Getting people to eat protein (in general) is a win, and often a hard-won battle.
There are still many lingering fears from the 90s low-fat era that protein, because it contains fat, is going to give you heart disease and hurt your kidneys. The notion of not being able to absorb more than 30g protein in a sitting usually gets thrown in the mix too. But we often don't know why we believe some of the nutrition lore we repeat; perhaps it makes logical sense to us or our doctor threw out a suggestion about eating less red meat.
Whatever the case, once people start incorporating more protein in their diet, most of the time the results are positive. They report feeling fuller, more satiated, recovering quicker and feeling energized. Most of us don't rely on rib-eye and schnitzel to meet our protien needs, so most of the practical options end up being perfectly fine in terms of calories, fat and cholesterol content. Chicken breast, cottage cheese, pork loin, protein shakes are all quite lean and low in saturated fat. So the addition of a few whole eggs, lean steak or chicken thighs is not a cause for alarm. Naturally there are hyperresponders to dietary cholesterol but that can be found out through regular bloodwork. For most of us, making sensible protein choices, we're just fine.
With some common sense and practicality applied, a wide range of protein options exist for even the most finicky eaters.
Methods of RankThere are a few different methods used to rank protein, in terms of how it contributes to our absorption and tissue growth.
Protein Efficiency Ratio is a measurement that is based on feeding rats a test protein and seeing how well it contributes to their growth. Obviously this one has limitations in terms of it's practicality for humans.
Bilogical Value is used to determine how much nitrogen from a protein is actually contributing to tissue growth. Better proteins have better protein absorption/utilization and higher amino acid rates. This has limitations because amino acid absorption is not linear and interactions with other foods would impact the results practically. However it does lend itself to generally doing a good job of ranking essential amino acid content.
Net Protein Utilization is similar to Biological Value but it correlates to protein absorption and not utilization.
Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score is newer measure of utilization or absorption. Out of all the amino acids contained within a protein, this score measures the first limiting amino acid as a percentage of a scientific reference (essentially an agreed-upon ideal for children). This percentage is then corrected by testing the actual protein content in fecal matter to find true absorption.
Protein SolutionsSince the above methods give us good scientific data to rank proteins from ideal to less ideal, they can direct our decision as to which proteins are our staples and which we have occasionally. Perhaps as simple as ranking animal proteins above soy in terms of quality or choosing which snacks to rely on when you miss a meal are the kinds of suggestions that help the most people. Eventually though, protein sources have to be considered if someone is after improving their body composition. And there is always the "one guy" who hears protein is better and starts getting triple pepperoni on his pizza. We're probably not going to get ripped on whole milk and brisket so for body-comp focused proteins, I constructed the following cart.
What it measuresThis chart measures how much protein is contained within 4 cooked ounces of each source, the energy-density (calorie content) of that 4 ounces and where it ranks on amino acid score and Fullness Factor. Fullness Factor is a term used by Nutrition Data pulled from the current satiety data and focusing on ranking satiety by nutrient content, rather than calorie density. One practical reason for this is that not all calorie-dense foods are filling, so the actual post-meal satiety is important in ranking how effectively someone feels "full". Fullness Factor compares equal calorie amounts of varying foods compared to a reference food (white bread).
Personally, I prefer people to see that a variety of proteins can make up a quality diet but if we are after calorie-control and satiety that some proteins fare better than others.
FoodProtein per 4ozCalories per 4ozFullness Factor 0-5AA Score 100+ idealbrisket263742.69490/10 ground beef32.32602.87993/7 ground beef32.7236385bottom round33.91813.194Skin on chicken thigh322712.6133Skin on chicken breast33.82233134skinless chicken thigh31.41962.8136skinless chicken breast351963.313693/7 ground turkey30.72422.71432% cottage cheese11.9923.11200% cottage cheese11.7823.21202% greek yogurt11.2813.2800% greek yogurt11.9643.480Whey (one 32g scoop)251202.4pork loin29.61623.2150whole eggs (four)282733.9145cod23.2953.4148One of the first things to scan for is protein content for 4 ounces. Poultry and beef seem to be the stand-out winners but there are leaner choices with poultry. If you are after the most satiating choices then this correlates very well to the sources with the most protein and fewer calories per serving. This is partially due to be abing to eat larger food volume for the same 4 ounces as well as the satiating effects of insulin stimulated by protein. One very overlooked star on here is cod (or any white fish). While it may not have as much protein in 4 ounces as chicken or bottom round, it is very low energy density which means you can eat MORE of that food for the same calories as another. Which sounds more filling, 8 ounces of cod or 3 ounces of brisket?
The amino acid score is measuring how many amino acids come up low for each source. Beef has more amino acids coming up low than say, eggs or pork. While this isn't a concern because most of us are consuming multiple sources of protein, it certainly helps highlight which ones give us the most bang for our buck, which I have underlined.
Not surprisingly, the highest ranking sources on this table are leaner and less energy-dense. Even if you aren't solely focused on lowering cholesterol or saturated fats, simply prioritizing sources by protein content, satiety or amino acid score still direct you to many of the same foods.
Maybe this is all a complicated way of saying that full-fat dairy, fatty cuts of meat and slabs of bacon shouldn't be making up the bulk of your protein sources. But you already knew that!
]]>One of the most difficult and personal realizations we can come to is that ultimately, we are responsible for our choices. While this could be extrapolated to nearly any aspect of life, I am speaking specifically to nutrition and exercise.
Since my business offers prepared meals, we get a lot of inquiries about what we offer. Many times potential customers say things like “I can’t have carbs” or “I’ve tried a lot of diets but none of them worked”, indicating there is a change they would like to make, but certain aspects of their nutrition are out of their control.
In coaching one on one nutrition clients, these kinds of self-imposed rules or caveats are extremely common; they reflect that something did not work previously for the client or that they were told a piece of information that changed their mindset. These self-limiting statements reinforce something the client already wanted to believe (eating past 6pm makes you fat) or they produce some results which creates a confirmation bias.
While the comment section of Facebook is no-man’s land for trying to have an educating or enlightening conversation with someone, one on one coaching is by no means a quick fix. Once we’ve developed rules from a desire to confirm things we already believe or we see results from following said rules, it’s very difficult to change someone’s mindset.
After all, if you didn’t eat carbohydrates and never ate past 6pm and lost 20lbs, wouldn’t that indicate to you that it was an effective system?
Simple doesn't mean easy, but it's a startThe science community has so much more nutrition data to point us in the right direction than we do for something like muscle building physiology. It really isn’t an argument anymore about what causes changes in weight loss: a decrease in energy balance. Eating less and/or moving more really does work. And while simply eating less causes weight loss, we can push that further into our favor by focusing on fat loss instead. Rather than trying to game the system and see the scale go down from less carbohydrate intake, lower sodium levels and water loss (none of which have anything to do with body fat), we can use an energy deficit to tap into fat stores while preserving or building muscle through adequate protein and strength training.
The above is quite simple. This is the beauty and the beast of it. The beauty is that it really isn’t that complicated to get most clients to see results as long as we check a few key boxes. The beast of it is that since we’re human, we will filter this information through all our past experiences, flaws, insecurity and desires to create a bastardized version of our personality manifested as a diet.
Harking back to my initial statement, stepping away from the responsibility of choice and allowing these self-imposed parameters to call the shots is, in a sense, the easy way out.
As soon as our results are dictated by forces outside our control we not only lose all sense of responsibility but we also lose the ability to take criticism and have discussion.
Nope, you're STILL the one behind the wheelA coach is not there to lock you in the trunk while they take you on a proverbial nutrition road trip, they are there in the passenger seat trying to convince you that YOU are the one driving. Sure, you need some tools, experience, encouragement and reinforcement to improve but your hands are on the wheel buddy.
In perhaps one of the only aspects of your life that you have nearly all the control, this is the one we have such a hard time acknowledging. You choose everything that goes into your mouth, at what times and in what quantities. Your energy expenditure may be impacted by body size and N.E.A.T (non-exercise adaptive thermogenesis) but whether you go for a walk or hit the weight room is again, your choice.
Arguing about metabolism or fat loss genetics is always lose-lose for the client. It’s like complaining about your height. Sure, tall people hate squatting and short people hate deadlifting and apparently any height at all is always a disadvantage (insert eye roll) so the only solution is to move on. Unless you come out of the womb with the build of Ed Coan, some things in the gym will be really hard and some will be easy, sounds like life to me.
Nutrition is similar in that your metabolic rate is quite appropriate for your current size and activity levels. We need to move past worrying about broken metabolisms, carb intolerance and whether insulin makes us fat. These are the energy vampires of the nutrition world, they will suck you down a rabbit hole under the illusion the answer is one step away while you’re actually moving further away from the truth with every corner you turn.
We’re still in the very early stages of 2021 and with so many people wanting to improve their health, lose fat and feel better, it’s critical that you remember who’s behind the wheel. What food, at what times, in what quantities is entirely under your stewardship.
When you can turn “I just can’t seem to lose weight” into any honest assessment like “I am overeating peanut butter but not reporting it”, it allows you to make more effective changes. You might still need a coach to help you realize those issues and address them but the ability to take ownership is entirely on you.
Searching for diet secrets and “one food your doctor won’t tell you about’ is the texting and driving of the nutrition world: always a risk, never worth it.
You are in the driver’s seat.
]]>The consideration for antioxidants really picked up traction in the 90s, when researchers were looking for contributing factors to heart disease and atherosclerosis. Participants in the trials who consumed more fruits and vegetables had lower risk of these diseases. Since these individuals were consuming more antioxidants, it was posited that they had the capacity to lower risk of disease.
Unfortunately like with many studies, correlation does not equal causation and antioxidants like beta-carotene did not have any inhibitory effect on heart disease. As in the claims that people who eat meat are less healthy (as evidenced by higher risks of disease for meat eaters), it has to do with correlating factors like meat eaters tend to smoke more, drink more, exercise less and consume more calories. So if you eat meat, don’t smoke, exercise and live a healthy lifestyle there are really no indicators that you are at risk of anything.
In fact, most data will always have something that contradicts it in some way. For instance, there are higher incidences of mental illness and depression with vegetarians and vegans. Clearly being vegan doesn’t cause mental illness or depression directly but there may be outside influences that correlate meat-avoidance with decreased mental health.
The problem with assuming people who do “X” experience “Y” directly because of “X”, misses the point that there are dozens if not hundreds of contributing factors to health outcomes that cannot be pinpointed to one specific choice.
Alas, the obsession with antioxidant consumption stuck in our zeitgeist and many products tout their antioxidant content on shelves in every grocery store. Personally, I love the idea that consuming fruits or veggies “boosts” the immune system like it’s a battery being recharged. It’s a fun mental image but does not convey what’s happening physiologically.
What are antioxidants?Antioxidants are substances, man-made or naturally occurring, that help prevent or slow damage to cells caused by free radicals. Fruits and vegetables are specifically high in antioxidants alongside dark chocolate, tea and coffee.
What are free radicals?Free radicals are molecules produced by cells from breaking down food, exercising or environmental factors like smoke, sunlight and pollution.
Free radicals can cause oxidative stress on cells, which damages them. Now, oxygen metabolism itself causes some free radical production but many outside influences compound this (like smoking) which causes an imbalance between free radical production and clearance.
Mitochondria, which are the energy-producing organelle of the cell produce free radicals. Some other cellular organelles help clear them but not enough to do the job; enter antioxidants. These help put the system back into balance, reducing free radical damage to cells. Unchecked, high oxidation rates from free radical damage can cause induction of disease and speed up the aging process.
Here are some causes for high free-radical production:
cigarette smokepollutionalcohol intaketoxinshigh blood sugar levelshigh intake of polyunsaturated fatty acidsradiation, including excessive sunbathingbacterial, fungal, or viral infectionsexcessive intake of iron, magnesium, copper, or zincintense and prolonged exercise, which causes tissue damageexcessive intake of antioxidants, such as vitamins C and Eantioxidant deficiencyHow antioxidants balance free radicalsFree radicals are damaging because these molecules have an unpaired electron; most molecules have electrons in pairs, making them stable. With an unpaired electron, these free radicals are unstable and attack cellular components causing damage and stress. Unchecked, free radicals can scavenge electrons from other molecules and produce more free radicals. Yikes!
Antioxidants neutralize free radicals by breaking them down or providing the missing electron. Since we use antioxidants to combat free radicals, we need to produce and consume them.
Normal breathing, metabolism of food, exercise, sun exposure and more daily functions cause some sort of free radical production which our bodies can balance. With high pollution exposure, smoking or obesity for example, we cause an imbalance in free radical production and neutralization which puts greater oxidative stress on the body. This accelerates disease and aging.
Antioxidants are necessary, but supplements don’t really workClearly antioxidants are necessary and a critical component of our health and immunity. Knowing that excess free radical formation and oxidative damage accelerates disease and aging, it would make sense that supplementing with antioxidants would have, if nothing else, protective benefits on our health.
Despite the National Institute of Health (NIH) conducting clinical trials on thousands of participants, results have been very disappointing.
Taken directly from the NIH:
The Women’s Health Study, which included almost 40,000 healthy women at least 45 years of age, found that vitamin E supplements did not reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, age-related macular degeneration, or cataracts. Although vitamin E supplements were associated with fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes, they did not reduce the overall death rate of study participants.The Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study found no beneficial effects of vitamin C, vitamin E, or beta-carotene supplements on cardiovascular events (heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular diseases) or the likelihood of developing diabetes or cancer in more than 8,000 female health professionals, aged 40 years or older, who were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Antioxidant supplements also did not slow changes in cognitive function among women in this study who were aged 65 or older.The Physicians’ Health Study II, which included more than 14,000 male physicians aged 50 or older, found that neither vitamin E nor vitamin C supplements reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events (heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular disease), cancer, or cataracts. In fact, vitamin E supplements were associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke in this study.The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)—a study of more than 35,000 men aged 50 or older—found that selenium and vitamin E supplements, taken alone or together, did not prevent prostate cancer. A 2011 updated analysis from this trial, based on a longer followup period of study participants, concluded that vitamin E supplements increased the occurrence (my emphasis) of prostate cancer by 17 percent in men who received the vitamin E supplement alone compared with those who received placebo. There was no increase in prostate cancer when vitamin E and selenium were taken together.Reasonable conclusionsAs stated by the NIH, there are several factors which may explain why simply taking an antioxidant supplement does not prevent disease.
For one, the chemical composition of supplement vs naturally occurring antioxidants can play a role. Amounts found in food are typically much lower than in supplements and specific dosing (less vs more) might play a role in effectiveness.
Specific antioxidants may play more critical roles in disease prevention and simply giving a standard dose to thousands of participants might not be specific enough to address individual needs.
Time also plays into effectiveness. Even a three year trial may not replicate the benefits of a lifetime consuming fruits and vegetables in one person and almost none in another.
Like the research on meat consumption and disease, simply focusing on antioxidants might not be effective enough. Fruits and vegetables contain vitamins, minerals, fiber, water and help off-set more calorie dense foods. Perhaps these factors contribute or play a larger role in disease prevention.
Lastly, and this is my favorite:
“The relationship between free radicals and health may be more complex than has previously been thought. Under some circumstances, free radicals actually may be beneficial rather than harmful, and removing them may be undesirable” (NIH, November 2013)
Sometimes we’re so smart that we’re dumbTo sum it up, these trials did not produce promising results and some actually showed an increase in disease risk with excess antioxidants. I am grateful that the authors concluded that not only are there many correlating factors but that we simply don’t have enough information yet to say why antioxidant supplements don’t work.
I feel that this perfectly encapsulates so much of the fitness and nutrition industry. Something like consuming fruits and vegetables is good for us and marketing takes one aspect like antioxidants and promotes them as our savior. Despite not having evidence and overlooking very basic factors like low-calorie density and high fiber density, fruits and vegetables are reduced to how chock full of antioxidants they are rather than excellent sources of nutrients and fiber that happen to be low in calories.
We have so much technology and science to explain our food, physiology and health. But often we miss the forest for the trees simple because society becomes reductionist. We want things to be simple so we can make easy, informed choices. In that reductive path it’s far too easy to focus on one exciting variable but miss that the sum is more effective than it’s parts.
Reductionist
Exercise burns calories, burning calories helps you lose weight, being leaner is healthier thus calorie burn from exercise is all that matters.
Holistic
Exercise burns calories but also encourages muscle mass gain. More muscle means more glucose disposal and strength as we age. We also lean out which helps improve glucose disposal and stress on the system. Training the cardiac system reduces our resting heart rate and blood pressure which is great for health. Exercise is also social which is excellent for our psychology. Achieving goals in the gym is a great way to build confidence.
Antioxidants are a crucial part of our function and health and consuming fruits, vegetables, chocolate, tea and coffee helps contribute to that system. However, trying to overload that one component of our cellular health has proven to be less beneficial than focusing on the habitual nature of consuming those foods.
If you’re consuming fruits and veggies habitually, you’re there. Don’t waste energy and resources trying to rig the system with antioxidant supplements, at least until research can give us more hard data. Forest > tree!
]]>Caffeine is often associated with dehydration, more specifically, that drinking a cup of coffee is going to result in a net dehydration.
Anecdotally this may seem to be the case; if you drink a lot of coffee you might feel thirsty, get a headache, feel your blood pressure rise and increase your urine volume aka pee more. Like many areas of nutrition, it is very easy to confuse correlation with causation. If we “feel” dehydrated, it must be the coffee, right?
Pour a pot of postulationIt has been postulated that caffeine is exerting it’s diuretic effects (if any) through two mechanisms.
The first is that it inhibits an enzyme called phosphodiesterase, which results in the breakdown of fat in the muscles and fat tissue. Sweet! While the above mechanism is confirmed, it is thought that this inhibition of the phosphodiesterase enzyme in the kidneys results in increased fluid loss.
The main mechanism that caffeine lowers fatigue is by blocking adenosine receptors. As you move through your day expending energy, a by-product of that energy release is adenosine; as it builds up it creates fatigue. By blocking adenosine receptors we can delay the feeling of fatigue. The second postulation is that by when adenosine receptors in the kidney (which contribute to water reabsorption) are inhibited, we lose more fluids (Hocher et al 2010).
Two mechanisms we can confirm are the release of free fatty acids from phosphodiesterase inhibition and fluid loss from kidney adenosine receptor inhibition. But whether we can say those result in any substantial fluid loss needs to be scrutinized.
Basically, yes we KNOW caffeine has physiological effects which can be both measured and felt but is it actually dehydrating us?
What’s the science buzz?After recovering from that dad-joke of a header, I referred to a meta-analysis (essentially a study of studies) that compiled research from28 studies with a combined total of 379 participants (Zhang et al 2016).
In this meta-analysis, there were a number of studies showing a wide range of heterogeneity, or individual difference. Studies use something called Effect Size (ES) to measure the strength of relationship between two variables, in this case: urine loss with or without 300-500mg caffeine. The effect size for caffeine ranged from negative, trivial, small, medium and large. What that tells us is that there are individual differences at play here, one person may get a greater fluid loss than another simply because of their genetic makeup.
How the results stack up:
Magnitude of effect size for 300-500mg of caffeine was smallDose was not directly predictive of fluid loss i.e if you ingested more caffeine it did not mean you would lose more fluidsWomen lose more fluids than men to caffeineDosing caffeine over longer periods (hours or days) did not have a significant impact on fluid lossWhen paired with exercise, any fluid loss from caffeine was negated (exercise causes fluid retention)When we look at these results it is apparent that a moderate dose of caffeine is not causing a significant (if any) loss in fluids and when ingested before exercise, results in no loss of fluids. Whether it is taken in one drink or sipped over longer periods, the effect is none to very small.
Side effectsAnecdotally, many people may simply drink more coffee, diet soda, juice etc than actual water. For individuals who rely more on “drinks” more fluids, the problem may lie more in their lower overall fluid intake than actual caffeine intake. If someone prefers fluids that have a taste, they may not consume much water anyway and are unlikely to get their recommended intake simply from coffee and soda.
In addition, the tannins in coffee produce an astringent effect by “sticking” to the tongue and making it feel dry and sandy. Since we associate a dry mouth with dehydration we may assume that this feeling is indicative of such.
If you have a dry mouth you won’t feel very hydrated and if you don’t consume any water, you probably will be.
The end recommendation? Drink your coffee but drink your water too!
Resources:
Zhang, Y., Coca, A., Casa, D., Antonio, J., Green, J., & Bishop, P. (2015, September). Caffeine and diuresis during rest and exercise: A meta-analysis. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4725310/
Hocher, B. (2015, December 16). Adenosine A1 receptor antagonists in clinical research and development. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253815545730
]]>The concept of the average trainee manipulating their macronutrient intake to correspond in accordance with their exercise duration and intensity is either largely a waste of time or the discovery of some unlocked potential.
Tomes of research on substrate (glucose, fatty acids or amino acids) utilization during exercise have shed light on the varying degrees of fuel usage depending on the mode and intensity of exercise. However, for almost everyone looking to add muscle, lean out and get stronger, the 3,000 foot view works just fine.
I say this because the metabolic processes of deriving energy do not operate in black or white as we wish they did. Let’s take fatty acid usage for example.
Fat for FuelIn a low intensity exercise state, 25% of maximal O2 intake or walking at 3 miles an hour, fatty acid usage accounts for most of the fuel used for energy. I’ve covered before why walking is a great exercise addition because it takes almost nothing from you in terms of recovery but uses almost exclusively fat for fuel, albeit a small amount.
Where does this fat come from though? We have fat stored in fat cells of course but also in our muscles, as intramuscular triglycerides. About 85% comes from plasma, meaning fat released by our fat tissue into the blood, to be taken up by our muscles and oxidized for energy.
As we approach exercise intensity of about 65%, the amount of fat used from fat cells via our blood declines, while usage of fat stored in our muscles increases, to about a 50/50 split.
However, at this level of intensity, fat cannot be oxidized (burned) at a fast enough rate to provide all the energy needed so about half of total energy at this intensity level comes from stored carbohydrate, either in our muscles or released from the liver. Using the “talk test”, an exercise intensity of 65% means you can carry on a conversation with someone in
shorter sentences.
At a moderate exercise intensity you are already using:
50% energy from fat – with half coming from fat cells and half coming from intramuscular triglycerides50% energy from carbohydrate – with a mix coming from stored carbohydrate in muscle and that released by the liver into the bloodstreamOnce you reach an exercise intensity of about 85% (think doing a hard set of weight lifting or fast run) nearly two thirds of energy is coming from stored carbohydrate in the muscles (glycogen), with a slight increase in reliance on blood glucose and then perhaps 20% coming from fatty acids derived from both fat cells and intramuscular triglycerides.
All carbs, no fat?A logical conclusion then, is that exercising at a high intensity such as lifting weights uses mostly carbohydrates as fuel and fat is not important. This leads to many very low-fat bodybuilding style diets which do lend themselves to productive training sessions (through an abundance of the necessary fuel, carbs) but they do not take into account the need for fat for energy.
Not only do fatty acids spare both glucose (carbs) to be used for training but also amino acids (protein) for the synthesis and repair of muscle tissue. Having sufficient fat intake helps direct other nutrients towards more useful and productive pathways. In addition, when you eat carbohydrates they are broken down into glucose, processed in the liver and released into the bloodstream. When glucose reaches the muscle it needs to be stored as glycogen. The process of converting glucose to glycogen is energy costly and the body EXPENDS energy to actually make usable energy from carbohydrates…huh.
Rather than use energy from carbohydrate just to get energy from carbohydrate, the body can utilize energy from fat to fuel the process of converting glucose to glycogen. Many coaches might see this as an opportunity to use a very low-fat diet so more energy from fat cells is used to fuel these processes. Unfortunately, the amount of fat we can free into the bloodstream is limited and the liver can produce fatty acids to meet demand. Remember that a high-carbohydrate diet will produce more insulin so in a fed state that insulin will suppress fatty acid release from fat cells.
A low-fat diet can make it easier for some trainees to lean out and/or have more productive training sessions but it does not mean that fat is not an important factor. In fact, there is an essential requirement for fat intake to cover essential body fat storage (that around the organs) and hormone production. Falling below that for extended periods will certainly have negative consequences.
When we take into consideration that essential fat intake is around .4g/lb, a 150lb client shouldn’t drop below 60g fat per day for weeks on end, yet time and again many large trainees weighing over 150lbs are trying to eat 50g or less. Not only is this not very palatable but it is also self-limiting because ingested carbohydrate will have to be used to produce fatty acids in the liver.
Getting off the no-fat bandwagonWhat do you tell someone who is seeking advice for a more sustainable and balanced nutrition approach after coming off a very low-fat approach?
Using .4-.7g fat per pound as a window, we can come up with a decent range that should fit just about anyone’s preferences. Personally, I am not a fan of very high-fat diets because they limit carbohydrate intake and there is very little evidence that ketones are a superior fuel; at best they are similar, at worst they inhibit performance. That’s not much of an endorsement.
In addition, dietary fat is the primary nutrient stored as body fat. Contrary to pop-culture belief, carbohydrates are rarely stored as body fat. In fact, it usually takes 7 days of ingesting 500-700g daily of carbohydrates before the liver converts glucose to fatty acids (denovolipogenesis).
Bummer Alert: Eating more fat doesn’t mean more fat burnedUnlike carbohydrates, the use of fat for fuel in a mixed diet does not increase as fat intake increases. The amount of fat burned for energy daily is more closely tied to how much body fat you have, so fat overfeeding long-term will need to be met with an increase in body fat before they are equalized. For instance, an estimate according to Schutz et al 1992 shows that it takes about 22lbs of increased fat mass to equalize a 20g per day increase in fat intake over baseline. Essentially, eating more dietary fat won’t burn more fat UNTIL you gain more body fat.
Operate within windowsNo, not Windows 10, Windows 10 sucks. Instead of trying to fine tune every gram of carbohydrate, fat and protein, getting into the ballpark and then adjusting based on preference and performance is much more feasible and practical. After all, if a trainee is ingesting 300g carbs per day, will an increase of 10g make all that much of a difference aside from the fact that it’s simply more calories?
It is impossible to factor in the fat utilization from glycogen synthesis, liver production of fatty acids and the breakdown of fuel usage during exercise like lifting weights. How do you determine the fuel usage? Lifting is primarily carbohydrate fueled while rest between sets relies on fatty acids ; are you doing that math?
We know that there is an obligatory requirement for carbohydrates for organs and the nervous system. We know there is a minimum threshold for fat intake. We also know there is a limit on the amount of dietary fat we can use for energy.
It isn’t that complicated then to find a small window of acceptable fat intake, assign protein based on solid research (1.8-2.2g/kg) and make up the rest of the calories via carbs. We spend far too much time stressing about carbohydrate intake in the realm of insulin sensitivity when losing body fat is the fastest way to regain insulin sensitivity. Please remember that you can become insulin resistant by over-eating dietary fat in the absence of carbohydrates. In fact this is how scientists get rodents obese in short periods of time: over-feed them with fat.
Let go of the control you never hadThe system is very complex with redundant pathways to ensure we have energy available to keep us alive and ticking. Rather than suppose we have a magic formula for muscle gain, fat loss or recomposition we should remember that calorie intake is steering the ship. We can help facilitate processes by assigning science-based nutrition recommendations but we truly operate on the 3,000 foot view.'
The secret that most successful nutrition coaches will tell you (but no one listens) is that when you begin working with a client, everything is an informed guess. Once you know what they are eating in terms of quantity and you can track of their weight changes, you have a good idea of their calorie needs. Once those numbers are elucidated, assigning very practical macronutrient breakdowns helps give you some runway to work with. Any tinkering along the way in terms of 5g here and 10g there is more an adjustment of calories through practical means than anything else. I love the hope that a 5g change in carbohydrates from 295 to 300g is even registered at the cellular level in terms of changing homeostasis. Ha!
You might think you have your 317g of daily carbs dialed in perfectly but between nutrition labels having a margin of error, carbohydrate density of foods differing and substrate utilization during exercise changing, you’re always operating at best-guess. Success comes from controlling as much as is practical without devoting unnecessary energy to minutiae you do not understand (myself included).
If you read through most practical sport-science practitioners operating in the real world, their recommendations begin to look similar and unexciting. Know your parameters, know you operate within nutritional bumper lanes and maybe we can all stop thinking we’ve found a metabolic “hack” that shortcuts a process we have no business worrying about in the first place.
Reference
]]>There exists a debate between advocates of weighing and measuring all your food versus intuitive eating. My stance on intuitive eating is that it doesn’t exist the way it’s been posited. In the world of intuitive eating, we’re “listening” to our body and eating when we’re hungry, stopping when we’re full and generally choosing food sources that fit the needs of our particular physiology.
Don’t get me wrong, I do understand the allure of being at one with your body and just having these random thoughts or intuitive drives that tell you exactly what food to eat and how much. But that mechanism doesn’t exist (that we know of) and often I find those who tout intuitive eating are those who have spent a lot of time weighing, measuring and tracking before developing that intuition.
What's intuitive about eating?Intuition would tell our physiology to eat any available food, any time we get the chance because more calories means more chance of survival and reproduction. We’re constantly trying to look at our physiology though the lens of the past millennium when in fact modern humans as we know them have existed for 200,000 years.
Naturally, most humans do some accounting of their food intake. Breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner. It’s not detailed but it certainly points towards the fact that you have regular access to food. Salad instead of nachos. There’s some basic calorie control right there. To assume that people need to be told what over-eating is or which foods are really high in calories is not giving the average person enough credit.
While many clients of mine have mistaken peanut butter as a protein source rather than a fat source, we don’t need a bomb calorimeter to confirm that peanut butter has more calories than celery. Everyone, with zero food education knows that. Really palatable foods generally mean they are safe to eat and calorie dense. Even your dog knows enough to gobble down a piece of fatty steak but would give your kombucha a derisive sniff.
You already know thisTo have the argument that the general public doesn’t know extremely palatable foods like soda, ice cream and cereal are calorie-dense but nutritionally void is really quite asinine. I believe it also leads to trying to solve problems that don’t really exist.
With some minor exceptions here and there, we don’t need to tell people which foods are going to help them get lean and feel good. We need to help them manage their environment, decision making skills and preparedness so that they don’t revert back to previous choices when shit hits the fan.
If you ever have a conversation with someone who believes that people are overweight because they don’t track calories or simply don’t want to put in the work, you can be pretty sure they’ve never been overweight themselves. I don't advocate doing so just for the experience, but it certainly opens your eyes to some key issues.
It takes quite a bit of emotional drive to override the many fullness cues sent to our brain, both from the stretching of our stomach to hormones like insulin, CCK and PYY. If you ate a baked sweet potato, grilled chicken breast and a huge green salad, you’d be full. Cue full stomach and tons of hormonal signaling to the brain for satiety. To eat more is not really appealing. It takes a strong emotional/psychological drive to override these hunger and fullness cues to keep eating. Likewise, for comfort, boredom of self-loathing , many people switch to more calorically dense and palatable foods which allow them to eat even MORE.
So it’s not laziness, lack of motivation, stupidity or desire that leads to obesity in many cases. It’s often a reaction, defense mechanism or self-medication to something very emotionally painful that perpetuates this behavior. Speaking for myself and many clients who have shared their stories, life presented an awful circumstance and food just happened to be the variable that worked for them. For others it’s drug, sex, gambling, working. or any other vice.
The catch-22 is that once you look in the mirror with the realization of “I’m fat”, it’s far too easy to hate yourself even more and this perpetuates the overeating. Now you can punish yourself for being overweight – with more food.
File under "things people never said"When was the last time you ate an entire pizza and said, “can’t wait to look shredded tomorrow”?
There’s really no delusion that pizza will get you shredded. Find me one person who thinks that being completely sedentary is healthy. Why try to solve a problem that isn’t really the problem?
People make these choices because they’re stuck, they don’t like something about themselves or their lives. Maybe they feel hopeless or helpless and can’t make a decision on where to start.
Intuitive eating assumes you can get people to a place where they forget all the choices they made before – in fact it is helping them make informed decisions in a more conducive environment to success that just happens to look like intuition.
Intuitive eating is better served for the rare few who have zero food hang-ups. They do exist, but are quite elusive, like the Sasquatch or Yeti (cue conspiracy theories!).
Metrics are great but...Weighing, measuring and tracking is excellent for educating a person and giving them information they can act on. It’s an incredible powerful tool because, if things are tracked correctly, you can make very informed decisions with a high confidence in the outcome.
Unfortunately, most people just look at numbers. And our physiology cannot be represented so easily in numbers . An increase in weight on the scale after 4 successive weeks of dieting success doesn’t mean you’ve gained fat. Maybe it just means you are experiencing some stress and the subsequent rise in cortisol caused some water retention. Was this diet-induced or some outside factor? Water weight can take 1-2 weeks to normalize in many cases; are you making a reactionary change or waiting 2 weeks to see if weight normalizes as your stress does?
These are deeper factors that can have profound effects on the numbers we’re tracking, but without an understanding of the physiology or enough experience to know that sometimes you just need to WAIT, many people start driving themselves crazy with numbers. Another example might be taking a lean mass reading on a Bioelectrical Impedance device, that essentially measures body water to get an assessment of lean mass vs fat mass.
Lean mass is not to be confused with skeletal muscle. Muscle is more than 60% water so transient changes in hydration status, electrolyte status and hormonal factors like cortisol and insulin will modify that number as well. Carb loading someone and seeing their lean mass go up simply from the water stored alongside the increased muscle glycogen is NOT muscle tissue.
Fat is about 15% lean mass (cellular machinery and structural elements). Someone losing 50lbs of fat will actually see a significant change down in lean mass even if they lose no muscle. 15% of 50lbs is 7.5lbs, if you don’t know that this drop in lean mass could very likely be from the lost fat tissue, you might think your diet is failing!
I do think it is important to allow people the level of calorie and macronutrient management that they can implement...without being a neurotic mess. For some this might be weighing and measuring every last morsel and for others, it might just be helping them choose better foods when shopping at the grocery store.
But no matter what your level of metric management, there certainly needs to be the backbone of ingrained habits and environmental control. Without those two, you are just a diet relapse waiting to happen.
Habits, metrics, baggageThis is probably the most common trait among those looking to lean out: going all-in followed by a complete collapse of all their progress. Habits always need to be built and reinforced because, with enough time, they require no effort. Environment is critically important because it reinforces your habits and gives them a place to grow without negative influence. When you are in a situation where you cannot control your environment, your habits do the heavy lifting for you.
The key to much of this is dealing with whatever emotional or psychological issue might be driving your choices that lead to over-eating. Death in the family, divorce, mid-life crisis, not wanting to disappoint those offering food to you, a desire for control, self-pity, anger or self-hatred. Apathy.
I hear more often than anything else that people gain weight when they start prioritizing everyone else but themselves, this is especially true of new parents or those taking care of sick loved ones. Prioritizing yourself might make you feel guilty and selfish. Maybe you feel like you don’t deserve to look and feel your best. Inevitably when the weight is lost the second most common phrase is that they realize being healthier and feeling better about themselves allows them to take care of their loved ones even better.
Step one is thinking about why you are making the choices you are and then recognizing the problem. Once there is a problem identified, it can be addressed. All of the measuring, habit building and environmental changes make dealing with that issue easier but if you never address it, it will always be there.
If your habits are the foundation to your house then surely your psychology is the ground the foundation is built into. You can measure all the metrics you want but it won't get to the root cause.
If, as Dan Garner likes to say, “the mind is the body and the body is the mind”, changing your body requires changing how you think.
]]>Last week was all about asking “do you need to carb cycle”? This is an important first question for any nutrition endeavor because if we don’t know why we’re choosing a method or we can’t explain what the intention is, how can we gauge our results?
The ketogenic diet is a great example of this because so many people have tried it, including many clients I’ve worked with. Often in the discussion of why someone is choosing to restrict nearly all carbohydrates, individuals will cite that they tend to gain more body fat when they are eating carbohydrates.
These broad statements get thrown around a ton in the nutrition world, often based on anecdote and/or a desire to find “the reason” someone cannot lose the fat they want. Do you struggle to lose weight? Tried everything and failed? Well, that’s because insulin is making you fat! Didn’t you know that if you JUST cut out carbs that you’d effortlessly lose weight while eating anything you want?? That sounds pretty good to me and obviously to many individuals out there looking to shed some pounds.
Strawman arguments are much easier to sneak past people when it comes to nutrition because, honestly, who is going to see an ad like that and then search Pubmed to see if the research holds those statements up? Um….no one.
It’s even harder to convince someone that you can definitely consume carbohydrates while leaning out if they have previous experience on something like keto and lost quite a bit of bodyweight with it. James Krieger has done an excellent job compiling research over multiple posts that shows the insulin = fat storage statement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Inherent Bias
In an almost paradoxical series of events, a client who sees short-term success with any particular methodology may actually inhibit their long-term success due to bias. If you try the Super Fat Blaster 5000 method and lose ten pounds because it requires that you only eat the approved list of Fat Blaster foods, cool. You might not realize that the food selection simply helped you control calories, rather than those specific foods holding some kind of special fat loss properties.
So when we decide to carb cycle, we really need to be clear as a freshly Windex’d pane of glass that all we’re doing is cycling calories with an eye on performance. The reason we choose to cycle carbohydrates rather than fat or protein is from practicality. Protein remains constant because it is critical for protein synthesis, recovery, repair and satiety. Fat usually stays constant because eating significantly more fat on any one day won’t have a noticeable effect on gym performance. Cycling carbohydrates allows us to add more when we need it for performance and recovery and less when we don’t. Because carbohydrates contain calories, this ends up being calorie cycling as well.
Practical Uses for Carb Cycling
Fat Loss
In any fat loss diet, you inevitably reach a point where taking your calories further into a deficit seven days a week is not practical, safe or productive. With long-term severe calorie reduction you’ll experience drops in sex hormone, increases in cortisol, decreases in leptin, slower recovery and impaired performance. You’ll probably also be hungry, tired and irritable.
Adding in some high(er) carbohydrate days allow us to stave off some of the inevitable effects of long-term calorie restriction. Boosting calories, specifically from carbohydrates not only provides short-term reprieve from some of the negative effects of dieting but can aid in gym performance which is crucial. Strategically adding high(er) carbohydrates on training days can allow you solid performance, recovery and pumps while still adhering to an overall calorie deficit.
In this case, carb cycling helps to mitigate the negative effects of dieting.
Practical example 175lb male:
Off Days
2100 calories
170g protein
75g fat
185g carbs
Training Days
2300 calories
170g protein
75g fat
235g carbs
Muscle Gain
In almost the opposite of carbohydrate cycling for fat loss, we might use this strategy to add more calories on training days to ensure good training, recovery, pumps and of course muscle growth. However, we may keep calories lower on off days to limit the accumulation of too much body fat.
With any long-term muscle gain protocol, some fat gain is inevitable. While it seems like that’s terrible news, about 15% of fat is actually lean mass (structural components and cellular machinery) and can help contribute to strength gains. Sumo wrestlers have the highest fat free mass indexes of any athletes despite carrying huge amounts of fat mass. Simply carrying more total weight will contribute to muscle growth because it’s added mass that gravity is acting on – if you weigh more you have to exert more effort to move. More muscular work/tension = more muscular growth.
While we aren’t trying to completely mitigate fat gain, eating closer to maintenance on off-days can help limit the amount of fat we gain while bulking, meaning there is less to diet off at the end of that phase.
Practical example 175lb male:
Off Days
2625 calories
170g protein
85g fat
295g carbs
Training Days
2925 calories
170g protein
85g fat
370g carbs
Performance
Carbohydrate cycling for performance lies in the middle ground. Performance protocols are usually focused on remaining the same weight while trying to improve your sport or gym performance.
This focus is when I might add in some fat cycling as well. Since our goal is not to have high and low calorie days, we want to focus on keeping calories relatively constant so no weight change occurs.
The approach here usually just means more carbs and less fat on training days and more fat and less carbs on off days. Calories overall stay the same; just the ratio of the macronutrients change.
Practical example 175lb male:
Off Days
2500 calories
170g protein
90 g fat
250g carbs
Training Days
2500 calories
170g protein
70g fat
295g carbs
Choosing Your GoalFor fat loss and muscle gain, the approach can start relatively simple.
Set your fat loss or muscle gain caloriesRun those numbers daily until progress stallsBeing by adding 10% more carbohydrates on training days, working up to 20% if you are still experiencing progress in your overall goal.For fat loss, don’t add so many carbohydrates on training days (e.g 100g) that your overall fat loss progress stops. Calories still count and if you add too many you won’t be in a deficitFor muscle gain, don’t add so many carbohydrates on training days (e.g 100-200g) that you start gaining a lot of excess body fat. Some is inevitable but no reason to pack it on for the sake of “gainz”For Performance
Set your maintenance calorie numbersIncrease carbohydrates by 20% on training days. Your fat will need to come down but NOT by 20%. Remember that carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram and fat has 9. So if you raise your carbs 20% and that is a 150 calories surplus, you’ll need to reduce fat by 150 calories.Decrease carbohydrates by 20% on off days. Whatever calorie reduction this is, you will need to replace with fat calories. Remember they are not interchangeable gram for gram! If you reduce carbohydrates by 150 calories, you’ll need to add 150 calories from fatKeep pushing 5% up on training days and 5% down on off days every 1-2 weeks until you feel you’ve maxed out performance in the gym. I recommend not lowering fat on off days below 0.3 g/lbCarb Wrap UpIf one thing is apparent, it’s that you should still have a primary goal. The old adage of “you can’t ride two horse with one ass” stands up pretty well. In many cases, pushing for one specific goal not only gives you focus but it’ll help you reach that goal faster. Carb cycling is simply a way of pushing progress a little more in your favor when things slow down.
If you want to get lean, carb cycling isn’t going to get you massively jacked at the same time; if you want to gain size, it won’t get you simultaneously shredded.
Make sure you prioritize. Choose one goal, attack it with everything you can and stay consistent day in and day out. When that approach slows down, play that Ace up your sleeve and employ smart carb cycling to continue pushing that goal.
Since I love you and you’re great, use my top-secret carb cycling calculator below. Just don’t let those maniacs at Super Fat Blaster 5000 get their hands on it!
Carb Cycling Calculator
1. Download
2. Input your known calories and macros into the boxes with green text
3. Adjust the % carb change on training days and let the calculator do the work!
Click here to download the carb cycling calculator
]]>I can admit the title is a little "click-baity" but the questions still stands: do you need carb cycling? And moreover, do you need any approach besides linear calorie restriction?
The longer you've been around the block, the more you realize that there are no secrets and no shortcuts. So much of dietary success comes down to doing the same 'ol boring thing day in and day out. It's not specifically that your food combinations or flavors have to be boring (that is a misconception) but that the timing of meals and quantity of calories net the greatest results when they are held constant.
For some, this means chicken, sweet potatoes and broccoli at every meal. For others, this can mean trying to cram as much junk into every 400 calorie meal as they can. The two polar ends of the spectrum are bland monotony chewing unsalted boiled chicken breast in a cold, dark room or protein-waffle-zero carb-ice cream shakes that makes you crap your pants from the load of inulin and xylitol.
Consistency, in the nutrition world really means keeping your number and timing of meals relatively constant, with evenly spaced calorie servings divided among them (within reason of course). Like training, the details often don't matter quite as much as showing up and working hard. Whether you bench sets of 10 or sets of 12 doesn't impact general outcomes as long as you do enough sets and challenge yourself. Fat loss isn't concerned with glycemic load, index, white rice vs brown or any of the other details that can suck you in and derail you. Are you choosing appropriate foods that allow you to eat in a calorie deficit, feel relatively full and get enough protein, fiber and essential fats? Check that box and move on, seriously.
What is success?My wheels starting turning when I hearing success stories that involved something like fasting, keto or clean eating, just to name a few. One of the reasons for this is because many dietary strategies that work for people don't work because they've mastered the basics and developed good habits. In fact, many dietary strategies allow you to circumvent building good habits and a relationship with food by forcing you to limit yourself in some way.
Is losing 30lbs on keto really success if it means you had to eliminate an entire food group? Can you live the rest of your life without starchy carbohydrates and what view do you have of them now, since avoiding them led to weight loss?
Does restricting your eating window to 12-6PM every day mean success? Is this the only way you've found to be able to control calories, by simply not eating for half of your waking hours?
Does success on cleaning eating mean that you've now relegated foods in your mind to good vs bad? Will eating white rice make you feel like you're cheating on your diet?
The truth is that all of the above strategies work but they only work when you rigidly adhere and lets be honest, no one will follow a diet forever. For every keto success story, there are 99 more clients who've gained and lost the same 60lbs repeatedly. Many of these strategies are aimed at people who cannot or will not develop the basic nutrition skills they need to make their success permanent. So, time and again, they fall back on flashy and exciting diets peddled at them by people who know exactly how to make them fall for it. And worse yet, they are peddled by people who DO believe in them so strongly that they cannot accept actual scientific fact that might contradict them.
I find it downright irresponsible to push strategies that vilify a food group, time of day to eat or hormone or general population folks who just need to lose body fat because it adds another level of complexity. Does carb cycling work? Sure it does! But does it work because insulin is bad? Haha....no. It works because it operates within the confines of basic energy regulation while giving a slight edge to trainees who might need more carbohydrates on very hard training days. In the right hands you can keep a trainee's productivity high while on a diet; in the wrong hands you convey to that trainee that restricting carbohydrates and manipulating insulin are the only ways to lean out.
Do it againThis phrase was uttered to me by a chef who had the greatest influence on my culinary career, Justin Walker. Leaving culinary school for one of my first cooking jobs, I assumed I knew everything and was ready to be a "chef". Unfortunately I was not. Fortunately, I had someone who saw some potential and decided to guide me. Like many college or trade school grads, my thought at receiving a diploma was "looks like I learned everything I need to know", but the reality is I still kinda sucked at everything.
I had some knowledge, I had a small amount of experience but to enter a kitchen and debone monkfish, make pasta from scratch, smoke bacon, simmer sauces and curdle some homemade cheese was far beyond my capabilities. While I wanted to do those things because they seemed exciting and challenging, I didn't have the skill or experience to execute them. In fact, on my very first 10 minutes in the kitchen, Justin asked me to chop chives very finely. I did what I thought was a good job and handed them back to him in a pint container when I was done. He took one look, dumped them in the trash and told me to do it again.
Most of us need a cold hard reality check that like when it comes to nutrition.
Instead of doing all the exciting "chef" jobs, I had to spend time proving myself. I toasted nuts, made dressings, broke down lobsters, washed dishes and repeated these tasks over and over until they became second nature. It wasn't until I was able to execute these basic kitchen tasks with precision and timeliness that I was given any additional responsibilities.
The backbone of any skilled cook or chef are the basics. Every task is built upon knife skills, cleanliness and organization. These are the tenets of any good cook and as much as you love Gordon Ramsay or Anthony Bourdain, if you had entered their kitchen they wouldn't give you a chance in hell at deboning salmon or making a Bearnaise until they saw you dice onions, wash dishes and sweep the floor for months on end.
One of the issues with sharing information online and through social media is that it only shows the highlights, it glorifies the end product while ignoring the decades of work it took to achieve the end product. This is entirely the case with nutrition and dietary strategies as we are bombarded with ads and accounts that glorify a complex system, diet or food elimination scheme that completely ignores the basics.
And while these advanced strategies can and often do work, they will not lead you to success if you don't have the basics down. As much as you want to be that chef, dazzling folks on the Food Network, in reality you're probably still butchering some chives.
So, do it again.
Stay tuned for Part II on how to Carb Cycle like a #boss
]]>Pursuing a dietary strategy that doesn't work is like staying in a failed relationship.
It's challenging to take into account all of the factors that influence our ability to change: desire for something different, resources, previous success and failures, cognitive bias, fear, lack of knowledge and the list goes on.
Assuming that someone isn't taking the necessary steps for change or that their dietary failures, so to speak, reflect that they're simply lazy or unmotivated is extremely short-sighted.
I get it though. If you've never struggled with your weight and body image it simply doesn't register that weight gain could be anything other than letting your habits slip. After all, building good habits is one of the key ways to making real, sustainable change.
Reverse engineering that doesn't work because it overlooks the relationship aspect.
It's not just about the foodImagine a person who had a sordid relationship with their family and one of the only ways they felt love and care was when food was on the table. Maybe in a setting where there wasn't much emotional care, food was a rare bond. For this person, food represents more than nutrition and energy metabolism. It's a deep-seated (albeit skewed) source of love and comfort. But now you want to take that away? You want to cut their calorie intake down and implement restriction into one of the key areas of life they find solace in? Good luck.
Think of something that gives you a sense of peace and centers you; going to the gym, spending time with your dog, going to church, curling up with a good book. Now imagine someone telling you that 50% of that activity needs to go away, forever. You'd defend it. You'd find reasons not to change. You'd build defenses and strategies for hiding these activities from someone who says they need to be cut down.
Sure, we KNOW that overeating and obesity are harmful to your health, quality of life and longevity. Insulin resistance, inflammation, immobility, heart disease, joint pain. But the short-term relief of an activity that brings you peace often wins out over the long-term gain of making a change. Finding comfort from walking your dog is certainly healthier than bingeing on food but attacking that activity rarely brings change. Not healthy change.
Understand that many of the people you see struggling with life-long obesity have tried diets, they've tried restriction. Nothing "sticks" because the emotional and psychological driver of their behaviors have not been dealt with. It's not my place to diagnose why someone is over-feeding themselves. But in many cases it's obvious they're feeding a feeling.
Have you ever been addicted to drugs or alcohol? Changing tomorrow is the biggest lie you can tell yourself. "I need this now, but I'll make a change tomorrow". Tomorrow comes and nothing is different because the person isn't dealing with anything beyond the surface.
So you might be thinking to yourself that this all sounds very complicated and for most people weight loss should be much simpler. Sure, the freshman fifteen, post-partum baby weight, a few too many drinks on the weekend or a massive schedule change can lead to weight gain. Many times these are singular events that can be addressed with some key strategies. They're not necessarily caused by a traumatic emotional driver rather than a new life event. These clients are often easy to help - more veggies, hydrating, improving sleep and boom: they're back on track.
The diet isn't helping, it's hurtingWhat's going on with the client who has been following keto for 5 years and has only seemed to gain weight? Why does a person choose a diet that fails them over and over? Why cling to an idea or system that seems to be making things worse?
Many people will choose a diet that confirms something they already believe. Diets that sell very simple solutions are appealing to your desire to do the least possible for the biggest reward. Keto promises that insulin is the reason you can't lose weight, you don't even need to watch calories as long as you don't eat carbs. This notion is appealing to someone who doesn't want to address calorie restriction or behaviors as long as they don't do this "one thing". Choosing keto allows them to make the least change possible while confirming that their obesity has nothing to do with their food choices or lifestyle. It's extremely appealing and it could be any diet.
What we're really looking at is someone who is choosing this strategy because they might struggle with addressing why they are overeating, it's too scary, it's too personal.
Continuing with this example, keto is especially powerful because the initial water weight loss from reduced carbohydrates and reduced sodium retention (from lower insulin) confirms the bias they already hold. "See, every time I drop carbs I lose weight"!
Yet the real change never comes and the cycle continues.
The diet has failed you so many times that it borders on an abusive relationship. It's another form of disordered eating. Perhaps you are going to the gym 5 days a week, walking 15,000 steps a day, run 5K's and preach a dietary strategy like keto yet your weight has only increased. It takes a true buried emotional anchor to keep you from seeing the obvious.
If it helps, I can attest to that. In high school I starved myself thin and was extremely skinny entering my 20s. At 6'4" I was 165lbs and yet when I looked in the mirror I still saw a fat person. Literally, it did not register that I was now rail thin. Family and friends would encourage me to eat and I couldn't understand why they'd be encouraging a "fat person" to eat more. Emotions can skew rational thought and cognition, that's apparent.
Virtue signaling and a keen awarenessMike Israetel posted an insightful observation sometime last year about clients who would "virtue signal" their food choices. Unprompted, they'd begin telling him how well they were doing on their nutrition and brag about how little they were eating. This was usually followed within the next few days or a week by a binge. He noticed that clients who were bingeing would often virtue signal their food choices days earlier to help justify the binge to themselves while building their case that they were doing everything right to him.People will do this with their calorie intake too, I've had 250lb clients tell me they're only eating 1200 calories/day, physiologically they would 100% be losing weight if that were the case. They know it and I know it, yet defending their food relationship is worth stating something we both know isn't true.
Someone struggling with their weight is aware of it 24/7. You are never not thinking of how you feel about your body and if others are judging. It can shape how you think, feel, talk and strategize, it can change your personality.
If you're reading this and have no struggle with weight, hopefully it can give you some compassion for those who are. If you're reading this and are struggling with weight, I'd encourage you to look beyond the diets and Youtube videos claiming one weird trick, supplement or hack will fix you. Chasing a failed strategy is like trying to make someone who has no feelings for you love you. All of your time and energy is spent pursuing something that has no future.
I think most of us know why we started overeating in the first place, I bet you do too. The relationship you should be pursuing is one with yourself. Fad diets are the shitty boyfriends/girlfriends of the nutrition world. Maybe you need time developing how you feel about and treat yourself, everything will open up after that. It won't be easy but it will be possible.
You'll screw up for sure, we all have and all do. But falling down now represents an experience you will learn from rather than an experience you'll keep repeating.
]]>Are you someone who has methods?
When executing a task or performing a daily ritual, do you consciously create a system that allows you to perform them in the most efficient way possible?
Humans are always seeking the most efficient way to carry out a task and methods allow us to create a systematic way of approaching tasks or problems. This can be both conscious and subconscious. Conscious methods might include something like mowing the lawn: watch a teenager mow their parents lawn for the first time and it will probably look like they're trying to cut a Jackson Pollack pattern into the grass, it'll be messy, time-consuming and wildly inefficient. Come back at the end of the summer and you can bet that teenager has developed a method for mowing the lawn that is both more efficient and enjoyable for them. In fact, it would be downright strange if they didn't.
Sunconscious methods are developing all the time as well. Take a second to think about your pattern for drying off with a towel after the shower (no, don't send me any pics). This is almost certainly something you do without consciously thinking about the steps yet you've been following the same pattern for years. If you actually pause to consciously create your drying off pattern, it'll slow you down.
Engrams are units of congitive information in the brain, these are permanent changes that are a response to external stimulus. You will create these as you repeat specific tasks over and over, eventually establishing a permanent motor skill that you can execute without any conscious thought.
Here's an awesome example:
At this man's level of speed and precision, he is simply carrying out a learned motor skill, through a permanent engram that allows him to execute the task in a wildly efficient manner. In fact, consciously thinking about each step would likely result in him slowing down, making a mistake and cutting himself.
Methods matterIn the kitchen we are constantly creating methods so that tasks can be accomplished without much conscious energy. You set up your cutting board the same every time, you work left to right, you cut a head of cabbage the same way each time and you'll find that a pattern emerges. In fact, a repeated pattern creates an engram that executes like running a computer program; press Enter and the program starts running on it's own. I've found that these methods become so second nature that if you don't follow the pattern the same way once, something feels "off" like your shirt is on backwards or you forgot to lock the front door of your house. These stray patterns outside the norm are sensed and corrected so that the system feels complete again.
Admittedly, some of my favorite moments in the kitchen are watching someone set up for a brand new task. Most of the time, the sequence of actions they choose make no logical sense, it will be wildly inefficient, messy and time-consuming. This also presents an opportunity for them to develop a methodology and I love watching others create their own systems and routines.
Nutrition efficiencyIf we bring this back to nutrition, it makes sense that having methods would work just as well here too.
I encourage clients to have set days or times they execute tasks that are necessary for success, such as:
Same grocery shopping day(s) each weekSame prep/cooking day(s) each weekSame check-in time each weekFollowing a set pattern for recording their food intake i.e before or after a mealSet gym training timesSet morning and nightly routineIndividuals who struggle to get the above list accomplished often have no developed methods. None of these tasks have been repeated in the same condition often enough for them to feel like it has become a routine. Inevitably, these tasks are done at inopportune times and eventually not done at all. Because no time has been given to develop an efficient method, each task feels like a giant chore.
Once you've completed the same shopping and prep for weeks in a row, you have a sense of how long it will take. That allows you to factor in how much free time you have before and after for other tasks. Plus, if you never prep you'll be terrible at it and it wont't be enjoyable. Cooking is at it's core a trade, not an art. You're probably going to suck at these things at first...OK, so did I. I downright sucked at dicing onions when I first started culinary school and it took many onions before I became efficient. Now, I really enioy dicing them.
Clearly, some people aren't "method" people, I get that. Just don't expect to accomplish a huge goal if you approach it differently every time with no set routine. At the bare minimum, create a method for the tasks that help you accomplish your goals.
Nutrition methodologyWe come to the great debate now: what sort of nutrition method should you be following?
If you can take anything away from the above discussion on methodology, you should be following whatever allows you to accomplish your goal in an efficient and enjoyable way. It's very easy to fall into the cognitive bias trap that if something worked, it is the "way". You might as well create a religion around this type of diet zealotry (a few diets almost have, here's looking at you Crossfit). Unfortunately, this can create too many restrictions that prevent you from developing other methods and actually backfire long-term. Low-carb Paleo vegan might help you lose a few pounds but it certainly won't optimize progress in the gym. Stay open to new methods, there are always better ways to do things.
With nutrition, we're essentially trying to accomplish a few basic metrics:
Balance calories for fat loss, maintenance or weight gainEat optimal protein for recoveryAvoiding deficiencies in vitamins, minerals or essential fatsI'd really love to include more but most of the metrics I can think of are not hard and fast rules. Fiber? Sure, but plenty of people have lost weight on keto or carnivore diets eating very little fiber. Whole foods? Again, it's ideal but certainly not a deal breaker.
Please please please let go of insulin theory, meat and heart disease, salt as the harbinger of doom, clean eating or whatever other dogma that drives you to choose a certain method. Instead, choose a method you prefer, is efficient and can accomplish the above three metrics. You might find intermittent fasting works really well for your lifestyle but remember that it's simply a methodology accomplishing the same end goal as eating six meals a day. If your goals change, your methods might need to change and that is absolutely normal and expected.
Methods should be developed around making your life easier and creating sustainability long-term. A method is not a religion, a creed or a lifestyle, it's simply a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something. You'll likely find that over time, your methods change to accommodate your life. That's cool too.
Method to your madness?How do you go about choosing these methods so you can create a plan that works the best for you currently?
Set your goal - fat loss, strength, sustainability, etcIdentify areas that need addressing - shopping, prepping, cooking, weighing and measuring?Practice the tasks that need addressing and repeat them often enough at similar days and times that methods develop. Consciously think about ways to make them more efficient. If you go to the grocery store, walk the same path every time. If you are cooking, make sure to preheat the oven before prepping your proteins and veggies. THINKFind a methodology that works for your current lifestyle - fasting might be great if you hate breakfast and have busy mornings. High protein might be awesome if you have issues with satietyLook back on your days and weeks, can you identify routines and patterns? If each and every day is a roll of the dice then you have some work to do. Routine can be boring but it also presents a framework for you to develop your own methods. Once you develop them, there is a joy in executing them. It's the in-between that can be difficult and straight up NOT FUN but that probably means your on the right track. Keep refining and optimizing until your method clicks and feels like it's become a part of your life.
“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”. - Bruce Lee
Nothing screams #boss like watching someone execute a task in an efficient, fluid and graceful manner. Diet of the week sounds fun but it doesn't allow for repetition.The mundane repetition leads to a mastery.
Master basic skills, develop methods, become a boss.
]]>