I am going to group quads and hamstrings together, simply because I train them together. I’ve designed numerous splits (particularly for female clients) into a “Lower A / Lower B” configuration. But, for the sake of simplicity, I’m keeping these together for this post.
When I’m visualizing my leg training, I am visualizing the lower half being broken down into the following high level categories:
– Inner Quad
– Outer Quad
Before I begin routine design, I will first ask myself if anything is “out of balance”. In other words, if I feel a particular muscle group is lagging behind the others then that group will automatically become prioritized. As many who follow me already know, my primary goal is building a perfectly balanced and aesthetically appealing physique. So, in the last few months, I felt my hamstrings needed some extra attention…they are nicely developed, mind you, but I feel they are just slightly underdeveloped as they compare to my quads and so they get worked first.
I’ve done a lot of experimentation over the years and lately have fallen in love with antagonist style training. Simply stated, this is where I will alternate from hams/quads/hams/quads/etc. This isn’t the only way to approach things, but I’d urge you to give it a shot if you’ve never done it before.
The last bit of info before diving into specifics is understanding the physiology of different muscle groups and forgive me for making this a bit high level. There are quite a few different types of skeletal muscle fibers (Type I, Type II, Type IIA, and type IIX). For the sake of simplicity, we will focus only on the first two for this article.
The hamstrings, are made up of between 45-65% type I fibers and the various heads of the quad range from 30-50%. Because we know that type I fibers display a slower shortening velocity than type II fibers we can theorize that they will respond better to higher rep ranges.
Okay, so with all this out of the way, we now know that:
– Hamstrings respond well to higher rep ranges and “pump training”
– Quads respond well to lower rep ranges and “power movements”
– For overall development, you want/need to exhaust both type I and type II fibers
Here is a sample routine that demonstrates these principles in action…
– Leg Curls (various techniques can be employed here including supersets, dropsets, 21s, one leg, etc)
– Leg Extensions (same as above)
– DB RDLs
– Hack Squats
– GHRs and/or Romanian Hamstring Raises
– Leg Press (always performed one leg at a time)
– Alternate Leg Curls (performed on standing machine)
– Calf Raises
– Seated Calf Raises and/or Donkeys
– Glute Bridges and/or Hip Thrusts
I do not personally subscribe to having a target rep or set scheme in mind; only the high level principles discussed above. I focus on mind and muscle connection above all else and will cut an exercise short if I feel that it isn’t a good day for it or, conversely, will extend more sets if I’m really feeling the contraction well that day.
I’ve been meaning to write a series of articles on the topic of training for quite some time. I’m finally going to get started and work my way around the various muscle groups of the body. Let’s get started with the often overlooked calves.
When designing a training protocol around a specific muscle group, I always try to understand the underlying physiology. Calves are made up of two large groups (known as the gastrocnemius and soleus). Each “head” has a unique composition as it relates to type I and type II muscle fibers. The gastrocnemius is roughly 45-65% type I fibers and the soleus is 80-95%. So, what does this mean as far as it relates to training design? First of all, we must understand that type II muscle fibers display a faster shortening velocity than type I muscle fibers. A higher proportion of type II muscle fibers may therefore be beneficial for strength and power sports. Since the majority of fibers in calve heads is type I, then it stands to reason they are good for endurance.
This is where a lot of folks get off on the wrong foot (no pun intended). They think the key for growing the calves is lots of volume and lots of frequency. My belief is that nothing could be further from the truth. Think of it this way…what do we do each day, every day? We walk…and the calves have to support our body weight day in and day out. So, why would we think that adding more “body weight” volume is the key to growth since they are doing this on a routine basis anyway? Adaptations occur when external stimulus changes. In other words, remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
I urge folks to warm the calves up with a good stretching routine using full ROM (calves respond very well to full ROM). Then, hit working sets with very heavy weight (a weight in which it is a struggle to hit 8-10 controlled reps). Do calves no more than twice per week if you choose to use this style. Supplement traditional calve movements with things like jump ropes…and watch the size explode in weeks! This is contrary to what you hear from many folks who like to preach the “you are stuck with what you are born with” mantra. No, genetics come into play with insertion points but you are not size governed to any reasonable degree. Often, the folks who say things like this just don’t understand proper training designs.
In our attempts to rid ourselves of excess body fat, I’m sure we’ve all heard of about a million different dietary designs guaranteed to provide the best dieting experience. And, as we all know by now, it is the energy balance that dictates the end result. In other words, if you consume less than you expend then you will lose mass – this is just the simple laws of physics at work (thermogenesis).
Now, although maintaining a negative energy balance is always going to yield results, there is actually some really interesting research coming out lately demonstrating that a calorie “shifting” approach may actually produce superior fat loss as compared to the more traditional static calorie restriction diets (simple energy in versus energy out style). Here is one I was looking at the other day (1).
In a nutshell, two groups of subjects were compared – a calorie shifting (CSD) and calorie restriction (CR) group.
– Four Weeks Control Period (eating at TDEE)
– Six Weeks Calorie Shifting or Calorie Restriction
– Four Weeks Follow-Up
The CSD Group (repeated in four “cycles”)
11 days 1365kCals/day (85g PRO / 187g CHO / 30g FAT)
3 days 1971kCals/day (98g PRO / 271g CHO / 54g FAT)
The CR Group
14 days 1186kCals/day (74g PRO / 163g CHO / 26g FAT)
Despite the fact the CSD group was consuming more total kCals during those 14 days, at the end of the six weeks gross weight loss was nearly identical. However, the amount of fat mass loss was significantly higher in the CSD group. This means that lean mass was better preserved on CSD in addition to the superior fat loss. Also, RMR was significantly lower in the CR group as compared to when they started the trial however RMR was nearly unchanged in the CSD group.
Adherence to the CSD was also higher so it may be easier to get dieters to follow this regimen in “real world” scenarios. They have also replicated this same dietary strategy alongside caffeine supplementation (2). Caffeine has been shown to have the ability to decrease weight through the increase in thermogenesis and fat oxidation rates (3)(4).
Now, the study design wasn’t perfect…body composition was measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) which has been shown to be less than perfect. Also, the subjects in both trials were obese and sedentary individuals – I am unaware of a similar study done on well trained athletes though.
With that said, I’ve been testing this out on some of my clients over the last year or so and, across the board, the calorie shifting produces a more pleasant dietary experience along with increased lipolysis. It is even more pronounced on females, in my experience…I find that it is always ideal to take what science tells us and see if it can be replicated with real-world results. So far, the results have been very promising.
This is an excerpt from a forthcoming book on fat loss, addressing every topic you can think of, from Lyle McDonald. Please visit http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ for further information on Lyle’s books as well as hundreds of excellent articles.
Women and Fat Loss: An Overview
As a general observation, while men and women show about the same levels of overweight and obesity, women are more likely to be in the extreme obesity category. Far more women are likely to be dieting at any time than men and 80% of the subjects in the National Weight Control Registry are women. While I won’t spend much time talking about it, women are about three times as likely to suffer from various eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia (any reader with a true eating disorder must get professional counseling).
Some of this is arguably related to intense societal pressure (and note that the number of men showing up with eating disorders has increased in recent times due to changes in the portrayal of the male physical ideal in popular media) although much of it is biologically based. As always it is the interaction between the two.
For example females are biologically more prone to develop an eating disorder for hormonal reasons (generally the increase in estrogen at puberty) but this is tends to occur primarily in certain types of environments (often involving a lack of control in their overall life). Ultimately, it’s the interaction of the biology and the environment.
In a biological sense, at the risk of depressing female readers at the very start of this, for a variety of reasons that I’ll discuss in some detail, women are basically screwed when it comes to fat loss, at least compared to men. To be honest, in terms of both fat loss and fat gain, women tend to have it worse than men on average and this shows up in nearly every study that either compares men and women or happens to include both.
For example, in original the overfeeding and non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) study, the four worst responders were women. One of them actually had a decrease in her NEAT during the study (that is while the other subjects were moving around at least somewhat more, she moved around less than normal).
After a meal, while a man will burn some amount of fat, women’s bodies prefer to use carbohydrate and store fat in fat cells, preferentially storing them in lower body fat. When men do store fat it’s more likely to be in visceral fat which is more easily mobilized and burned off. This does have the biological advantage of protecting women from heart attacks, at least until after menopause.
By the same token, when exposed to the same calorie reduced diet, women will always lose less total weight than men and there are a few reasons for this. One is that they are smaller and it’s relatively more difficult for them to create the same deficit (refer back to the math I showed you in the chapter on setting deficits) as a male. As well, men tend to carry more visceral fat which is lost more quickly and easily.
Subcutaneous fat is more difficult to burn off and women, who carry more of it (and especially more lower body fat), will lose at a slower rate for this reason. And while this is ultimately sort of a benefit, since women tend to lose more fat and less LBM than men, their rate of weight loss will be slower due to the loss of fat requiring a larger total deficit than LBM (remember from the chapters on energy balance that losing more LBM will always generate a faster weight loss).
But when this is coupled with a generally smaller deficit, this makes the total rate of weight and fat loss that much slower for women. More fat is being lost which requires a larger total deficit but women generally have a smaller deficit to begin with (1).
When exposed to exercise alone, while men will generally lose some amount of weight and fat, women rarely do when their diet is uncontrolled. In addition to burning less calories than men during exercise (for reasons I’ll discuss), women either increase their food intake or adjust other aspects of their daily activity. So while adding exercise to a man’s day will increase his total energy expenditure, women’s appears not to change. Presumably they reduce NEAT and other activities at other times of the day. Basically, in response to exercise, a woman’s body will compensate.
And that last work basically sums up a woman’s physiological response to diet, exercise, and fat loss: compensation. Yes, men’s bodies clearly fight back but women’s fight back far more on basically every level. Their appetite increases to a greater degree, their metabolisms adjust downwards either more, more quickly or frequently both. That’s on top of the often massive water retention (which I discussed in the section on plateaus and will discuss more later in this chapter) that can mask fat loss for weeks on end.
Then there is the menstrual cycle, the variation in hormones which occurs every month which complicates the entire system. Many aspects of female physiology from appetite, whether they burn carbohydrates or fats more preferentially, energy expenditure, even coordination can change at different parts of the cycle and ignoring this when describing diet or exercise programs can cause a lot of problems (2).
Even there there is enormous variability in a woman’s response to their menstrual cycle with some women seeing profound shifts in everything from appetite to mood to exercise performance and others seeing almost none. Far moreso than men, women are often somewhat unique and delicate flowers.
The menstrual cycle is often disrupted as well with dieting and/or exercise (and especially with the combination). When they are exposed to various stresses both physiological and psychological, the normal menstrual cycle will often shut down partially or completely which causes a host of factors to change (and can cause health problems in the long-term).
Logically this make sense, if she is starving to death (and remember that dieting is just controlled starvation), becoming pregnant is the worst thing she can do. Even there there is huge variability with some women having problems with the most minor of stresses and others having none at all.
About the only time that women have an easier time losing fat is when they are pregnant and/or nursing. During that one time period of their lives, every adaptation to storing and/or mobilizing fat actually reverses itself. Lower bodyfat becomes easier to mobilize and this is clearly to provide energy for breastfeeding. Calories are mobilized from the hips and thighs although, oddly, the triceps often gain fat. Nobody is quite sure why, the best explanation I’ve heard is that it provides cushion to coddle the baby. Maybe.
Which leads to the possible reason that women’s bodies are set up to be this way. Or rather the question “Why do women have it so much harder than men when it comes to fat loss?” It’s been theorized that women, far more so than men, were tasked with the survival of the human race (3). Between carrying children and often being responsible for ensuring their survival, it was that much more crucial for women to be able to handle changes in food supply, increased activity, etc. Women are far more likely to survive a famine than men in the first place and more easily store fat for the future when food becomes available.
Ultimately the entire system is clearly set up to ensure that females would have survived the normal trials and tribulations during our evolution both to carry children to term and to survive long enough for them to survive (4). It was basically all part of ensuring the survival of the human race so make sure to thank your mom. Which, while wonderful, doesn’t help in the modern time when these problems are just a hassle that makes fat loss that much more difficult.
And with that bit of depressing introduction out of the way, I want to do a brief recap of some of the information I have discussed earlier in this book as well as looking at some of the other underlying physiological aspects that make women different in terms of dieting and fat loss.
1. Pietrobelli A et. al. Sexual dimorphism in the energy content of weight change. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002 Oct;26(10):1339-48.
2. Wu BN1, O’Sullivan AJ Sex differences in energy metabolism need to be considered with lifestyle modifications in humans. J Nutr Metab. 2011;2011:391809
3. Hoyenga KB, Hoyenga KT Gender and energy balance: sex differences in adaptations for feast and famine. Physiol Behav. 1982 Mar;28(3):545-63.
4. Power ML1, Schulkin J. Sex differences in fat storage, fat metabolism, and the health risks from obesity: possible evolutionary origins. Br J Nutr. 2008 May;99(5):931-40.
I was first introduced to Yoga when I was 16 years old and my sister was performing a series of warrior poses in the middle of the living room. Back then I was highly active as a football (soccer) player, long distance runner, and ballet dancer. I laughed to myself when my sister invited me to try the postures as I highly doubted that anything so snail-paced could possibly present a challenge to an endurance athlete like myself.
My legs burned and buckled. My arms were on fire and my elbows and wrists screamed in downward facing dog. I actually flopped into a confused heap on the mat…my ego was bruised but my competitive nature wasn’t done with this Yoga thing just yet.
What started off as a journey in having the last laugh lead me down a much more humbling path. I started Yoga because I wanted to be strong, but I continued with Yoga because it made me okay with my weaknesses.
Everyone’s path to Yoga is different. Some people move to the practice to rehabilitate from injuries, some move to it for rehabilitation of the heart, some to improve athletic performance and flexibility, and some for the relaxation…there are so many reasons to venture towards the mat and even more reasons to keep coming back. The wonderful thing about the practice is that it evolves with you and can be tailored to whatever you need it to be at any point in your life. I don’t believe that there is a ‘wrong’ reason to get on the mat just so long as you commit to being open once you are there.
Yoga is physically challenging and that can be one of the more alluring aspects of the practice initially. Many people are less open to the meditation and even less to the idea of chanting. This is why it is important to know that there are many types of Yoga and not all are heavily focused on the spiritual side of the practice and not all require you to contort into the more advanced postures. It is good to challenge yourself to take part in activities that push you out of your comfort zone but at the same time it’s also important to move at your own pace and pick a form of Yoga that resonates with you, your current abilities and what point you are at in your life. If you are not enjoying the practice on some level then it is going to make it very difficult to commit yourself to going regularly. Not all Yoga is chanting and hour long meditation…but all Yoga encourages one common goal: awareness.
Yes, that may actually shock a few readers. Many think that the goal of Yoga is to be more flexible. In fact, many people shy away from the practice because they feel they are not flexible enough to perform even in the most basic poses. Those are the individuals who I feel may benefit the most from the practice. Not because it will make them more flexible (because it can along with providing improvements in joint conditioning, lung capacity and strengthening connective tissues) but the postures put you face to face with your physical strengths and weaknesses from the get go. This is where the real meaning of the practice begins to surface.
I battled with my ego when I first began practicing. Poses like downward facing dog were devastatingly difficult for me. My lower back was sickeningly tight and my arms were very weak. That pose drove me to frustrated tears on many occasions. The anger that would surge within me alongside feelings of complete despair would catch me off guard and leave me feeling utterly spent. I struggled to keep my breathing steady in the face of these things. But each time I came back to the mat I became less and less horrified with my weaknesses and more and more willing to work with what I had and who I was. It was a slow surrender but in time the practice taught me to stop looking at where I wanted to be and learn to just be where I was and breathe. In time this willingness to be in the moment slowly moved off of the mat and into my daily life helping me to deal with my severe anxiety and even overcome the challenges of fighting an eating disorder.
Downward facing dog, once the bane of my life, is now my favorite posture and a place of peace for me. Even though it is still physically challenging on my lower back it takes me straight to a place of understanding and partnership with my body instead of a constant battle.
This was just my path, but it is a lesson in self-love that I wish to share and why I would encourage everyone to venture into a Yoga class or two. Whether you use Yoga for improvements in flexibility and breathing, for decompression from a high-stress work environment, for soul searching or just as a change in scenery in your fitness regime I challenge you to commit to your practice fully. What I mean by that is to not simply step on the mat but to be on the mat. When you perform the postures, whether it is the gravity defying handstand or the grounding forward folds, be in your pose. Look at how your body is responding. Just look. See where your body blossoms in the postures and where it struggles to perform. Look at all of these things as one and the same; your practice. Let your practice lead you to a better understanding of the way your body works, how it moves and what it needs. The building of this awareness can move deeper…to a better understanding of your inner workings and underlying motives. One doesn’t dive head first into a reservoir of consciousness the moment they attempt these things…but with regular knocks on the door it will eventually open and you may find…yourself.
Food Science. Enough said.
Once upon a time, food was necessary for survival. It was a promise of seeing another day. Food was obtained through basic human skills. You didn’t have to tell a hunter that if he was hungry he needed to hunt. He was hungry and he figured out a way to get the job done. Followers of popular diets love to draw upon the examples of early man to pattern their eating habits and, even though I don’t agree with that logic entirely, I do believe that they had something right. Back then the relationship with food was a lot more simple, ‘”I have to eat or I am going to die.”
The reason why I don’t think looking back in time and developing a menu after the diet of, say, cavemen is logical is that they ate what they could get. They ate to survive. I can pretty much guarantee without need of a study that if someone went back in time and laid out a few gluten-infused cookies alongside a chilled glass of cow’s milk there would have been a riot of epic proportions to determine who gets to claim the feast. And he’d probably spend the rest of his days thinking about that meal…not because he is now one of us ‘sugar addicted zombies’ but he can’t for the life of him figure out how he scored such an easy and delicious meal.
My point here is, in the beginning things were much more simple. Portion size meant how big of an animal you killed or how many berries ripened that day. Carb cycling was done seasonally, in regions where fruit was suddenly available. ‘Hungry’ meant your body needed sustenance and not ‘I ate over three hours ago and I’m going catabolic.’ I’m not saying that they had it good, I’m just saying that their relationship with food was pretty basic and required little to no thought outside of obtaining, then preparing (if even), the food itself.
Flash forward to the dawn of agriculture. Things were still relatively simple. Food was still earned through work. No, you didn’t have to perform valiant sprints and learn to throw a spear like Odin but farming, for example, was plenty work. Not to mention that most food was fresh and needed preparation. There was still an appreciation surrounding the commodity of food that was also encouraged by the seasons, and even traditions surrounding food. There was also still no ‘apple a day’ recommendation because apples were not available every day and if you said that you’d just sound plain stupid.
Move forward, once again, to the era of importing and exporting food. Now you can have your pick! Now you don’t have to wait or travel miles to get what you want! Food went from a necessity to an entitlement and due to its abundance could now be wasted, abused, marketed, refined, genetically manipulated and even consumed in gut-busting proportions to earn a prize. Now this didn’t have to be a bad thing but some bad mentalities came along with it. Let’s go with marketing for a moment. If we use the example of early man, I’m pretty sure that no one randomly sprung from bushes ‘pop-up style’ promoting the nutritional value of this berry over the next. They didn’t need a study to tell them about the benefits of the Omega 3s in the fish they caught to justify eating it. They were hungry and that fish kept them alive. There was no marketing team trying to sneak walnuts into your diet but if you came across some you’d be grateful for them. It seems to me that the ‘smarter’ we got about food the dumber we became about eating.
Food is so abundant that we have even taken the time to dissect it in order to ‘understand’ it. We now know the inner workings of the orange;, what makes a tomato red, the fat content of beef and it’s varying Omega 6 to Omega 3 profiles depending on the diet of the animal (we even mess with the ways our cows eat?). We can follow sugar through the human body, explaining the breakdowns and its ultimate forms of storage. Some of us even try and manipulate the storage of said sugar molecules.
Again, pretty cool, but look at what is happening. Food has moved from something that is necessary to something that is now confusing. These studies now show that there are harmful compounds in things that we thought we knew were beneficial (like broccoli). We think that the unsaturated fat in butter messes with your heart so we get all ‘wise’ and try and fix this. We’ve made ourselves ‘unsaturated’ fats that turn out to be even worse and now we are sick all over again. Sounds to me like all of this information is making us smarter for sure…
How did we get ourselves into this mess? Do we blame the food or lack of information about food? Maybe, the sheer amounts of food available lead to a different problem called over- consumption? Maybe we should focus less on the minute details of the food and focus on asking ourselves ‘how much is enough?’
We now have studies showing that the fats in butter were fine in the first place and are, in fact, the bee’s knees. In fact, now you have people drinking it. Yes, they are literally drinking butter…which, is okay I guess…but why are we doing that? Because, again, we want to be ‘smart’ about our eating?
In a world of availability, is tailoring your day to a very limited list of foods sensible? It would be smart if you were starving and all you had was a stick of butter left in your fridge. That’s survival and so I think it qualifies as ‘smart’ eating. Trying to trick your body into ‘fat-burning’ mode by buying over-priced oils, isolated, concentrated and encapsulated compounds, eating within windows (and I don’t mean enjoying the breeze on a window seat) and glorifying one food source over the next isn’t my definition of smart. It’s my definition of a headache.
It seems to me that all of the availability, all of the noise of marketing hype, all of the helpful information proving the benefits of this over that has lead to us losing touch with one very vital source of information: our intuition. How is it that, despite our built-in knowledge on the subject, all of a sudden people are confused about ‘how’ to eat? And I don’t mean proper table etiquette either but rather the ‘right’ way to eat.
For the record, I feel food science is amazing and I follow it myself. I love learning about food…seeing how we as humans challenge ourselves to new levels through knowledge of the human body and the effect food has on it’s processes and appearance. I dig that. I find it fascinating! However it makes me a little scared for humanity when people get confused about the motive for obtaining the information and especially also how it is sometimes used. It helps to be aware that some individuals take it upon themselves to take advantage of your newly found confusion and use it to their benefit.
Sometimes when people cite studies it is to sell a product, or even to sell themselves. They want to confuse you enough into thinking that you’ve been eating the ‘wrong’ way the whole time and now their knowledge will show you the ‘right’ way. Sometimes food becomes black-listed because a single nutrient of the food source was observed in isolation (and in some cases exaggerated doses). It may have shown some negative effects and therefore it must be Satan in food form. All of the information about the good and bad of food has now turned our cues for eating inside out. Instead of saying, ‘I’m hungry. I should eat.’ we say, ‘I’m hungry. What should I eat?’. Instead of saying ‘I like this. I’m going to eat this today.’ we say ‘I like this but I have to eat it after my workout or else I am going to store it as fat or going to get diabetes or lose my gains or lose my hair or my sh*t won’t float or I’ll go over my macros or poke holes in my gut or go out of ketosis or fail at life or….you get the point.
I wish we could go back to the time where we were hungry and ate. Where we were full and stopped eating. Where we noticed we felt better and/or didn’t get as sick when we ate certain things so we ate them more often. Where we cut a huge slice of birthday cake and enjoy it instead of having to tell ourselves that we deserve it. I wish we could go back to the time where a calorie was a calorie and not a unit of life itself. Where food was more than an equation but an experience of taste, texture, smell with life enhancing benefits such as energy and stamina. I wish that we could study food and its effects without losing touch with the reason that we consume food in the first place. Not because it’s there, not simply because of its nutritional properties or promotion of certain processes, but because we need it and we enjoy it.
Now let’s top that off with the fact that we’ve been smart enough to figure out how to produce enough food to feed the entire planet, eating should be simpler than ever. However, eating has moved from just another aspect of our day to the bane of some lives. It’s become a career. It’s become an enigma and is rated on a scale of 1-10. It’s become something that causes shame and self-condemnation as well as arrogance and self-righteousness. Eating has become the problem and the cure. When does it end? When do we move back to ‘I’m hungry – I’ll eat. I’m full – I’ll stop. I’m gaining more weight than I’d like – I’ll eat a little less. I’m a little underweight – I’ll eat a bit more. I feel for this – I’ll have it. I don’t feel good when I eat a lot of this – I’ll eat a bit less of it. When do we realize that we already KNOW how to eat…and all of this information around food is just to enhance and not to rule our lives? When does food become food again?
We see it far too often. New Years approaches, and along with it come New Years diet resolutions. Many times the month of January is filled with quick progress, the fat burning off of the dieter’s body at a rapid pace. Then, something happens. It is almost as if the body says “enough is enough” and the fat loss stalls, seemingly forever to the dieter. Many times, the dieter will get frustrated and consequently dietary compliance begins to suffer. Eventually, most folks return to their pre-New Years state and the cycle repeats itself. Well, why in the world does this seemingly predictable “stall” happen?
As far back as Kennedy (1953) (1) there have been theories circulating in scientific communities that body fat levels may be regulated by what is known as a “set point”. You can think of this as your body’s homeostasis point in terms of body fat percentage. In other words, within reason, this is where your body wants to be. Some folks may have higher set points and others may have lower set points (this is not to be confused with somatotypes which are downright quackery). For many years, the theory was that body fat regulation was regulated via feedback mechanisms in the body however it wasn’t until around 1994, when leptin was discovered (2) that the mechanisms became much more understood.
Anecdotally speaking, I’ve seen this time and time again with both myself and folks I’ve worked with. It is almost as if most individuals have a level of leanness that can be reached fairly quickly, often effortlessly, before dietary plateaus are reached. Once this point is hit, fat loss stalls and it can often take extra dietary manipulation or energy expenditure to get past it.
So, can set points be manipulated? There is some evidence that it can through drastic increases in energy deficit simultaneously combined with body fat loss (3)(4)(5). In other words, if a state where leptin does not decrease, ghrelin does not increase, and yet fat loss continues can be held for an indefinite time, then there may be a set point reset. We must be careful thinking this is an easy task to accomplish though. Because, conversely, a lot of data suggests that once dieting or overfeeding ceases subjects tend to regain any lost fat, or lose the accumulated fat, and return to the original body fat levels they were at before making their dietary changes (6)(7).
The biggest take-away here, is that diets are not a linear progression. There will undoubtedly be plateaus however this should not frustrate or deter you. There are many different strategies that can be enacted during times of “non progress” including refeeds and diet breaks. Just don’t focus on the scale for a few days and decide that the diet is a failure because it is never as simple as that. Try not to over-complicate things, and don’t be afraid to take a break from dieting for both mental and physical health. Lastly, don’t hesitate to ask friends for a second set of eyes or even find a trusted resource to help guide you on your weight loss journey.
Now to see if I can figure out how this whole hashtag things works!
A truly inspirational post by fitness competitor AddingPins…
One of my favorite fitness athletes made a post today saying ‘Be motivated by the fear of being average.’ and though I fully respect her I don’t agree at all. Fear is never good motivation. Fear only thrives on more fear. Motivate yourself by NOT being afraid. Don’t be afraid to discover the limits of your strength. Don’t be afraid to fail or to be what someone else considers average. Don’t be afraid to try and fail and try again. Do what you do because you LOVE yourself and you want to do something good for yourself because you know you deserve it. Because you know you are worth the struggle. Let love fuel your motivation. Let a better, healthier relationship with yourself be the ultimate goal.
I recently got into a debate online with a fanatical user who was claiming that consuming grains was the root of all evil and led to increased estrogen levels in men, male pattern baldness, you name it. I try not to get sucked into these childish debates with fanatics since I realize that they often become emotionally attached to their ideals however there were a lot of other folks reading this nonsense and I felt it was my duty to prevent these impressionable folks from being sucked into the vortex.
With that said, here is my post in its entirety…
I’m simply going to supply the data that exists on this topic so that educated folks reading this thread are armed with more than one person’s opinion which was presented as fact. If, after reading through my posts on this topic, you still feel that grains are the devil then that is fine…self experimentation is always going to be the best course of action.
For whatever reason, folks have a tendency to get emotionally attached to viewpoints and I’ve found this to be even more pronounced in the nutrition field. Years of arguing with various sects such as Paleos, vegetarians, and vegans has really taught me to leave emotions out of debates and just provide the objective data. Over the years, most folks I’ve found to be as emotional as (username removed) rarely change but there have been a few times where I’ve been surprised and folks have actually been open to data which doesn’t fit into their belief systems. With that said…
Let’s show some studies and meta-analysis which actually demonstrate that grains do have health benefits (either by association or directly):
Aune D et al (2011) “Dietary fiber, whole grains, and risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.”
Flight I, Clifton P (2006) “Cereal grains and legumes in the prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke: a review of the literature.”
Jensen MK et al (2006) “Whole grains, bran, and germ in relation to homocysteine and markers of glycemic control, lipids, and inflammation 1”
Venn BJ, Mann Jl (2004) “Cereal grains, legumes and diabetes.”
Association studies and meta-analysis papers demonstrate a positive correlation however they can still leave topics open for debate. Here you can see that grain consumption has demonstrated a positive correlation with things such as decreasing cancer risks, heart disease, stroke, lowering inflammation markers, and lowering chances of developing diabetes. Next, we’ll dive into some of the studies which directly demonstrate positive health benefits. These types of studies provide even more value than the ones included in this post.
Now, let’s move onto the studies which directly demonstrate that grain consumption leads to positive health benefits.
We should also realize, before reviewing the studies, that the term grains covers quite a few sub-types such as rice, oats, barley, rye, wheat, corn, quinoa, etc. Many folks unfairly lump all of these together when forming conclusions so this is something that should be considered when making blanket statements that “grains are bad”.
Maki KC et al (2010) “Whole-grain ready-to-eat oat cereal, as part of a dietary program for weight loss, reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in adults with overweight and obesity more than a dietary program including low-fiber control foods.”
Katcher Hl, Legro RS et al (2008) “The effects of a whole grain-enriched hypocaloric diet on cardiovascular disease risk factors in men and women with metabolic syndrome.”
Rave K et al (2007) “Improvement of insulin resistance after diet with a whole-grain based dietary product: results of a randomized, controlled cross-over study in obese subjects with elevated fasting blood glucose.”
Kelly SA (2007) “Wholegrain cereals for coronary heart disease.”
Pereira MA, Jacobs DR Jr et al (2002) “Effect of whole grains on insulin sensitivity in overweight hyperinsulinemic adults.”
Jang Y, Lee JH (2001) “Consumption of whole grain and legume powder reduces insulin demand, lipid peroxidation, and plasma homocysteine concentrations in patients with coronary artery disease: randomized controlled clinical trial.”
As you can see, these are primarily peer-reviewed clinical trials which all demonstrated direct positive health benefits associated with grain consumption under controlled settings.
Okay, now let’s move along to something I’ve seen mentioned a few times and that is grains contain anti-nutrients (namely phytates, lectins, and oxalates) which prevent the body’s ability to absorb nutrition from other food sources.
One thing we need to make very clear is that grains are far from the only food group that contains these anti-nutrients. How many consider leafy green veggies such as spinach or fibrous veggies like broccoli bad? Well, guess what? They also contain these supposed nutrient absorption stoppers (1) and I would dare say that the majority of folks would not consider veggies a food to avoid (unlike username removed who has stated he avoids veggies as well, LOL).
A group who would likely be at high risk here would be vegetarians since they are more prone to eat larger concentrations of grains and leafy vegetables than your typical omnivorous eater. Studies have continually demonstrated that even vegetarians, who often will have lower iron and zinc levels (moreso because they don’t eat animal PRO sources as opposed to anti-nutrient reasons) demonstrate no adverse health effects from it (2). If we were to make the huge leap here that phytates and oxalates block mineral absorption, it doesn’t even appear that this is cause for alarm based on the data we see here.
Okay, but does this mineral blocking effect even exist from grain consumption? Randomized cross-over trials demonstrated that calcium absorption wasn’t affected (3). Wheat bran did not have an affect on mineral consumption at all as it related to calcium, zinc, and iron (4). And another study found no effect on subjects consuming oat bran as it related to zinc absorption (5). So, as you can see, the literature is pretty clear here in that it shows there is no “mineral blocking” properties related to consuming grains.
When forming conclusions, the science on a given topic is great however bodybuilders also like to see results “in the trenches”. Real-world applicability is going to go a long way when it comes to the validity of a theory.
So, what better way to put this anti-grain fear mongering to bed than to look at civilizations that are the healthiest, with the longest lifespans?
Earlier, I alluded to the Okinawans who (although recently passed) were for a long time the longest living culture in the world. Sho did a great analysis of the Okinawan lifestyle and talked a lot about their diet. In addition to ample amounts of leafy green veggies (which above you’ll see contain all the supposed anti-nutrients we are being told to avoid) also eat roughly 840g/day of white rice (1). So, even with the ample amounts of leafy greens and grains, they are still living long and healthy lives. Hmm…
Has anyone heard of the “French Paradox” (2)? The term was originally coined because of the saturated fat fear mongering started by Ancel Keys (topic for another day) however the reason I bring this up is because the French are known, as a culture, to consume copious amounts of white bread as part of their daily dietary intake. The irony here? They also, as a country, have one of the lowest rates of coronary heart disease in the EU.
Lastly, let’s look at the Blue Zone Countries (3). Look over the societies that make up the list and start researching the dietary characteristics of these places. See how many have grains, lentils, and other “forbidden” foods as the staples of their diets.