we have to eat protein to build muscle?
The Science of Protein Absorption
In order to better evaluate the issue at hand, let’s look at what actually happens when you eat protein.
First, your stomach uses its acid and enzymes to break the protein down into its building blocks, amino acids. These amino acids are transported into the bloodstream by special cells that line the intestines and are then delivered to various parts of the body. Your body only has so many transporter cells, which limits the amount of amino acids that can be infused into your blood every hour.
This is what we’re talking about with “protein absorption”—how quickly our bodies can absorb the amino acids into our bloodstreams.
It’s widely known that the human body absorbs different proteins at different rates. According to one review, whey clocks in at 8–10 grams absorbed per hour, casein at 6.1, soy at 3.9, and egg at 1.3. These numbers aren’t completely accurate due to the complexities involved in measuring protein absorption, but they lend insight nonetheless: certain proteins are absorbed very slowly, whereas others can be quite fast.
You should also know that food substances don’t move uniformly through the digestive tract, and they don’t leave sections in the same order that they arrived in.
For instance, the presence of protein in the stomach stimulates the production of a hormone that delays “gastric emptying” (the emptying of the food from the stomach), and that slows down intestinal contractions. This causes food to move more slowly through the small intestines, where nutrients are absorbed, and this is how your body buys the time it needs to absorb the protein you eat. Carbohydrates and fats can move through and be fully absorbed while your body is still working on the protein.
The next step in protein metabolism occurs once the amino acids make it into the blood stream. Your body does various things with them, such as tissue growth and repair, and it can temporarily store (up to about 24 hours or so) excess amino acids in muscle for future needs. If there are still amino acids in the blood after doing all of the above, your body can break them down into fuel for your brain and other cells.
If that’s how your body processes proteins we eat, what’s up with the claims that it can only absorb so much in one meal?
The Problem With Fixed-Number Claims Regarding Protein Absorption
Claims that the body can only absorb so much protein in one sitting are usually based one or two things:
1. An ignorance of how food moves through the digestive system. Some people believe that all foods move through the small intestines in 2–3 hours. Thus, they believe, even if you ate even the fastest type of protein that can be absorbed at a rate of 8–10 grams per hour, you could only absorb 25–30 grams of protein in one meal. If you ate protein that is absorbed more slowly, then you would (apparently) wind up with even fewer grams absorbed into the bloodstream.
Well, as we now know, your body is smarter than that, and regulates the speed at which protein moves through the small intestines to ensure it can absorb all of the available amino acids.
2. References to studies relating to the anabolic response to protein consumption. A study commonly cited in connection with protein absorption showed that 20 grams of post-workout protein stimulated maximum muscle protein synthesis in young men. That is, eating more than 20 grams of protein after working out did nothing more in terms of stimulating muscle growth.
The most obvious flaw in this argument is you can’t use studies on the anabolic response to protein consumption to extrapolate ideas about how much we can absorb in one sitting. Acute anabolic responses to eating protein don’t give us the whole picture. Absorption relates to the availability of amino acids over extended periods of time, which prevents muscle breakdown and provides raw materials for growth. And, as we now know, our body doesn’t just throw away all of the amino acids it can’t immediately use—it can store them for later
Further supporting this position is a study conducted by the Human Nutrition Research Center. It had 16 young women eat 79% of the day’s protein (about 54 grams) in one meal or four meals over the course of 14 days. Researchers found no difference between the groups in terms of protein synthesis or degradation.
Furthermore, if we look at the amount of protein used in the above study relative to body weight, it comes out to about 1.17g/kg. Apply that to a man weighing 80 kilograms (176 pounds), and you get about 94 grams of protein in one sitting. While this isn’t definitive scientific proof, it’s food for thought.
Research on the style of dieting known as intermittent fasting is also relevant. This style of dieting has people fasting for extended periods, followed by anywhere from 2–8-hour “feeding windows.” One study found that eating the entire days’ worth of protein in a 4-hour window (followed by 20 hours of fasting) didn’t negatively impact muscle preservation.
Before we move on, I want to quickly address something mentioned earlier, which is the study that showed that 20 grams of post-workout protein stimulated maximum protein synthesis in young men. Don’t assume that this 20-gram number applies to everyone.
Protein metabolism is affected by several things:
How much muscle you have: The more you have, the more amino acids your body needs to maintain your musculature, and the more places your body can store surpluses.
How active you are. The more you move around, the more protein your body needs.
How old you are. The older you get, the more protein your body needs to maintain its muscle.
Your hormones. Elevated levels of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) stimulate muscle synthesis. If your body has high levels of these anabolic hormones, it will utilize protein better than someone that has low levels.
On the other hand, elevated levels of cortisol reduces protein synthesis and accelerates the process whereby the body breaks down amino acids into glucose (gluconeogenesis), thereby reducing the amount available for tissue generation and repair. Some people have chronically elevated cortisol levels, and this impairs protein metabolism.
So, while 20 grams of protein might be enough to stimulate maximal muscle growth in a 140 lb man with little lean mass, the same wouldn’t hold true for someone with 180 lbs of lean mass.
The Bottom Line:
You Can Be Very Flexible With Your Protein Intake
As you can see, it’s impossible to put a cap on how much protein your body can absorb in one meal. It’s definitely a hell of a lot more than the 20–30 grams that some people claim.
You probably also noticed that protein timing isn’t as important as some people think, either. You don’t have to eat protein every 2-3 hours to maximize muscle growth or avoid going catabolic. Total intake over 24-hour periods is what really matters, not regular feedings.
While it’s smart to have a good amount of protein before and after training, break up the rest of your daily needs however you want and let your body take care of the rest.
Personally, I like to eat every few hours, but if you prefer fewer, larger meals, then don’t be afraid to load up on the protein when you eat.
What are your thoughts on protein absorption and timing? Have anything else to add? Let me know in the comments below!
July 13, 2013
Recipe of the Week: Super-Fast Chicken Salad Sandwich
This delicious recipe is from my cookbook, The Shredded Chef, and I love the combination of the sour cream, yogurt, mustard, and pine nuts. It’s also particularly good for when you’re in a hurry or need something that you can eat on-the-go.
Servings
2
Calories Per Serving
299
Protein Per Serving
30
Carbohydrates Per Serving
30
Fat Per Serving
7
Ingredients
2 cans (3 ounces each) chunk chicken, rinsed and drained twice
1 celery stick, finely chopped
1 tablespoon onion, finely chopped
1 tablespoon pine nuts
1 heaping teaspoon spicy brown mustard
1 heaping teaspoon fat-free sour cream
1 heaping teaspoon fat-free plain yogurt
pinch of ground black pepper
4 slices whole grain bread
2 leaves lettuce
Instructions
In a bowl, mix the celery, onion, pine nuts, mustard, sour cream, yogurt, and pepper. Mix in the chicken.
Spread half of the mixture on a slice of bread. Top with a lettuce leaf and then with another slice of bread. Repeat with the rest of the mixture to make a second sandwich.
What You End Up With
July 12, 2013
Cool Stuff of the Week #4: Dark Knight Collector’s Edition, Garmin Head-Up Display, Warrior Ethos, and more…
I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m kind of a sucker for cool stuff. I like nifty gadgets, quirky decoration pieces, nice clothes (and shoes!), good books, and fun games.
In this series of weekly posts, I share whatever currently has my fancy. Maybe some of it will catch yours as well!
TILE
If you’re like the rest of us and lose certain things frequently–keys, bags, wallet, small children–then you’re going to love the Tile.
You attach this little device to anything, and if you’re within 150 feet of it, you can find it via an iOS app using bluetooth connectivity (it indicates when you get closer or further away from the item). The app can track up to ten items at a time.
Buy now
TileApp.com
GARMIN HEAD-UP DISPLAY
The Garmin Head-Up Display lets you safely navigate while driving by projecting directions onto your windshield.
It connects to your phone via bluetooth and when you fire up the app and input a destination, it shows you the turn-by-turn directions, estimated time of arrival, distance to the next turn, your speed, the speed limit, traffic information, and more. Pretty cool.
Buy now
Amazon
THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY:
ULTIMATE COLLECTOR’S EDITION
If you’re a fan of the Dark Knight Trilogy, you’ll love this.
The Dark Knight Trilogy Ultimate Collector’s Edition comes with the three films plus yet-unseen interviews, behind-the-scenes footage, and IMAX sequences of big scenes. It also comes with a couple exclusive Hot Wheels vehicles (the Batmobile, Batpod, and Tumbler), a 50-page book containing production images, and collectible cards featuring each of the major villains.
Buy now
AmazonAmazon UK
THE WARRIOR ETHOS
I’m a fan of Steven Pressfield’s work.
In this Warrior Ethos, Pressfield relates the virtues of warriors to everyday life and how we can use these ancient codes to inspire purpose and integrity, and act more honorably and decisively.
Pressfield draws wisdom from renowned armies like the ancient Spartans, Alexander’s Macedonians, and Cyrus the Great’s Persians, and examines their codes of honor and mental toughness that immortalized them as the greatest in history.
I agree with Pressfield in that there is much to be gained when you start viewing life as a war–not with others, but mainly with ourselves and Resistance–and that we must learn to fight and win its many battles if we are to succeed.
All in all, this is a short, inspirational read, and one I highly recommend.
Buy now
AmazonAmazon UK
What do you think of this week’s picks? Have anything you’d like to add? Let me know in the comments below!
July 11, 2013
The Muscle for Life Podcast Episode 1: Cutting tips, losing stubborn fat, fasted training, and more…
In this podcast I talk about…
My cut from 9-6% body fat in ~8 weeks
Some tips for making dieting easier
What stubborn fat is and how to lose it
Why you don’t want to drastically cut calories
Fasted training
And more…
If you like the podcast, I’ll be doing one every week or two. You can keep up with them by subscribing to my YouTube channel, or to my iTunes podcast channel.
What do you think of the episode of the podcast? Let me know in the comments below!
July 10, 2013
Do Actors Use Steroids to Prepare for Movie Roles?
Cavill in Man of Steel, Hemsworth in Thor, Jackman in X-Men, Pitt in Troy, Bale in Batman, Butler in 300.
Whenever one of these types of physiques pops up on the silver screen, gals swoon, guys rush off to the gym, and the fitness industry has a field day.
Men’s Health invents workouts that the stars most definitely didn’t do, supplement companies start rumors that their products were responsible for such impressive gains, and wannabe gurus weigh in on how we too can get ripped like so-and-so.
But amazing Hollywood transformations also always beg the question: were these guys on steroids? Do we mere drug-free mortals have any chance at making similar gains?
Let’s find out, starting with the controversial subject of steroids itself.
Demystifying the Power of Steroids
People unfamiliar with the world of steroids think many different things about the drugs.
Some people think steroids guarantee superhuman levels of muscle growth, whereas others claim they don’t change much unless seriously abused.
Some people think that you can’t achieve anything special in the way of your physique without steroids, and others claim that with proper diet and training, you can achieve any type of physique you want.
Some say steroids are incredibly dangerous, and others say regular steroid use is safer than regular alcohol drinking.
Well, let’s take a cold, scientific look at steroid use to see what kind of effects they really have, and then we’ll talk about their potential use by actors.
So, how much muscle-building power do steroids really have? Well, a few scientific studies give us a good idea.
Researchers at Maastricht University conducted an extensive review of literature related to the use of anabolic steroids and found that the muscle gains in people engaging in resistance training while on anabolic steroids mostly ranged between 2-5 kg (4.5-11 pounds) over the short term (less than 10 weeks). The largest amount of muscle growth researchers found was 7 kg (15.5 pounds) over 6 weeks of weightlifting while on steroids.
Now, a newbie (male) not on drugs following a good weightlifting program (including proper dieting) can expect to gain about 20-30 pounds of muscle in his first year of lifting if he does everything right. As we can see, mediocre steroid gains delivers this, and proper steroid use can nearly double those numbers.
Another study that lends insight to the power of steroids was a case study conducted with an elite bodybuilder. Researchers followed him for a year, and he used steroids for all but 4 weeks of the 12-month period. In that year, he gained about 15 pounds of muscle, which is quite dramatic considering his level of training experience and conditioning.
For comparison’s sake, I’ve never taken steroids and I’ve gained about 9 pounds of muscle in my last two years of lifting 5 days per week, without any breaks outside of planned rest weeks. And I was playing catch-up with my legs, which I had neglected for many years.
A study conducted by researchers at McLean Hospital is also worth reviewing. Before we get into it, however, I want to define fat-free mass, which is everything in your body that doesn’t contain fat, such as muscle, bone, and water; and fat-free mass index (FFMI), which is a measurement of how muscular you are, and it’s calculated by dividing your weight in kilograms by your height in meters squared.
Now, the above study involved the analysis of the physiques of 157 male athletes, including elite natural bodybuilders and strongmen. About half of the men had used steroids (with two-thirds of them having used steroids in the past year), and half had never used steroids.
What researchers found is that the average steroid user had an FFMI of about 25, whereas the average non-user was around 22. The most muscular steroid-enhanced physique clocked in around 32, and the best drug-free physique around 25.
To put those numbers into perspective, check out the following picture of me in some really obnoxious neon shorts. I’m 6’2, have never done steroids, and I weigh about 183 here with about 6.5% body fat, putting my FFMI at 22.
Now, if I wanted to increase my FFMI to 25, the average level seen in steroid users and pinnacle of natural weightlifters, that would mean adding over 15 pounds of muscle to my frame. If I wanted to increase it to 30, the top of the steroid pack in the above study, that would require getting up to 240 pounds at this body fat percentage.
So, now that you have a better idea of what steroids make possible and in what time frame, let’s get to the real subject of this article: actors and steroid use.
Actors and Steroid Use
The first thing that has probably already jumped out at you is the speed with which certain actors have gained muscle and lost fat for movie roles.
We’ll often hear outrageous numbers like gaining 20+ pounds of muscle in a few months while staying lean, or even reducing body fat.
Well, you now know that such gains just aren’t possible without steroid use. If you’re brand new to lifting and drug-free and can gain .5 lbs of muscle per week, you’re doing superb. You MIGHT be able to gain around 1 lb per week for your first couple of months if you make really good newbie gains. If you’ve been weightlifting regularly for several years, you’ll be lucky to gain more than 3-5 pounds of muscle in a year of consistent, intense training.
So the simple answer is that yes, many actors use steroids to prepare for movies.
Did the guys I named earlier do this? I don’t know. But I don’t know why they wouldn’t have.
Think about it for a second. Most actors aren’t dedicated weightlifters that stay in great shape year-round, and they have some pretty strong incentives to use steroids to prepare for a role:
A multi-million dollar payday.
Fame, which will bring more multi-million dollar paydays.
A tight schedule to get big and lean.
Access to the best doctors to ensure nothing goes wrong in terms of possible side effects.
The only disincentive would be a personal distaste for drug use and moral qualms about the illegality of steroids. And Hollywood actors aren’t exactly known for their clean living habits and lawfulness.
The prevalence of steroid use among actors preparing for movies is also glaringly obvious when we look at how they trained and ate.
We’ll often hear that so-and-so worked out for 2+ hours per day, 7 days per week, and then did conditioning work on top of that. Sometimes they worked out for 4-7 hours per day, which would crush even the most well-conditioned natural athlete, yet they did great. And diets? Thousands of calories per day with huge amounts of protein, yet somehow they stayed lean.
You simply can’t do these things without steroids. If a drug-free guy were to try such an approach, all that would happen is he would wind up overtrained and fat.
Now, I didn’t write this article to call out anyone in particular or hate on Hollywood actors or people that do steroids. While I’ve chosen to be drug-free and recommend people do the same, I don’t get personally offended by people that use steroids. They can do what they want with their bodies. And I especially understand why Hollywood actors would do it.
The reason I wrote this article is so you can better evaluate some of the more impressive Hollywood transformations, and not make the mistake of following the same training and dietary protocols. If you want to get a better idea of what type of transformation is actually possible without drug use, read my article on how much muscle you can build naturally.
What are your thoughts on actors and steroid use? Agree with me? Disagree? Let me know in the comments below!
