Michael Matthews's Blog, page 148

How Testosterone Levels Affect Muscle Growth and Fat Loss

Higher testosterone levels are often equated with more muscle growth and fat loss. Is it that simple?

 

If you ask the average gymgoer what single physical factor most affects muscle growth and fat loss, they would probably answer “testosterone levels.”

And they’re right.

Testosterone is certainly a primary hormonal driver of muscle growth. Research has shown that anabolic steroids, which drastically raise testosterone levels, given to even young, healthy men can induce muscle growth and fat loss without any exercise whatsoever.

Thus, it would be fair to assume that the higher our testosterone levels are, the more muscle we build and the leaner we get, right?

Well, this is where things get interesting.

Testosterone Levels and Muscle Growth

We already know that dramatically elevating testosterone levels induces muscle growth.

Yes, if you take enough of the right steroids, your testosterone levels will skyrocket, and if you lift weights regularly, you will be able to achieve more muscle growth than if you were drug-free.

But here’s something that most people don’t know:

Fluctuation of testosterone levels within the physiological normal range does not affect muscle growth.

That is, if your testosterone levels are right-down-the-middle normal, and you increase them to a high-normal, you may feel a little better and notice a boost in libido…but it won’t enable you to build more muscle.

I know that sounds kind of blasphemous, but it’s actually been scientifically proven.

Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science conducted and published a study about a decade ago wherein they administered varying amounts of  testosterone enanthate along with drugs to inhibit natural testosterone production to young, healthy men for 20 weeks.

While higher testosterone levels did produce greater muscle gains, it wasn’t as pronounced as you might think.

What researchers found was that so long as testosterone levels were within the physiological normal range, between 300-1,000 ng/dl, muscle growth didn’t change very much. That is, the subjects on the low end of normal weren’t that far behind subjects on the high end in terms of muscle growth.

A statistically significant increase in muscle growth wasn’t seen until testosterone levels surpassed the top of “normal” by about 20-30%.

Now, this study does have a limitation: subjects weren’t exercising. While total amounts of muscle and strength gained would clearly have been higher if they had been weightlifting, the relationship between testosterone levels and overall muscle growth would still be seen.

This was partially demonstrated by another study, this time conducted by McMaster University with young, resistance trained men.

Subjects lifted 5 times per week for 12 weeks, and followed a standard dietary protocol (high-protein intake, post-workout nutrition, etc.). The primary finding of the study was that the exercise-induced spikes in anabolic hormones like testosterone, growth hormone, and IGF-1, which all remained within physiological normal ranges, had no effect on overall muscle growth and strength gains.

That is, all subjects made gains in muscle, but the variations in the size of the hormone spikes among them had no bearing on the results.

The key takeaway here is not that you should take steroids, but that things you can do to naturally raise your testosterone levels are unlikely to affect your muscle growth.

And speaking of steroids, the above findings are in line with steroid research as well.

For instance, 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.

The point is this:

Even steroids don’t always dramatically increase the amount of muscle you can build (it depends what you take, in what dosages, and for how long), so what does that tell us about how fluctuations of testosterone in the normal physiological range relate to muscle growth?

As I talk about in my article on the best supplements for muscle growth, this is why buying natural testosterone boosters for muscle growth purposes is a complete waste of money. Even if they work (and most don’t), it’s just not going to help you build more muscle.

The only exception might be someone whose testosterone is at the absolute bottom of the physiologically normal range, or even below that, and who is then able to naturally increase it to the top of the range. That person would probably notice an improvement in muscle growth, not to mention overall well-being, libido, cognitive function, and so forth.

Now, I’m not saying that there’s no reason to do anything to naturally improve your testosterone levels. Improving muscle growth just isn’t on the list. Losing fat, however, is…

Testosterone Levels and Fat Loss

Unlike muscle growth, researchers at the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science did find that fluctuations of testosterone within the physiological normal range had significant effects on body fat percentage.

The higher the testosterone levels, the leaner subjects were. And conversely, the lower the testosterone levels, the fatter they were. When researchers decreased certain subjects’ testosterone levels from the baseline average of 600 ng/dl to around 300 ng/dl, they saw a dramatic 36% increase in fat mass.

Although the exact mechanisms behind this aren’t fully understood just yet, research has show that testosterone directly inhibits the creation of fat cells and that low testosterone is a contributing factor to obesity.

So, doing things to naturally increase your testosterone levels can help you get and stay lean.

 

What are your thoughts about doing things to naturally boost testosterone levels? Worthwhile? A waste of time and money? Let me know in the comments below!

Recipe of the Week: Mexican Meatloaf

If you like moist meatloaf and light Mexican flavors, you’ll love this recipe.

It’s one of the more popular meals from my cookbook, The Shredded Chef, because it’s easy to make, tastes great when reheated, and has a balanced macronutritional profile.

 

Servings

8

Calories per Serving

307

Protein per Serving

27 grams

Carbohydrates per Serving

29 grams

Fat per Serving

14 grams

 

Ingredients

1 pound lean ground turkey

1 pound lean ground chicken

1 (15 ounce) can black beans, rinsed and drained

1 (15 ounce) can whole kernel corn, drained and rinsed

1/2 (4 ounce) can fire-roasted diced green chilies

1 cup mild chunky salsa

1 (1 ounce) package dry taco seasoning mix

3/4 cup plain bread crumbs

3 egg whites

1 (28 ounce) can enchilada sauce, divided salt and ground black pepper to taste

 

 

Instructions

Preheat the oven to 400 °F. Coat a 9 x 13 inch baking dish with cooking spray.

In a large mixing bowl, combine the ground turkey, ground chicken, black beans, corn, green chiles, salsa, taco seasoning, bread crumbs, and egg whites and mix thoroughly.

Form the mixture into a loaf shape and place inside the prepared baking dish, top with half of the enchilada sauce and place in the oven for 45 minutes.

Remove from the oven and top with the remaining enchilada sauce, return to the oven and bake until the meatloaf is no longer pink inside, about 10-15 minutes. A thermometer inserted into the center should read at least 160 °F.

 

What You End Up With

And it tastes as good as it looks! Enjoy!

The Definitive Guide to Carb Cycling

Is the carb cycling diet effective for fat loss and muscle growth?

 

Like intermittent fasting, the carb cycling diet has some pretty big shoes to fill if you listen to its more fervent advocates.

According to them, carb cycling delivers the holy grail of bodybuilding: rapid fat loss while preserving, or even building, muscle. The more ridiculous claims go even further, enticing you with promises that you won’t have to count calories, and the allure of the high-carb day, wherein you stuff yourself silly with precious carbohydrates.

Another common selling point of the carb cycling diet is the claim that a traditional approach to dieting (steady protein, carbohydrate, and fat intake throughout the week, with planned cheats/refeeds) simply can’t get you to the “super lean” category (6% and under for men, 16% and under for women) without burning up a ton of muscle.

Well, in this article we’ll not only dive into what carb cycling is and how you do it, but we’ll also cut through the hype and hyperbole surrounding the matter and use a bit of science and anecdotal experience to get at its heart.

What is the Carb Cycling Diet?

The carb cycling diet is very simple. It works like this:

Throughout the week, you rotate through high-carb, moderate-carb, and low/no-carb days.
All days require a high protein intake.
Your fat intake is inversely related to your carbohydrate intake. That is, your fat intake is low when your carbs are high, and vice versa.

 

Exact protocols vary in terms of specific numbers, but all are based on that simple structure. For example, you may do 4 low-carb days, followed by a high-carb day, and then a no-carb day, and then start over. Or you may do 3 low-carb days followed by 1 high-carb day, and then back to the low-carb and so on.

Here’s what these days often look like numerically:

A high-carb day will generally have you eating 2-2.5 grams of carbohydrate per pound of body weight. Your protein intake will be around 1 gram per pound, and your fat intake between 0-.15 grams per pound.
A moderate-carb day will call for about 1.5 grams of carbohydrate per pound of body weight. Your protein intake will be between 1-1.2 grams per pound, and your fat intake around .2 grams per pound.
A low-carb day will call for about .5 grams of carbohydrate per pound of body weight. Your protein intake will usually increase to about 1.5 grams per pound, and your fat intake to around .35 grams per pound.
A no-carb day means less than 30 grams of carbohydrate per day. To achieve this, you basically can only eat a few servings of vegetables per day. Protein intake is around 1.5 grams per pound, and fat intake goes up to .5-.8 grams per pound.

The theory behind the diet is as follows:

Your high-carb day will refuel your muscles’ glycogen levels and flood your body with insulin, which has anti-catabolic effects (but not true anabolic effects like some people claim–insulin does not induce protein synthesis, but rather inhibits muscle breakdown). Most protocols recommend that you do your toughest workout on your high-carb day.

Your moderate-carb day gives you plenty of carbs to maintain glycogen stores, but doesn’t put you in enough of a caloric deficit to cause much weight loss. You train on these days.

Your no- and low-carb days are the days where you’re in a caloric deficit, and where some people claim the “magic” happens. These are the days where you “trick” your body into burning fat at an accelerated rate by keeping insulin levels low. It’s usually recommend that you use cardio or rest days for now/low-carb days, but if you lift more than 3 days per week, you will have to lift on 1 or more of these days. (Which sucks–more on this later.)

So, that’s how to do it. Let’s address the next question on your mind: does it work?

Is Carb Cycling Good for Weight Loss?

Can you use carb cycling to lose fat? Absolutely. 

Any dietary protocol that puts you in a caloric deficit, whether it’s daily or weekly or even monthly, will result in weight loss, regardless of the macronutrient breakdown.

Let me state this again:

So long as you keep yourself in a caloric deficit–meaning you give your body less energy than it expends–you will lose weight, regardless of whether the energy comes from protein, carbohydrate, or fat.

Part of the appeal of carb cycling are the claims that you don’t have to “count calories” or really “watch what you eat.” You simply follow a set of simple rules regarding eating “a lot” of carbs on high days, less on moderate days, and very few on no/low days.

This loose style of dieting works decently for maintenance, and may work for weight loss to a degree, but never works for getting shredded.

Getting below 8-9% body fat (men) or 18-19% (women) requires that you plan and track your macronutrient intake closely. Period. You need to know exactly how much protein, carbohydrate, and fat you’re eating every day, and you need to manipulate these numbers to keep yourself in enough of a caloric deficit to continue losing fat, but not so much that you sacrifice muscle.

So the question of carb cycling and weight loss becomes…

Is Carb Cycling Better for Weight Loss Than Traditional Dieting?

Enthusiasts of the carb cycling diet will claim that your low-carb days will greatly accelerate your fat loss over what it would be with a traditional approach to dieting.

Unfortunately, science isn’t on their side. 

Let’s start with a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, which had 63 obese adults follow one of two diets:

A low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high fat diet. This consisted of 20 grams of carbohydrate per day, which gradually increased until target weight was achieved.
A conventional diet where 60% of calories came from carbohydrate, 25% from fat, and 15% from protein.

The result: the low-carbohydrate group lost more weight in the first 3 months, but the difference at 12 months wasn’t significant.

The 3-month result isn’t surprising, considering the fact that reducing carbohydrate intake reduces water retention, and also decreases the amount of glycogen we store in our liver and muscles, which further decreases total body water retention. This, of course, causes a rapid drop in weight that has nothing to do with burning fat (and anyone that has reduced carbohydrate intake as a means of cutting calories for weight loss has experienced this).

Next is a study conducted by Harvard University on diet composition and weight loss. Researchers randomly assigned 811 overweight adults to one of four diets:

20% of calories from fat, 15% from protein, and 65% from carbohydrate.
40% from fat, 15% from protein, and 45% from carbohydrate.
40% from fat, 25% from protein, and 35% from carbohydrate.

The result: after 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, began to regain weight after 12 months, and by 2 years, all had lost an average of 4 kg. Researchers concluded the study with the following (emphasis added):

“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”

A study published by Arizona State University found that an 8-week high-carbohydrate, low-fat, low-protein diet was equally effective in terms of weight loss as a low-carbohydrate, low-fat, high-protein diet.

Particularly relevant to this post is another study conducted by Arizona State University, wherein researchers pitted a ketogenic diet (a very low-carbohydrate diet) versus a traditional diet to see if one had a metabolic advantage over the other.

In this study, 20 overweight adults were randomly assigned to one of two diets:

A ketogenic diet, consisting of 60% of calories from fat, 35% from protein, and 5% from carbohydrate.
A traditiona diet, consisting of 30% of calories from fat, 30% from protein, and 40% from carbohydrate.

After 6 weeks, the results were as follows:

No significant difference in total weight loss.
Hunger ratings improved for both diets with no difference between them. This strikes at a claim often made to sell carb cycling, which is that it blunts hunger better than traditional dieting. According this study, that isn’t true.
Resting energy expenditure went up for both diets, with no difference between them. The low-carb diet failed to provide any special metabolic boost.
Insulin sensitivity was improved in both diets, with no difference between them. This is yet another blow to the low-carb trend that’s taking the fitness world by storm. The fact is weight loss in and of itself is effective at improving insulin sensitivity, regardless of diet composition.

So, what you should take away from this section of the article is that the theory that low-carb days deliver the big fat loss punch of carb cycling are not supported by literature. They are simply part of the marketing pitch.

Before we move on, however, I’d like to mention that there is a scientifically supported exception to the above statement. That is, there are cases where some people do lose more fat by reducing carbohydrate intake (and the flip side is true as well–some people lose more fat by increasing carbohydrate intake).

How does that work and why? Check out my article on carbohydrates and weight loss to learn more about it.

For the purposes of this article, however, just know that some people’s bodies have problems digesting and using carbohydrates properly. This is due to impairments in insulin production and processing. For those people, reducing carbohydrate intake can help with weight loss. In my experience, however, this isn’t very common, and problems with insulin production and sensitivity can be vastly improved with diet and exercise.

 Some Anecdotal Support for Traditional Dieting

I both advocate and use a traditional approach to dieting because it’s simple, and it works very well when you do it right. The best diet is the one you can stick to, and you can get as lean as you want with traditional dieting.

Don’t believe me?

Well, I just finished an 8/9-week cut using a traditional diet (40% of calories from protein, 40% from carbohydrate, and 20% from fat).

I lost about 13 pounds and went from ~9% to ~6%, and my strength increased for the first 4-5 weeks, and then decreased back to my pre-diet numbers over the course of the last several weeks (and this was simply because I had to gradually reduce my calories, and I chose to pull from carbs–this makes workouts harder).

Here are a couple pictures of how I currently look:

You can’t get shredded eating 150-200 grams of carbohydrate every day? Please tell me more. Mr. Carb Cycler…

Okay then, let’s steam forward to the next big, bold claim made to sell people on carb cycling…

Can You Use Carb Cycling to Lose Fat and Build Muscle Simultaneously?

The short answer?

Maybe.

But it’s not the carb cycling per se that would make this possible. It would be your current level of conditioning, your training history, and your genetics.

For instance, I email with scores of guys and gals every day that are losing fat and building muscle on my Bigger Leaner Stronger and Thinner Leaner Stronger programs, but they usually fit a certain profile:

They’re usually pretty out of shape to begin with, and have a fair amount of fat to lose.
They haven’t lifted weights before, or haven’t lifted anywhere near properly before. They’ve never focused on lifting heavy weights, compound lifts, progressive overload, etc.
They never quite knew what they were doing with their diets. Most have simply tried “eating clean,” but have never calculated, tracked, and manipulated macronutrients properly.

Under those circumstances, I actually expect people to both lose fat and build muscle while following my programs. But I don’t try to claim it’s because of the magical quantum mechanics of my methods like some carb cycling hucksters. It’s simply because the body responds incredibly well to proper diet and training, and especially in the beginning. Newbie gains are real, and are a lot of fun.

But if you’re an advanced lifter that is approaching your genetic potential, I can guarantee you that you will not  build muscle while losing fat without steroids, regardless of what you do in the kitchen or gym. What you can strive for, however, is maintaining the muscle you have by never putting yourself into too deep of a deficit, and not going overboard with too much steady-state cardio.

Another aspect of this “metabolic advantage” claim for carb cycling is that your high-carb day will give your body an “anabolic, muscle building boost” while simultaneously “shocking” your metabolism into high-gear, thus accelerating fat loss.

As you probably expect by now, these claims just aren’t supported by science.

I mentioned earlier that insulin can help preserve lean mass, but does not induce muscle growth, and any metabolic boost that comes with increased caloric intake is offset by the extra calories themselves. That is, you can speed your metabolism up by eating more, but never to a point where you’re burning the extra calories consumed plus  additional fat.

Also relevant to this claim in the fact that most people basically feel like shit on their no/low-carb days. If you want to know what carb cravings are really like, eat less than 50 grams of carbs per day for a week.

Training on a no/low-carb diet is even worse, and 1-2 higher carb days is not enough to offset this. If you want to drag ass and have basically the worst workouts ever, try to lift with any intensity on a no/low-carb day. Furthermore, a big part of maintaining lean mass while cutting is continuing to lift heavy weights and maintaining your strength, and drastic reductions in carbs make this impossible.

“Fuckarounditis” and the Bigger Picture

The bigger issue here is what Martin Berkhan called “fuckarounditis.” If we want to be more politically correct, we can call it “shiny object syndrome.”

That is, too many people are looking for magic bullets, quick fixes, advanced body hacks, and other nonsense to reach their goals. One week they’re following the Rebel Max Anabolic Anaconda Program, the next the X-Physique Metabolic Recomposition Program, and on, and on.

I have sympathy, but they’re basically the hipsters of the lifting community. They’re drawn to whatever is trending, whatever’s buzzworthy. And they’re always stuck in a rut.

I get emailed every day by people afflicted with fuckarounditis. It usually goes something like this:

“Hey Mike

“I’m currently following an intermittent fasting protocol combined with some carb cycling and backloading. In the gym I’m training twice per day on a power/hypertrophy triple-split, and I’m periodizing with volume training. Why am I not big and lean like you? What type of cutting-edge protocols do you follow?”

My reply usually leaves them a little baffled. I share my secrets:

I lift heavy ass weights 5 times per week. Pretty much every set I do for every muscle is with weights that allow for no more than 6 reps. Check out my post on the hardgainer myth to learn more about why.
I stick mainly to compound movements like the squat, deadlift, bench press, and military press. My isolation work is simply to prevent physique imbalances (side and rear lateral raises, and arms training).
I always push myself to beat my last week’s numbers, even if it’s only by one rep. Progressive overload is key.
I eat a lot of protein and carbohydrates, and enough healthy fats to maintain health. If I want to lose fat, I put myself in a mild caloric deficit. If I want to maintain my body fat percentage, I eat (more or less) what I burn every day. And if I want to focus on building muscle, I put myself in a mild caloric surplus. My meal plan fits my dietary needs, schedule, lifestyle, and food preferences, and I stick to it. Period.
I stay patient. I’m not looking for overnight results. I’m looking for small, weekly or bi-weekly improvements that, in time, add up to big changes.

That’s it. That’s all it takes.

Resist the allure of shiny objects. Don’t contract fuckarounditis.

So Should You Give Carb Cycling a Go?

I’ll make this section short and sweet:

If you know your body doesn’t do well with carbohydrates, then carb cycling may help you lose weight. Otherwise, don’t bother with it. It doesn’t deliver on its exaggerated claims, and training and, well, living on a no/l0w-carb diet sucks.

What are your thoughts on carb cycling? Have you tried it? Let me know in the comments below!

The Best Protein Powder for Women

Many companies claim to have the best protein powder for women. What’s really the best?

 

Most women are looking for a healthy protein powder with little-to-no carbs and fats, and there are many options.

Whey? Casein? Soy? Egg? Rice? Hemp? Pea? The list goes on and on.

Which is the best for women?

Well, the truth is there isn’t a single type of protein that is best for all women. They key is finding what is best for you.

In this article, I want to explore each of the above options and help you determine what will best fit your body and needs.

The Scoop on Whey Protein

Whey protein is by far the most popular type of protein supplement out there. You get a lot of protein per dollar spent, it tastes good, and its amino acid profile is particularly suited to muscle building (more in that in a second).

What is it, though?

Whey is a semi-clear, liquid byproduct of cheese production. After curdling and straining milk, whey is left over.

It used to be thrown away as waste, but it was discovered that it’s a complete protein, and is abundant in an amino acid known as leucine. Leucine is an essential amino acid that plays a key role in initiating protein synthesis.

When the world of sports nutrition caught onto this research, the whey protein supplement was born.

Whey protein can be taken anytime, but it’s particularly effective as a post-workout source of protein.Why? Because it’s rapidly digested, which causes a dramatic spike in amino acids in the blood (especially in leucine). This, in turn, stimulates more immediate muscle growth than slower-burning proteins.

So, whey is an all-around good choice for protein powder for men and women.

I should mention, however, that even if you’re not lactose intolerant, you can be allergic to the actual proteins found in cow’s milk. This is why some people don’t do well with highly refined forms of whey, such as isolate or hydrolysate, which have virtually all lactose removed.

If whey bothers your stomach, try a non-dairy alternative and you will be fine. My favorite non-diary protein is egg protein, but there are vegan options that work as well (we’ll get to them in a minute).

The Scoop on Casein Protein

Casein protein is probably second in popularity behind whey, and it’s also a protein found in milk.The curds that form as milk coagulates are casein.

Casein protein is digested slower than whey, causing a smaller spike in amino acids in the blood, but a steadier release over the course of several hours.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether supplementing with whey is better than casein for building muscle or vice versa, but here’s what most reputable experts agree on:

Due to its rapid digestion and abundance of leucine, a 30-40 gram serving of whey is probably your best choice for post-workout protein.
Due to its slow release of amino acids, casein is a great all-around protein supplement. While it may or may not be as optimal as whey for post-workout protein (the jury is still out on this), there is a growing body of evidence indicating that, when supplementing with powders, a slow-burning protein is the best overall choice for building muscle.
Casein is a good protein to have before you go to bed, which can help with muscle recovery.

Personally, I use whey in my post-workout meal, and then have a few scoops of egg protein (which is very slow burning) throughout the day to help hit my numbers. The reason I don’t use casein is my stomach starts to bother me if I eat too much dairy.

The Scoop on Egg Protein

Many people don’t even know that you can buy egg protein in a powder form. You can, and it’s a great source of protein.

It has three primary benefits:

It has a high “biological value.“ This is a measurement of how efficiently your body can actually utilize various forms of protein, and egg’s score varies based on the research, but is always at the top of the list. According to animal research, egg protein is similar to whey in its ability to stimulate muscle growth.
Egg protein is digested even slower than casein, which, as you know, means it results in a longer release of amino acids into the blood. This is conducive to overall muscle growth.
Because egg protein powders are made from the egg whites only, they have no fat, and very little carbohydrate.

The bottom line is egg protein is just a great all-around choice. It’s what I personally use for all supplementation needs (I really like Healthy n Fit’s product), besides my post-workout meal, in which I use whey protein.

The Scoop on Soy Protein

Soy protein is a mixed bag.

While research has shown it’s an all-round effective source of protein for building muscle, soy protein is a source of ongoing controversy, and especially for men.

According to some research, regular intake of soy foods has feminizing effects in men due to estrogen-like molecules found in soybeans called isoflavones.

For instance, a study conducted by Harvard University analyzed the semen of 99 men, and compared it against their soy and isoflavone intake during the 3 previous months. What they found is that both isoflavone and soy intake were associated with a reduction in sperm count. Men in the highest intake category of soy foods had, on average, 41 million sperm/ml less than men who did not eat soy foods.

On the other hand, a study conducted by the University of Guelph had 32 men eat low or high levels of isoflavones from soy protein for 57 days, and found that it didn’t affect semen quality. Furthermore, literature reviews like those conducted by Loma Linda University and St. Catherine University suggest that neither soy food nor isoflavones alter male hormone levels.

What gives, then?

Well, further research has indicated that there isn’t a simple answer just yet.

For instance, the effects can vary depending on the presence or absence of certain intestinal bacteria. These bacteria, which are present in 30-50% of people, metabolize an isoflavone in soy called daidzein into an estrogen-like hormone called equol.

In a study conducted by Peking University and published in 2011, researchers found that when equol-producing men ate high amounts of soy food for 3 days, their testosterone levels dropped and estrogen levels rose. These effects were not seen in women, regardless of equol production or lack thereof.

Related to this is a study conducted by Sungkyunkwan University, which found that in a high-estrogen environment, isoflavones suppressed estrogen production, and in a low-estrogen environment, they increased estrogen production.

Fortunately for women, however, you don’t have to worry about how soy might affect your hormones. There are other things to consider, however.

Research has shown that soy protein contains substances that inhibit the digestion of protein molecules and the absorption of other nutrients (antinutrients), as well as several known allergens.

While there is research that indicates soy might have special benefits for women such as reducing the risk of heart disease and breast cancer, other research casts doubt on these findings. And to the contrary, studies have shown that soy can even stimulate the growth of cancer cells.

Another issue that we have to deal with when we eat soy is the fact that the vast majority of soybeans grown in the States are genetically modified (91% according to government data).

The subject of genetically modified foods is incredibly heated, and too complex to fully address in this article (I will in a future article), but the safest bet at the moment is to avoid GM foods as much as possible until more research is done on the potential long-term health effects in humans.

Don’t let this scare you into completely avoiding soy protein, though. While women with breast cancer probably shouldn’t eat soy, there is no reason to fear a few servings of soy per week.

If you want to supplement with a protein powder several times per day, and would like to include soy, then I recommend you alternate with another source.

The Scoop on Other Vegan Proteins

Other sources of vegan protein, such as rice, hemp, and pea protein, are often demonized as being “incomplete” sources of protein.

That is, some “experts” claim that such proteins are missing essential amino acids that your body needs, and thus must be combined in special ways to form “complete” proteins.

This myth and the faulty research that spawned it was thoroughly debunked by MIT years ago, but it still lingers. All protein found in vegetables is “complete.” What is true, however, is that some forms of vegetable proteins are lower in certain amino acids than others, making certain sources better than others.

Three of the better, and more popular, types of vegan protein powders are rice, hemp, and pea protein. Here’s how they stack up:

Rice protein is a great choice. It has a high biological value–around 80%, similar to beef–and tastes great (I think). In terms of specific products, I really like Sun Warrior’s rice protein.


Pea protein is equally good. Its biological value is about as good as rice’s, and has a high amount of leucine. In terms of brands, you can’t go wrong with NOW Foods’ pea protein.

It’s also worth noting that using a combination of rice and pea protein works especially well, as their combined amino acid profile is similar to whey protein’s. That’s why this combination is often called the “vegan’s whey protein.”

Hemp protein is the poorest choice of the three. While it has a great micronutrient profile, including omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, hemp is only about 30-50% protein by weight, whereas other options discussed in this article are 90-100%. Furthermore, the protein it does contain isn’t nearly as digestible as rice or pea protein, let alone animal products like whey, casein, or egg protein.

The reality is hemp should be viewed more as a whole food, and not a pure protein supplement.

Try Things Out, Mix and Match, and See What Works Best For You

I hope you now feel more confident in choosing a protein powder. What you should do is try several, or all, of the options given in this article and see which your body does best with.

As I said earlier, I found what works great for me is whey protein after my workouts, and egg protein for all other supplementation needs. With a bit of experimentation, you can find what works best for you as well.

 

What are your favorite types of protein powder? Did I forget something? Let me know in the comments below!

The Best Supplements for Muscle Growth

All the major supplement companies claim to have the best supplements for muscle growth. Is anyone telling the truth?

 

I was at Vitamin Shoppe the other day to pick up some egg protein powder, and I figured I’d take at look at the illegal steroid section in the back (the fancy stuff behind lock and key).

As expected, the usual suspects were sitting on the shelf with a host of new products claiming to be natural, powerful anabolics. The names always get me.

Cyclotren

Clenbuterex

D-Pol

T-Bomb

Beastdrol

Somnidren

What’s the story with with these types of products? What are the best supplements for muscle growth?

Let’s cut through the hype and find out.

Testosterone Boosters: Fact or Fraud?

With testosterone levels on the decline, many men are drawn to the alluring marketing of testosterone boosters.

If we’re to believe some of the marketing claims, these products are basically natural steroids that will transform us into musclebound alpha males that make women swoon and men tremble. And they’re often backed by pseudoscientific claims or even references to “scientific studies” that “prove” their effectiveness.

Unfortunately they’re almost all completely worthless.

Some testesterone boosters really go to town with their ingredients (a sure sign of a scam), but most rely on one or more of the following ingredients:

Tribulus terrestris
ZMA
D-aspartic acid

Multiple studies have proven that supplementation with Tribulus terrestris has no effect on testosterone levels, body composition, or exercise performance.

ZMA is a combination of zinc, magnesium, and vitamin B6, and its story is about the same. Unless you’re deficient in zinc, studies have shown that ZMA doesn’t increase testosterone levels.

D-aspartic acid is a bit more promising in this regard. Research has shown that it can increase testosterone levels in both humans and rats, but the effective dosage in humans was just over 3 grams of D-AA per day. Most test boosters that include D-AA use half that dosage or less, which is sure to reduce its effectiveness.

The bottom line is testosterone boosters are a waste of money, and will never deliver the type of results most of them claim. If you want to try D-aspartic acid, save money and just buy the amino itself, and take 3 grams per day.

It’s also worth noting that minor improvements in testosterone levels are very unlikely to affect muscle growth. You might feel a bit more energetic and notice an increase in libido, but don’t think that you can significantly impact your muscle growth by taking a testosterone booster.

Next on the Chopping Block: Growth Hormone Boosters

Like test boosters, most HGH (human growth hormone) boosters are a waste of money.

They’re usually full of amino acids that can provide various benefits when dosed properly (which they almost never are anyway), but which have never been proven to increase GH levels or muscle growth.

Another common ingredient is gamma aminobutyric acid, or GABA. Research has shown that supplementation with GABA elevates resting and postexercise growth hormone levels, but the forms of GH increased have not been proven to contribute to muscle growth (there are over 100 forms of GH in your body, and all perform different functions).

Save your money and skip the HGH boosters.

Is HMB All It’s Cracked Up to Be?

HMB (beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid–a mouthful indeed) is a metabolite of the amino acid leucine, and it has been growing in popularity thanks to a handful of studies that indicate it helps with strength and muscle growth, such as this and this.

These studies are controversial, however, because they were conducted by Steven Nissen, the inventor of HMB and owner of the patent.

When you look at unbiased research on HMB, which has also been conducted with resistance-trained men and not the elderly, it’s much less effective than Nissen has reported. For instance:

A study conducted by Massey University found that HMB supplementation improved lower-body strength, but had negligible effects on body composition in resistance trained men.
A study conducted by the Singapore Sports Council found that HMB supplementation had no effect on strength or body composition in resistance trained men.
A study conducted by the University of Memphis found that HMB supplementation did not reduce catabolism or affect training-induced changes in body composition and strength in experienced resistance-trained males.

Researchers from Massey University also conducted a literature review on the subject of HMB supplementation, and their conclusion was very simple (emphasis added):

“Supplementation with HMB during resistance training incurs small but clear overall and leg strength gains in previously untrained men, but effects in trained lifters are trivial. The HMB effect on body composition is inconsequential.”

Save your money.

Are There Any Supplements That Improve Muscle Growth?

Thus far I haven’t really delivered on the title of this article yet. You’re looking for supplements that help with muscle growth…but do they exist?

Yes.

Well, one at least: creatine monohydrate.

Creatine is a substance found naturally in the body and in foods like red meat. It is perhaps the most researched molecule in the world of sport supplements–the subject of over 200 studies–and the consensus is very clear:

Supplementation with creatine can help you build muscle and improve strength, improve anaerobic endurance, and reduce muscle damage and soreness from exercise.

There are many forms of creatine available, however, such as monohydrate, citrate, ethyl ester, nitrate, and others. Which is the best bang for your buck?

Check out my article on which form of creatine is most effective to find out.

You should also know that simply eating enough protein is an important part of maximizing muscle growth. Research has shown that the protein needs of people that exercise can be quite high, especially if they’re doing any type of resistance training.

You should eat no less than 1 gram per pound of body weight per day if you’re engaging in regular resistance training, and while protein supplements aren’t necessary, they can help you hit that number.

What’s your take on supplements for muscle growth? Have you tried some of them? Let me know in the comments below!

How Much Muscle Can You Build Naturally?

Many people make many claims as to how much muscle you can build naturally. Who’s right?

 

I get asked fairly often how much muscle you can really build naturally. That is, how can we determine our genetic potential in terms of building muscle? How big can we really get without taking drugs?

If you poke around on the Net, you’ll find a ton of conflicting opinions. Some people feel that genetics can prevent you from ever looking good, while others believe that you can accomplish anything if you work hard enough at it.

Who’s right?

Neither, really. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Muscle Building and Genetic Potential

The first thing you should know is there really isn’t any way to know for sure what your genetic potential is when it comes to building muscle. While you’ll never be able to gain 250 lbs of lean mass naturally, it’s impossible to say with complete accuracy how big you’ll actually be able to get.

That said, worrying about such matters before you have 5+ years of proper lifting and eating under your belt is pretty pointless in my opinion. If you’re new to lifting, don’t even give a second thought to whether you’ll be able to build enough muscle, build it quickly enough, have the right proportions, etc. This can lead to unrealistic expectations and an early mental defeat.

The ultimate reality is that you are going to train hard, eat right, and let your body develop as it will. While we don’t all have the genetics to be top-tier bodybuilders, any of us can build a strong, muscular, healthy body that we’re proud of, and that’s what it’s all about in the end.

So, with that out of the way, let’s address the actual issue of this post: how much muscle can you build naturally?

How Much Muscle You Can Build Naturally?

Unfortunately, there aren’t any studies that I know of that definitively answer this question. Which is why there are so many opinions and broscience theories out there.

There are, however, some guidelines developed by a few of the top coaches and minds in the fitness world: Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, and Martin Berkhan.

These guys have collectively worked with hundreds of elite bodybuilders and athletes, and are speaking from not just an incredibly in-depth understanding of the body, but a wealth of real-world practice and results.

Let’s look at what they have to say, and then I’ll share my thoughts and experiences.

Lye McDonald’s Answer

Lyle keeps his model very simple. (And as a note, this applies to men–Lyle says that women should expect about half these numbers.)

YEAR OF PROPER TRAINING

POTENTIAL MUSCLE GAINS

1

20-25 pounds

2

10-12 pounds

3

5-6 pounds

4+

2-3 pounds

According to Lyle, both age and starting condition will affect this. Older guys will gain less than younger, and underweight guys can gain a bit more than this. And some people can just build more or less muscle due to other factors like hormones, genetics, and lifestyle.

As you can see, Lye says that you’re looking at 40-50 lbs of muscle you can gain in your first 4-5 years, and the gains are negligible from there on out.

Also notice that it’s years of proper training, not just training. Lyle said that someone that has been lifting improperly for several years has the potential to make “year one” gains when he starts training properly. (And I’ll get to what proper training is in a minute.)

Alan Aragon’s Answer

Alan’s model addresses the issue a bit differently, but the numbers come out to be about the same.

CATEGORY

RATE OF MUSCLE GROWTH

Beginner

1-1.5% of total body weight per month

Intermediate

.5-1% of total body weight per month

Advanced

.25-.5% of total body weight per month

According to Alan’s formula, a 150 lb beginner could gain about 1.5-2.25 lbs of muscle per month, or 18-27 lbs in year one.

Once he hits year two, he’s an intermediate lifter weighing in at 170 lbs (let’s say), and could gain .85-1.7 lbs of muscle per month, or 10-20 lbs in year two.

By year three, he’s an advanced lifter at, let’s say, 190 lbs, and is capable of gaining 5-10 pounds of muscle that year. His potential gains diminish from this point on.

Martin Berkhan’s Answer

Martin developed his formula after observing and coaching scores of professional bodybuilding competitors, and it’s very simple:

Height in centimeters – 100 = Upper weight limit in kilograms in contest shape (4-5% body fat)

Here’s how this pans out for a few heights and poundages:

HEIGHT

WEIGHT AT 5% BODY FAT

WEIGHT AT 10% BODY FAT

TOTAL MUSCLE MASS

 5’8″

 160 lbs

 170 lbs

 153 lbs

 5’10″

 171 lbs

 180 lbs

 162 lbs

 6′

 182 lbs

 192 lbs

 173 lbs

To calculate numbers for other heights, multiply the inches by 2.54 to get centimeters. Then subtract 100 for your maximum weight in kilograms at 5% body fat. Multiply this number by 2.2 to get pounds.

 My Thoughts and Experiences

This subject can lead to some extremely heated debates in weightlifting/bodybuilding circles.

Some people dismiss such formulas as useless because they don’t take into account drive, work ethic, and consistency. I disagree. My experience in my own training and coaching hundreds of others aligns with the above guidelines.

I started at 155 lbs, and here’s a shot of me at 175 lbs, after about 1.5 years of IMPROPER training (and I won’t even Photoshop the zit out):

I did things well enough to ride my newbie gains, which added up to about 20 lbs in that time period, with 10-15 lbs of it being muscle. Not too good. And as you can see, I am not a genetic freak by any means. I was just a normal ecto-meso.

Here’s a shot of me after 6/7 years of improper training (I was working exclusively in the 10-12 rep range, doing a lot of isolation work, wasn’t squatting or deadlifting every week, had no idea what to do with diet beyond “eat a lot,” and so forth):



I weighed around 190 lbs here, at about 17% body fat (158 lbs of lean mass). So in the 5-6 years that ensued between these first two pictures, I had gained a measly 10-15 lbs of muscle. Pretty bad considering how much time I had put in.

As I talk about here, it was at this point that I decided to truly educate myself. And in the 3-4 years that have passed since then, I’ve radically transformed my body.

Here’s a current shot of me at 185 lbs and about 6.5% (174 pounds of lean mass):

If we compare the gains I made in the previous 3 years–about 5 lbs of muscle per year–against the above formulas, we see that I’ve done VERY well for being an advanced lifter. But that’s only because I made about half the gains I should’ve made in my first 6/7 years of training.

I’m now approaching my genetic potential (according to the above formulas, I have maybe 10 more pounds I can gain, and it will take several years), but I could’ve reached this point several years ago had I been training and eating properly.

It’s also worth mentioning that my experience coaching hundreds of guys verifies my own experiences. You can gain a LOT of muscle in your first three years of training if you do it right. It really starts to slow down at that point. And if you’ve been training improperly for several years, you can make startling gains by doing it right.

Don’t Discourage Yourself–Just Train Hard, Eat Right, and the Results Will Come

Some people look to professional bodybuilders, who step on stage at 270+ lbs and shredded, and feel deflated when they’re told that they’ll never be much bigger than 190 lbs in contest shape.

Well, the reality is 190 lbs at 5% is huge by normal standards. You’re fitness cover model material. Girls will love you, guys will want to be you (cheesy, sorry).

Unless you’re trying to reach freak status–220+ lbs at contest lean–you can achieve the look you want naturally. Just know that it takes a few years of hard work.

 

What are your thoughts on building muscle naturally? Do you agree with me? Disagree? Lemme know in the comments below!

The Dangers of Bisphenol A and What to Do About It

What is bisphenol A (BPA), how does it affect the body, and what can we do to avoid it?

 

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical primarily used to make plastics clear and nearly shatter-proof. It can be found in a variety of consumer goods such as baby and water bottles, sports equipment, CDs and DVDs, and also in the inner coatings of many food and beverage cans and thermal paper used for sales receipts.

We are primarily exposed to BPA through our ingestion of contaminated food and water. It can leach from the food containers and cans, especially when they’re cleaned with harsh detergents or are heated to high temperatures. Older water pipes are coated with BPA and we regularly handle many types of products that contain it as well, such as electrical equipment, sports equipment, paints, and adhesives.

What’s the problem?

BPA is an endocrine disruptor that mimics the effects of estrogen in the body.

What kind of effects can it have on the body? Well, let’s jump in…

Bisphenol A and Animal Research

Animal research has demonstrated its ability to cause a wide variety of negative health effects even at low levels of exposure, such as:

Reduced maternal care and nursing behavior.
A reduction in sexual interest in males.
Early onset of sexual maturation in females.
Decreased testosterone levels in males.
Lowered sperm count and fertility.
Impaired immune function.
Changes in behavior such as hyperactivity and increased aggressiveness, impaired learning.
And more.

Bisphenol A and Human Research

In humans, BPA has been positively associated with an increased risk of ovarian dysfunction and obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and prostate cancer, as well as an alteration of gender differentiation in the brain.

Unfortunately, exposure to BPA is widespread here in the States. According to research published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 2005, 95% of people in the United States have measurable BPA levels in their urine.

Scientists are particularly concerned about BPA exposure in pregnant women. According to a study conducted by the University of California and published in 2011 analyzed data for 163 chemicals in 268 pregnant women and found that nearly all carried multiple chemicals, including some banned since the 1970s.

ScienceDaily reported on this study and interviewed the lead author. Here’s an excerpt (emphasis added):

“It was surprising and concerning to find so many chemicals in pregnant women without fully knowing the implications for pregnancy,” said lead author Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.

“Several of these chemicals in pregnant women were at the same concentrations that have been associated with negative effects in children from other studies. In addition, exposure to multiple chemicals that can increase the risk of the same adverse health outcome can have a greater impact than exposure to just one chemical,” said Woodruff, an associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.

Exposure to chemicals during fetal development has been shown to increase the risk of adverse health consequences, including preterm birth and birth defects, childhood morbidity, and adult disease and mortality according to the research team. In addition, chemicals can cross the placenta and enter the fetus, and in other studies, a number of chemicals measured in maternal urine and serum have been found in amniotic fluid, cord blood and meconium, they state.

The mounting evidence against the use of BPA is what led the Canadian government to ban BPA as a toxic substance in 2010. In the same year, the United States Food and Drug Administration didn’t go so far, but did warn of possible hazards to fetuses, infants, and young children.

The Bisphenol A Controversy

Despite the weight of evidence mounting against it, and the many appeals to the precautionary principle by people in the scientific community, the debate over the ultimate safety of current levels of BPA exposure remains controversial.

According to many industry-funded studies, like the often-cited research the American Plastics Council paid the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to conduct, exposure levels are too low to be a real cause for concern. Less biased studies, such as those conducted by governments, disagree, however.

Researchers at the University of Missouri published a fantastic review of BPA literature in 2005, and here’s what they had to say on the matter (emphasis added):

“As of the end of 2004, we are aware of 21 studies that report no harm in response to low doses of BPA. Source of funding is highly correlated with positive or negative findings in published articles. For government-funded published studies, 94 of 104 (90%) report significant effects at doses of BPA < 50 mg/kg/day. No industry-funded studies (0 of 11, or 0%) report significant effects at these same doses. It is thus reasonable to pose two questions: a) Are government-funded scientists under real or perceived pressure to find or publish only data suggesting adverse outcomes? B) Are industry-funded scientists under real or perceived pressure to find or publish only data suggesting negative outcomes?”

These scientists aren’t alone in their views—even the National Toxicology Program agrees.At the request of the U.S. EPA, the NTP conducted an extensive review of literature in 2000 and were highly critical of several industry-funded studies commonly cited to dismiss BPA concerns.

So, with the scales of evidence tipping against BPA, it seems sensible for us to reduce exposure as much as possible.

The “BPA Free” Scam

Most educated consumers are taking simple measures to reduce their exposure to BPA, but many are still unaware that it’s only one of several forms of bisphenols commonly used in production.

Unethical manufacturers are substituting these lesser known forms for BPA so they can claim their products are “BPA free.”

Researchers from the University at Albany put it plainly in a study published in 2013:

“As the concern over the safety of bisphenol A (BPA) continues to grow, this compound is gradually being replaced, in industrial applications, with compounds such as bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol S (BPS).”

Other forms of bisphenols like BPS and BPF aren’t as well know and researched as BPA, but studies have already shown that they cause the same effects in the body. One study even showed that BPS isn’t as biodegradable as BPA, and “might be persistent and become an ecological burden.”

As a part of the University at Albany study, researchers tested a wide variety of foodstuffs for other forms of bisphenols, including beverages, dairy products, fat and oils, fish and seafood, cereals, meat and meat products, fruits, vegetables, and others.

The result: bisphenols were found in the majority (75%) of the food samples. In the vegetables category, a sample of mustard (dressing) and ginger contained the highest concentrations of BPF. Canned foods contained more bisphenols than foods sold in glass, paper, or plastic containers.

Unfortunately, we just can’t trust “BPA free” labels. To be sure, it requires a little research on the companies and their products. Better still is to just avoid the common sources of bisphenols altogether.

How to Avoid Bisphenols

There are several simple things you can do to reduce your exposure to all forms of bisphenols.

Before you buy anything stored in a plastic, look for the recycling sign with a number in it. If the number is 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6, it is less likely to contain bisphenols. If it’s a 7, however, it likely does, and you shouldn’t buy it. Containers marked with a 3 can also contain bisphenols, and should be avoided.
Use glass containers to store anything that you will be eating or drinking. This is especially important for pregnant women and babies, as the negative effects of bisphenols can be more serious for them.
Don’t microwave food in plastic containers. If you’re going to store your food in plastic containers, don’t cook your food in them. This applies to any food that comes pre-packaged in microwavable containers as well–the types of plastic used in many of them contains bisphenols, and heating it up causes the chemical to leach into the food.
If you don’t need a receipt, leave it. In fact, ask the cashier to not even print it. If you do need it, ask him or her to put it in the bag. If you have to handle receipts for your work or bookkeeping, wash your hands well after.
Avoid cheap bottled water. Go for filtered tap water instead (reverse osmosis filters are great for home use).
Avoid plastic utensils. Use metal instead.
Use a French press or ceramic drip to make coffee instead of a plastic coffee maker. These can leach quite a bit of bisphenols into your beverages.
Eat fewer canned foods. Opt for fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, and for foods like sauces, pasta, soups, and juices, choose those that are packaged in glass or cardboard containers.

While it’s impossible to bring your exposure to bisphenols down to zero, you can greatly reduce your exposure by taking the above actions.

 

What are your thoughts on bisphenols? Do you take actions to avoid them or are you not really worried about it? Let me know in the comments below!

Hi, I’m Mike Matthews, Bestselling Author and Creator of MuscleForLife.com…Ask Me Anything

Over the last 11 years, I’ve been on all sides of the health and fitness game.

I was the newbie without a clue, following magazine workouts and buying hundreds of dollars of worthless supplements every month.

I was the guy stuck in a rut, just going through the motions every week. Not getting any bigger, leaner, or stronger, regardless of what I did.

I had no clue how to eat to lose or gain weight, and believed all kinds of broscience myths that made dieting complicated and frustrating.

Although I’ve done a lot wrong, I’ve been lucky enough to to learn from my failures, and discover what actually works. I then used that knowledge to build the body I had always wanted–the reason I stepped foot in a gym in the first place. And fortunately, it turned out to be much simpler and more enjoyable than I ever would’ve believed in the beginning.

I share everything I know in my books, but I want to take it further and relate my knowledge and experience directly to your circumstances so that it helps you succeed in achieving your health and fitness goals.

The way I am going to do this is through a simple question and answer format. All you have to do is leave a comment with a question and I will answer it, either here or in my podcast. Whether it is a question about a problem you are having in your diet or training or just something you want to know about me, feel free to ask me anything.

 

Hi, I’m Mike Matthews, Bestselling Author and Owner of MuscleForLife.com…Ask Me Anything

Over the last 11 years, I’ve been on all sides of the health and fitness game.

I was the newbie without a clue, following magazine workouts and buying hundreds of dollars of worthless supplements every month.

I was the guy stuck in a rut, just going through the motions every week. Not getting any bigger, leaner, or stronger, regardless of what I did.

I had no clue how to eat to lose or gain weight, and believed all kinds of broscience myths that made dieting complicated and frustrating.

Although I’ve done a lot wrong, I’ve been lucky enough to to learn from my failures, and discover what actually works. I then used that knowledge to build the body I had always wanted–the reason I stepped foot in a gym in the first place. And fortunately, it turned out to be much simpler and more enjoyable than I ever would’ve believed in the beginning.

I share everything I know in my books, but I want to take it further and relate my knowledge and experience directly to your circumstances so that it helps you succeed in achieving your health and fitness goals.

The way I am going to do this is through a simple question and answer format. All you have to do is leave a comment with a question and I will answer it, either here or in my podcast. Whether it is a question about a problem you are having in your diet or training or just something you want to know about me, feel free to ask me anything.

 

Does Meal Frequency Affect Weight Loss, Metabolic Rate, and Appetite Control?

Does eating smaller meals boost your metabolic rate and help with weight loss? Is meal frequency important?

 

The claim that you need to eat many smaller meals per day to “stoke the metabolic” fire and accelerate fat loss and control hunger, has been part of the mainstream diet advice for quite some time.

It seems to make sense at first.

When you eat, your metabolic rate increases as it breaks down the food. Thus, if you eat every few hours, your metabolism will remain in a constantly elevated state, right? And nibbling on food throughout the day should help with appetite control, right?

Well, like many of the myths that seem to make sense on paper, they just don’t pan out in clinical research.

Meal Frequency, Your Metabolism, and Weight Loss

Each type of macronutrient (protein, carbohydrate, and fat) requires varying amounts of energy to break down and process. This is the thermic effect of food, and is the metabolic “boost” that comes with eating.

The magnitude and duration of that boost depends on how much you eat. A small meal causes a small metabolic spike that doesn’t last very long, whereas a large meal produces a larger spike that lasts longer.

So the question, then, is does more, smaller meals per day increases total energy expenditure over a 24-hour period than fewer, larger meals?

Well, in an extensive review of literature, scientists at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research looked at scores of studies comparing the thermic effect of food in a wide variety of eating patterns, ranging from 1-17 meals per day.In terms of 24-hour energy expenditure, they found no difference between nibbling and gorging. Small meals caused small, short metabolic boosts, and large meals caused larger, longer boosts, and by the end of each day, they balanced out in terms of total calories burned.

We can also look to a weight loss study conducted by the University of Ontario, which split into two dietary groups: 3 meals per day and 3 meals plus 3 snacks per day, with both in a caloric restriction for weight loss. After 8 weeks, 16 participants completed the study and researchers found no significant difference in average weight loss, fat loss, and muscle loss.

So, while increasing meal frequency can make dieting more enjoyable for some, it doesn’t help us burn more energy and thus lose more fat.

Meal Frequency and Appetite

A study conducted by the University of Missouri with 27 overweight/obese men found that after 12 weeks of dieting to lose weight, increasing protein intake improved appetite control, but meal frequency (3 vs. 6 meals per day) had no effect.

The University of Kansas investigated the effects of meal frequency and protein intake on perceived appetite, satiety, and hormonal responses in overweight/obese men. They found that higher protein intake led to greater feelings of fullness, and that 6 meals actually resulted in lower daily fullness than 3 meals.

On the other hand, you can find studies wherein participants were less satiated on 3 meals per day, and found that increasing meal frequency increased feelings of fullness and made it easier to stick to their diets.

The bottom line is that there are many variables involved, including psychological ones, and clinical evidence shows that both more or fewer meals per day are effective for weight loss, and have no inherent drawbacks or advantages in terms of metabolic rate and appetite control. 

So How Many Meals per Day, Then?

You might be surprised to learn that I often recommend that people eat fewer, smaller meals per day.

Why?

Because, in my experience coaching hundreds of people, many are like me and prefer the feeling of more, smaller meals as opposed to fewer, larger ones. I personally don’t like eating 800-1,000 calories to then feel stuffed for several hours. I much prefer a 400-calorie meal that leaves me satisfied for a few hours, followed by another smaller meal with different food, and so forth.

As the cliché goes, the best dietary protocol is the one you’ll stick to, and reducing psychological stress goes far in increasing diet compliance and thus overall effectiveness.

That said, if someone can’t or doesn’t want to eat frequently, then we work out a meal plan with fewer, larger meals that fits their preferences or lifestyle. For some people, an intermittent fasting approach actually works best.

The bottom line is our hunger patterns are established by our regular meal patterns, so it’s usually easiest to work around this, not against it. 

 

What are your experiences with meal frequency? Do you prefer more or less meals every day? Let me know in the comments below!