Graeme Thomas Online http://graemethomasonline.com Musings on Weight-loss, Dieting and the Bodybuilding and Fitness Industries Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:06:37 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Calorie Counting: Backasswards Diet Advice http://graemethomasonline.com/calorie-counting-backasswards-diet-advice/ http://graemethomasonline.com/calorie-counting-backasswards-diet-advice/#comments Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:45:56 +0000 GT http://graemethomasonline.com/?p=8665 backassward dieting

Last week, I did a short series on skinny fatness and scale weight obsession. Since those articles were fairly well received and spawned quite a few email questions, I've decided to explain another major reason diets fail: calorie blindness. Calorie blindness is the condition where people exclusively base their weight loss efforts on a strict accounting of the number of calories they consume compared to the number of calories they burn through exercise. You can easily spot someone who is calorie blind by their exclamations of "I only eat ___ amount of calories and whenever I exercise I burn at least ____ calories. I should be losing weight but the scale never moves! What am I doing wrong?" What is wrong is that these individuals are listening to the countless fitness experts, doctors and dietitians who base the bulk of their diet advice around two fundamental constructs of fat loss math: * 1 lbs of fat = 3500 kcal * calories in = calories out As the theory goes, as long as you create a 3500 kcal deficit each week, you will lose 1 lbs of fat. Yet ask anyone who has tried this approach how effective it is... to put it kindly: not very.

Continue Reading >

]]> Last week, I did a short series on skinny fatness and scale weight obsession. Since those articles were fairly well received and spawned quite a few email questions, I've decided to explain another major reason diets fail: calorie blindness.

Calorie blindness is the condition where people exclusively base their weight loss efforts on a strict accounting of the number of calories they consume compared to the number of calories they burn through exercise.

You can easily spot someone who is calorie blind by their exclamations of "I only eat ___ amount of calories and whenever I exercise I burn at least ____ calories. I should be losing weight but the scale never moves! What am I doing wrong?"

What is wrong is that these individuals are listening to the countless fitness experts, doctors and dietitians who base the bulk of their diet advice around two fundamental constructs of fat loss math:

  • 1 lbs of fat = 3500 kcal
  • calories in = calories out

As the theory goes, as long as you create a 3500 kcal deficit each week, you will lose 1 lbs of fat. Yet ask anyone who has tried this approach how effective it is… to put it kindly: not very.

Fat loss math: So simple… and so ineffective!

Despite the woeful track record of calorie-counting based fat loss approaches, there are still far too many equally calorie blind practitioners who accuse individuals struggling with fat loss of cheating on their diets or failing to exercise. While this occasionally may be true, it often isn't the case. In reality, the reasons for fat loss failure are far more complex than a failure to understand the basics of fat loss math.

Allow me to elaborate.

Calorie Counting = As Productive as Following a Rainbow to a Pot of Gold

While it is true that when you burn 1 lbs of fat in a lab setting it gives off ~3500 kcal worth of energy, knowing this fact doesn't really do a whole to help us understand how to produce fat loss in free-living humans.

Distilling fat loss into a simple "calories in = calories out" equation is akin to telling someone the secret to getting rich is knowing that 1 lbs of gold is worth $19 252 Canadian dollars.

While this may be true and each of us can acquire a bit more gold or a few more dollars over the years, just knowing the conversion doesn't provide us with any real blueprint for producing life-long wealth now does it?

Fat loss is really no different than wealth creation: just because you know food contains calories and that exercise burns calories, doesn't mean you understand how to produce fat loss.

Unfortunately, the elephant in the room about the "calories in = calories out" equation is that there is a critical clause missing. What is missing is the fact that this equation only holds true at the level of cellular metabolism. In other words, creating an environment for fat loss goes way beyond the food you put into your mouth or the number flashing across the screen of your treadmill.

Which leads me to today's critical take-home point:

The greatest reason why so many people fail at losing weight isn't because they suck at math, but rather because they have zero understanding of biochemistry.

The "calories in = calories out" equation only works in a closed system, and human physiology is anything but closed.

Before I get too far into this, I'm not suggesting that calories don't matter, because obviously you need to create a caloric deficit in order to produce weight loss. However, the extreme variance in endocrine and metabolic responses to diet, exercise and stressful situations will always make calorie-centric weight loss guidance of limited value.

Therefore, you can dutifully count all the calories you want that are coming into your mouth, but if energy uptake is impaired in any fashion in the digestive system or at the level of the cell, then you have NO IDEA of how much useable energy is actually in your body at any given time.

Do you know your diet and exercise program this intimately?

Remember, when you have food sitting in your stomach, it still remains OUTSIDE of your body. We only consider it inside the system once it gets absorbed from the intestine and gets to the blood stream, where it has a chance to be taken up by the cells.

NB: keep in mind, just because nutrients get into the blood stream, doesn't mean they will be taken up by the desired cells. Case in Point: diabetics and blood glucose.

A similar spate of problems exist with how we estimate energy expenditure. While it is possible to calculate energy expenditure through indirect calorimetry, this approach is fairly invasive and cost-prohibitive. As a result, most of our assessments of energy requirements in humans are based on predictive equations.

When it comes to predicting energy expenditure and resting metabolism, both approaches are based on regression equations derived from population averages. For people without much of a background in stats and to whom the term "regression" means absolutely nothing, just accept that when you perform a regression analysis, there are always a significant number of outliers on both sides of the trend line.

Which one of these dots represents you?

What too many practitioners fail to acknowledge are that predictive regression equations are only really of value when applied to large populations. When regression equations (such as resting metabolism equations) are used with single individuals, significant errors will occur. These errors are compounded when the individual does not share important characteristics with the group of people from whom the equation was developed in the first place (age, sex, ethnicity and body composition).

Most of the equations used today were developed in white, non-obese individuals, so how well they generalize to other segments of the population is likely limited. In fact, a recent review1 suggests that even the best predictive equations have an error rate of up to 20% (i.e. if you think you need 2000 kcal a day, you might require anywhere from 1600-2400 kcal, which is a huge range).

Hopefully, you are all starting to appreciate just how pointless a practice of micro-managing your caloric expenditure truly is.

Incidentally, I will be doing a full hour long interview on IronRadio.org expanding on the shortcomings of the calorie counting approach next Thursday from 2-3 PM.

Title: Iron Radio With Graeme Thomas
Topic Flaws of calorie counting and how modern society makes us fat
Time: Thursday, September 9th at 2:00pm Eastern
Listening method: Phone + Web Simulcast
To attend, visit: http://attendthisevent.com/?eventID=14551707

You can actually visit this link and write in any questions you'd like me to answer on air. I highly recommend that you do.

Actually Useful Fat Loss Advice

I could go on all day giving reasons for why calorie counting doesn't result in meaningful fat loss for most individuals, however, I think you have a fairly clear picture by now.

Again, I must reiterate that I don't want you to get the idea that calories don't matter, because they do. It's just that calorie counting should never be the central focus of a weight loss program.

Instead of continuing to rely on inadequate coaching advice like "calories in = calories out", weight loss coaches would have far more success if they structured their diet interventions according to the following progressive approach.

Let me assure you, unless you satisfy each of the tiers in order, then long-term success almost never happens.

Tier 1: Sustainability

Hunger management is bar none the strongest predictor of long-term diet success.  Nothing drives poor food choices like hunger (real or imagined) so the initial focus for any diet coach must be on dealing with this issue.

Therefore, the primary concern of any diet approach has to be: will an individual actually follow it? I don't care how "optimal" coaches believe their powers of meal plan design are, if a diet leaves someone miserable or hungry, it is NEVER going to work.

Tier 2: Metabolic Type

It's only after adequately controlling hunger that there is any point to moving onto tier two. This level of intervention identifies whether an individual requires a higher carbohydrate, a balanced or a higher protein/fat diet.

Truth be told, tier 1 and tier 2 are often intertwined but occasionally you'll need to initially transition someone out of tier 1 using foods that aren't fully appropriate for their ideal metabolic type.

After you get an idea of what macronutrients someone deals with best (if you'd like to find out your own best approach click here: Metabolic Test), then it's about helping them move into tier 3 and focus on food quality.

Tier 3: Food Quality

Most individuals thrive when they move from a diet high in processed foods to one containing far more natural, whole foods. For example, although bologna and pork tenderloin are both sources of protein coming from pigs, the pork tenderloin is going to have a dramatically greater impact in helping someone improve their body composition. Likewise, steel cut oats are far superior to Quaker maple brown sugar oatmeal when it comes to blood sugar management and suitability for fat loss.

Truth be told, once someone implements the first three tiers, it's rare they'll need to optimize their diets any further. The human body has a remarkable ability to regulate appetite and lose body fat once people revert to eating natural foods that are appropriate to their metabolic type, but on rare occasions more refinement is needed.

Tier 4: Nutrient Timing

At this level, manipulating meal frequency can result in further success. Certain individuals do better with smaller, more frequent meals (from observation: individuals who are more carbohydrate tolerant), whereas others do better with slightly larger, more infrequent meals (individuals who do better on higher protein, higher fat diets).

Optimizing nutrient timing can have a profound impact on body composition changes. However, obsessing about nutrient timing prior to establishing a solid base of the first three tiers will produce subpar results.

Tier 5: Optimization

It's only after moving through all four of the aforementioned tiers and still not obtaining the kind of meaningful body composition change someone desires that I'd even think of incorporating a tier 5 intervention of calorie counting. In my experience, the only individuals who benefit from this level of intervention are those people trying to drop well below a normal level of body fat (under 8% for a male and sub 15% for a female).

When exceptionally low body fat is the goal, artificially fixing intake will be necessary (i.e. measuring each and every food item ingested) as will performing an exceptionally large energy output to counteract the body's innate mechanism of downregulating fat loss.

While this approach works for brief periods (maybe several weeks in the case of a contest prep bodybuilder), it tends not to work for very long as it is exceptionally difficult to maintain.

Calorie Counting in Context

So there you have it folks, the sad reality of calorie counting. Although calories do matter on a cellular level, anyone believing that body weight will be effectively changed by telling people "calories in = calories out" is just naïve. 

Before I leave, just a reminder that I'll be going over this (and other topics) in much greater detail next week, so do tune in to my interview on Ironradio.org

Title: Iron Radio With Graeme Thomas
Topic Flaws of calorie counting and how modern society makes us fat
Time: Thursday, September 9th at 2:00pm Eastern
Listening method: Phone + Web Simulcast
To attend, visit: http://attendthisevent.com/?eventID=14551707

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!

1. Frankenfield D., Roth-Yousey L. and Compher C. (2005). J Am Diet Assoc. 105:775-789


What to do Next:
  1. Like this post? Then let me know by clicking "Like".
  2. Link this post to your social media pages so your friends can check it out too!
  3. Agree or disagree? Leave a comment below.
  4. Why not stay awhile? I encourage you to check out another great article.

]]> http://graemethomasonline.com/calorie-counting-backasswards-diet-advice/feed/ 0 Save Money, Get Jacked: Homemade Protein Bars http://graemethomasonline.com/save-money-get-jacked-homemade-protein-bars/ http://graemethomasonline.com/save-money-get-jacked-homemade-protein-bars/#comments Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:15:43 +0000 GT http://graemethomasonline.com/?p=8619 oat and peanut butter protein bar

For reasons that are only partially driven by biology, humans place a strong emphasis on physical appearance. I have no problem with this as I too enjoy looking fit. Unfortunately, our society has developed a real sense of entitlement that everyone should just automatically look good. This is a line of thinking I've never really understood. We don't expect to become a doctor without going through med school or anticipate becoming rich if our career aspirations start and end with serving fries at McDonalds. Yet, somehow, people have decided that it's appropriate to yearn for a 6-pack, but are unwilling to accept the reality that without many hours of physical activity each week and careful attention to their diet, it probably isn't going to happen. As 8-time Mr. Olympia bodybuilding champion Ronnie Coleman is fond of saying, "Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but nobody wants to lift no heavy ass weights" In other words, we often want great things, but are unwilling to invest the time and energy required to make those dreams a reality.

Continue Reading >

]]> For reasons that are only partially driven by biology, humans place a strong emphasis on physical appearance. I have no problem with this as I too enjoy looking fit. Unfortunately, our society has developed a real sense of entitlement that everyone should just automatically look good.

This is a line of thinking I've never really understood.

We don't expect to become a doctor without going through med school or anticipate becoming rich if our career aspirations start and end with serving fries at McDonalds.

Yet, somehow, people have decided that it's appropriate to yearn for a 6-pack, but are unwilling to accept the reality that without many hours of physical activity each week and careful attention to their diet, it probably isn't going to happen.

As 8-time Mr. Olympia bodybuilding champion Ronnie Coleman is fond of saying,

"Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but nobody wants to lift no heavy ass weights"

In other words, we often want great things, but are unwilling to invest the time and energy required to make those dreams a reality.

Of course, not everyone wants a 6-pack and would settle for more modest physique improvements. But even when the desire is something as straightforward as "dropping 5-10 lbs", I'm still amazed at how little understanding people seem to have about what it takes to make it happen.

Undeniably, the most important part of looking good is sticking to a clean, healthy diet. What constitutes clean and healthy can vary from individual to individual, but in general, snacking on beer and cheesies is not considered a sound weight management strategy.

However, despite our cognitive understanding that feasting on beer and cheesies doesn't produce a 6-pack, we still are loathe to give up the habit and commit to eating healthy food.

Just yesterday I was having a weight-loss related chat with someone at the gym who was telling me about a great motivational slogan he saw on a t-shirt. It's basically a slogan that perfectly captures the mindset errors that can sink most dieters.

After some digging, I've been able to locate a copy of this shirt:

The source of weight loss fails everywhere!

Diet plans always seem to be scheduled to start "someday". Unfortunately, when it comes to cleaning up the diet, someday is a day that never arrives for most individuals. 

But starting a diet "someday" is not the only excuse given to justify avoiding healthy foods. You also hear "I'd love to get in better shape but I don't have time to eat healthy" or "eating healthy is expensive" on a regular basis.

Since no time and cost are two of the major reasons people offer for not eating starting to eat healthy, I've decided to create a 5-minute healthy protein bar recipe that solves both of these issues.

These no-baking required protein bars work awesome as a grab-and-go breakfast option for those individuals who refuse to get up 15 minutes early to prepare an appropriate breakfast.

Alternatively, these bars work equally well as a post-workout snack, particularly if you are looking to add significant muscle mass. It doesn't take much effort at all to down a couple of these, plus still have room to tackle a post-workout meal… they are just that delicious.

Oat and Peanut Butter Protein Bars

2 cups quick oats (regular oats will be pretty chewy in this recipe)
5-6 scoops vanilla protein powder
5 tbsp natural peanut butter
1/2 cup shredded coconut
1/2 cup almond milk
1/2 cup dried cranberries (optional)
1/4 cup semisweet chocolate chip (optional)

Lower carb option: omit the cranberries and chocolate chips, add 1/4 cup slivered almonds
Higher fibre option: add 2 TBSP chia seeds to this mixture

Directions
In a large bowl, combine oats, protein powder, coconut, cranberries. Add peanut butter and stir till peanut butter is coated. Slowly add ~1/2 cup almond milk, stirring throughout (add just enough liquid to the mix forms a batter-like consistency). Add chocolate chips if desired.

Line an 8×8 pan with wax paper, add mixture to pan. Cover mixture with another layer of wax paper and press down till the mixture is pressed flat. Refrigerate 30-60 minutes, then cut into bars. Wrap any unused bars in saran wrap and store in the fridge.

Makes ~10 servings.

Nutritional info per bar (cranberries and chocolate chips included):
240 kcal
9 g FAT
24 g CHO
- 4 g fibre
19 g PRO

So there you have it, a healthy protein bar recipe that is both quick and easy. No hard to pronounce ingredients, no bizarre preservatives. Oh and for all the frugal members of the crowd, the total costs of raw products works out to about $0.50-$0.60 per bar, so the bars cost less than a 1/5 of what you'd expect to pay in store.

At 5 minutes of prep and less than $5 for the entire recipe… the time to start cleaning up your diet is today – you really don't have any excuse not to.

And of course, do add any tweaks to to this recipe in the comment section below, I love to hear how you guys adapt this recipe to best suit your needs.

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!

P.S. Please take a moment and fill out a survey question below. Your input is highly valued.


What to do Next:
  1. Like this post? Then let me know by clicking "Like".
  2. Link this post to your social media pages so your friends can check it out too!
  3. Agree or disagree? Leave a comment below.
  4. Why not stay awhile? I encourage you to check out another great article.

]]> http://graemethomasonline.com/save-money-get-jacked-homemade-protein-bars/feed/ 0 Scale Subterfuge: Does Body Weight Matter? http://graemethomasonline.com/scale-subterfuge-does-bodyweight-matter/ http://graemethomasonline.com/scale-subterfuge-does-bodyweight-matter/#comments Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:49:33 +0000 GT http://graemethomasonline.com/?p=7415 taking aim at the scale

Yesterday, I highlighted three major diet and exercise mistakes that contribute to the preponderance of skinny fat females: 1. An over-reliance on low-intensity physical activities. 2. Terrible exercise selection when they do resistance train. 3. Eating too many highly processed “diet” foods. Unfortunately, simply acknowledging these behaviours as problematic isn't enough. We need to dig deeper and tackle the root cause of skinny fatness: the fact that females seem to use body weight as the primary determinant of body image. So sit down, grab a coffee and let's begin. Ideal Body Weight = Irrationality 101 Look, I hate to be the one to have to break it to these ladies, but most of them have a totally unrealistic conception of an ideal body weight. Not that I blame them, they've been fed a whole lot of half-truths their entire lives. But the only way most females could achieve their theoretical "ideal body weight" would be to: * diet in such a fashion so as to lose prodigious amounts of muscle mass * perform ample amounts of cardiovascular exercise to make sure that muscle mass never returned Now I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but sadly must acknowledge that these "weight loss" strategies are still the dominant ones being preached today. And it boggles the mind!

Continue Reading >

]]> Part I: Skinny Fat: Not Just Hollywood's Problem |  Part II – Is Yoga Making You Soft?

Yesterday, I highlighted three major diet and exercise mistakes that contribute to the preponderance of skinny fat females:

  1. An over-reliance on low-intensity physical activities.
  2. Terrible exercise selection when they do resistance train.
  3. Eating too many highly processed “diet” foods.

Unfortunately, simply acknowledging these behaviours as problematic isn't enough. We need to dig deeper and tackle the root cause of skinny fatness: the fact that females seem to use body weight as the primary determinant of body image.

So sit down, grab a coffee and let's begin.

Ideal Body Weight = Irrationality 101

Look, I hate to be the one to have to break it to you ladies, but most of you have a totally unrealistic concept of your ideal body weight. Not that I blame you, you've been fed a whole lot of half-truths your entire lives.

But the only way most females could achieve their theoretical "ideal body weight" would be to:

  • diet in such a fashion so as to lose prodigious amounts of muscle mass
  • perform ample amounts of cardiovascular exercise to make sure that muscle mass never returned

Now I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but sadly must acknowledge that these "weight loss" strategies are still the dominant ones being preached today. And it boggles my mind!

In a truly fascinating bit of gender psychology, body weight is one of those things that females obsess about constantly and most men don't care about at all. As recent research highlights, women increasingly identify with a tiny, less curvy body shape as their ideal, whereas men continue to find thicker, curvier women, far more appealing.

In light of this disconnect, might it not be fair then to conclude that the bulk of the disordered body image issues and increased drive for "thinness at all costs" arises from how females judge each other, and not from any pressures placed on females by men?

And yes, this is a not so subtle jab at one of the excuses people use to justify the need for women's only gyms.

So if the weak, waif look isn't something men find particularly appealing, it makes you wonder why women have decided skinny fatness is a look they should strive for.

Of course, they don't see it as striving for skinny fatness. Rather, they just see it trying to reach their "ideal body weight".

Obsession: Not Just the Name of a Perfume

Being a nutritionist who specializes in fat loss, I have my fair share of female clients who have been, or are currently, in a state of skinny-fatness. Without fail, there comes a time when they'll ask me, "How long will it be before I lose ___ lbs and get down to a body weight of ___?"

Since it seems that females are hardwired to obsess over these questions, I have now hardwired my answers.

To address the former: if you are willing to eat enough to fix your metabolism… a few months.
To address the latter: probably never.

Captain Compassionate, I am not. Well, better they hear the truth from from me than continue drinking the Chatelaine Kool-Aid!

I can't count the number of times I've had a client come to me complaining that the scale isn't moving. At times like these, I like to cheerfully volunteer that maybe they've set their scale atop a natural magnet… but when that doesn't even merit a smile, I have to brace myself for "the talk".

Ahhh the dreaded talk. There isn't a nutritionist or personal trainer alive who enjoys having to explain to a client why they are not losing weight. But what really complicates the whole issue of weight loss is the fact that so few individuals seem to understand the significance or mechanics of body weight change in the first place.

To revisit a theme I introduced in earlier articles, the fitness industry predominantly operates in black and white. When it comes to the issue of body weight, there are two prevailing camps:

  1. In one corner, we've got those coaches who stress that, "individuals who faithfully track their body weight are more likely to maintain weight loss over the long-term".
  2. And in the other corner, we have the practitioners who advise all their clients to "throw out the scale because it lies".

Definitely two divergent and seemingly contradictory viewpoints, which helps explain why so many people are misguided and confused when it comes to the importance of body weight in the first place.

But which view is correct?

As with most things in life, both statements have some truth to them… but they really don't paint a complete picture.

What is Wrong with Weight?

The first statement, that people tend to maintain greater weight loss if they track it on a semi-regular basis, seems like a no-brainer. It's really no different than retirement savings: individuals who invest monthly tend to wind up saving more than those who invest "whenever they remember to".

Clearly consistent tracking is required on some level if we hope to produce long-term success. But my issue with the regular weight-tracking crowd isn't over whether they are more successful, because the numbers clearly show regular tracking results in greater weight loss.

Rather, my problem stems from the issue of whether championing weight as the primary progress variable carries much value.

Before I get too far into this, let me clarify one thing: What we label body weight is actually body mass but that's a physics argument for another day. Since everyone calls it weight, I'll continue using that term just so no one is confused.

When you step on a scale, the number you see is total body weight. Often researchers will track a person's health status based on a personal body mass index (BMI), which is just a relationship between your height and weight.

However, as the "throw out the scale because it lies" crowd has correctly identified, scale weight often provides incomplete information.

Take the graphic above. Both of these individuals are the same height and same weight (therefore they have identical BMIs as well). However, their bodies are clearly quite different.

The gentleman on the left has excellent bone density, ample muscle mass and minimal fat mass: in effect he is the picture of health. Conversely, the gentleman on the right is all flabby and likely soon to have a heart attack.

Is there even a question of which body type you would rather have?

Unfortunately, when you base your decisions solely on the scale, it is very difficult to determine whether you are becoming more like the buff guy or the chubby dude.

In light of this reality, we have to accept that progress on any diet and exercise program MUST involve tracking gains in fat-free mass (muscle, bone, etc.) separate from losses in fat mass.

When you do this, we call it measuring someone's body composition because it allows us to estimate* the relative contribution of each component to the whole.

*always remember that no matter what body composition tool you are using, it is ALWAYS an estimate and subject to a varying amount of error. The only 100% accurate means of determining someone's body fat is to kill and then dissect them… which tends to be bad for your renewal rate.

Now that you have a basic understanding of the limitations of relying on scale weight, let's revisit the realities of conventional dieting.

Where Diets Go Wrong

I think most weight loss experts would agree that, in general, humans need to eat less and move more. That being said, the strategies preached by many popular weight loss programs are pretty pathetic.

Most calorie-restricted diets operate under a "the more weight you lose each week, the better" premise (Weight Watchers and The Biggest Loser, I am looking squarely in your direction).

In other words, no distinction is made whether you lose appreciable amounts of fat or muscle. Unfortunately, just cutting calories in the absence of resistance training tends to result in the condition where you also wind up losing a considerable amount of muscle mass. This is not good.

Not only does conventional dieting just make you a smaller version of your current self (i.e. going from 180 lbs and 25% body fat, down to 160 lbs, but remaining 25% body fat), it also leads to a condition where you end up with a significantly slowed metabolic rate.

This slowing of metabolic rate might not be such a dramatic problem if you could continue eating a low-calorie diet forever. Sadly, most humans become incredibly irritable and hungry when calorie deprived, which leads to them returning to their previous way of eating.

Only now they are eating more calories on top of having a sluggish metabolism to contend with… which leads to a delightful rebound weight gain!

And the creators of these programs grow rich with you having to sign up for another kick at the can!

If you didn't understand this last bit, here are the Coles notes:

  • Eating a little less = good.
  • Eating a lot less = bad.
  • Eating a lot less + no weight training = very bad.

Remember, if you haven't optimized your diet and exercise program to protect muscle mass while simultaneously dropping fat mass, your plan will inevitably lead to failure.

You heard it here first people.

A Bit More on Body Composition

Although separating body weight into fat mass and lean mass is a big leap forward, the 2-component approach to body composition it still is a vast oversimplification.

A more accurate, and ultimately useful, approach would be to classify the human body into the following 6 components:

Six Component Model of Body Composition

  • water
  • fat
  • protein
  • bone mineral
  • soft tissue mineral
  • glycogen

I know by now you are muttering to yourself, "GT, I get it… weight alone doesn't tell the whole picture…", but there is so much more you need to appreciate than that.

Out of the six components I've listed above, some of them can change very, very rapidly whereas others can take months or years to change appreciably.

For example, water and glycogen levels can fluctuate significantly from day-to-day whereas protein and bone changes take months to meaningfully change.

Now why should you care? Because over the course of a day, depending on your diet and activity levels, your scale weight can easily swing up or down several pounds.

If you are someone who lives or dies by the scale, obsessively stepping on the scale at varying times of a day or even varying times of the menstrual cycle is a surefire way to give yourself an ulcer.

And depending on your method of assessing body composition changes, some of them (particularly bioelectrical impedance scales) are dramatically influenced by water shifts.

Remember, acute changes in water, glycogen status or even body temperature impact most methods of tracking body composition, so don't assume that simply because you are using body composition and not weight that your methods are error-free, because that's not at all the case.

Similarly, any "muscle" you think has cropped up only several days into starting a weight training program is not new muscle protein at all. Rather you are most likely observing increased muscle glycogen storage/water retention or potentially improved myogenic tone.

But new muscle? No. So don't even bother trying to use that as an excuse for why you need to stop weight training… you are NOT going to get too bulky.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Weighty Issues

So where does that leave us on the matter of tracking success on a diet and exercise program? We saw that weight was an incomplete measure, but then again, so too is the 2-component approach to body composition.

Does this mean that body weight and body composition are both worthless?

No. Both body weight and body composition are worth tracking, but we do need to accept that they are just two out of more than a dozen important variables that need to be tracked as part of any diet and exercise program.

What people fail to recognize is that you can easily change body weight but cause a number of other health variables to deteriorate, which all but guarantees failure.

Seriously – weight changes really are no more important than improvements in mood, digestive system health, complexion, VO2 max, pain, etc.

 

In fact, it's only when you note concurrent improvements across all these domains that you are appreciably improving an individual's cellular function, which is the real "secret" to fat loss, decreased risk of chronic disease, and improved well-being.

Imagine that: suggesting that we need to teach people about the importance of a multi-faceted approach to assessing their health and weight loss success.

I must be crazy!

So there you have it, an introduction to the issue of why so many females struggle to appreciably change their bodies despite following diet and exercise programs.

Obviously there is tons more that needs to be covered, but at least now you have an appreciation for some of the faulty assumptions built into so many popular approaches to weight loss.

For anyone interested in learning how to effectively change your own body or the bodies of people you work with, keep checking back in this space, as I'll be making several announcements in the next couple of weeks about new coaching classes, online programs, and interviews that I'll be involved with.

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!


What to do Next:
  1. Like this post? Then let me know by clicking "Like".
  2. Link this post to your social media pages so your friends can check it out too!
  3. Agree or disagree? Leave a comment below.
  4. Why not stay awhile? I encourage you to check out another great article.

]]> http://graemethomasonline.com/scale-subterfuge-does-bodyweight-matter/feed/ 0 Is Yoga Making You Soft? http://graemethomasonline.com/is-yoga-making-you-soft/ http://graemethomasonline.com/is-yoga-making-you-soft/#comments Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:06:29 +0000 GT http://graemethomasonline.com/?p=8394 fat women doing yoga

Yesterday, I recounted the sad tale of how Gwyneth Paltrow's diet and exercise program has contributed to her skinny-fatness, which ultimately has led to her osteopenic condition. Today, I'm going to highlight some of the more common body transformation mistakes made by women everywhere. P.S. – Guys, your critique will come at a later date, don't you worry. Every day, the mainstream media and a host of pseudo-gurus (there they are cropping up again) are telling women that: * Exercises like yoga and spinning are a great way to lose weight and tone your body. * To "tone" you should do low weight/high rep weight training. * That the hip ab- and adduction machines are perfect for shaping the buns. * Eating snacks like 100 calorie Thinsations is a great way to cut calories. And so on and so forth. Unfortunately, in reality each of these messages is diametrically opposed to what women really need to be doing if fat loss is the primary goal.

Continue Reading >

]]> Part I – Skinny Fat: Not Just Hollywood's Problem | Part III: Scale Subterfuge: Does Body Weight Matter?

Yesterday, I recounted the sad tale of how Gwyneth Paltrow's diet and exercise program has contributed to her skinny-fatness, which ultimately has led to her osteopenic condition.

Today, I'm going to highlight some of the more common body transformation mistakes made by women everywhere.

P.S. – Guys, your critique will come at a later date, don't you worry.

Every day, the mainstream media and a host of pseudo-gurus (there they are cropping up again) are telling women that:

  • Exercises like yoga and spinning are a great way to lose weight and tone your body.
  • To "tone" you should do low weight/high rep weight training.
  • That the hip ab- and adduction machines are perfect for shaping the buns.
  • Eating snacks like 100 calorie Thinsations is a great way to cut calories.

And so on and so forth.

Unfortunately, in reality each of these messages is diametrically opposed to what women really need to be doing if fat loss is the primary goal.

Since the flaws in the fitness industry are numerous, I'll limit my critique to just the following three areas:

Yoga and the Myth of Better Body Composition

Let's be clear on one issue: I have nothing against yoga. In fact, I have counseled a number of my clients to start taking yoga because it is a phenomenal activity for flexibility and stress reduction/improving mental state.

And although yoga can be a high risk activity for lower-back issues (AHEM, the lower back is designed for stability NOT for flexibility), overall, yoga is great for improving one's core strength.

Looks like exercise physiology is not a prerequisite for becoming an editor at Women's Health

That being said, yoga is at or near the bottom of the list when it comes to activities that actually change your body composition. Now before anyone pipes up that gymnasts or their yoga instructor looks phenomenal, remember these individuals are doing said activities for 3-5 hours a day, not the 2-3 hours of exercise A WEEK you are currently devoting to the gym.

I suppose if you were willing to spend 5-6 hours a day on physical activity, then yes, exclusively doing yoga could get you ripped.

If I had to classify exercise in terms of usefulness for improving body composition, it would look like this:

Again, this hierarchy isn't an endorsement that circuit training trumps all other forms of exercise for everything. But when the primary goal is fat loss, the bulk of your exercise time should be devoted to the three approaches at the base of this pyramid.

In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that if you are exercising for three or fewer hours every week, there is little to no body composition benefit to be derived from activities at the top of the pyramid.

Thigh Master DOES NOT Equal Better Buns

Back when I did a lot of personal training, nothing would infuriate me more than walking into the women's only section of the gym I worked at and seeing the steady stream of females waiting to use the hip adduction and abduction machine.

Incidentally, it blows my mind how in the year 2010 we still feel it’s appropriate to segregate sexes at the gym. I can just imagine the hoopla if you built a gym and labeled it "whites only" or "heterosexuals only"; yet somehow no one questions the validity of a women's only area of a gym.

The love these machine received never made sense to me. How many times do people need to be told that weight training results in muscle hypertrophy (i.e. bigger muscles) and NOT localized fat loss (i.e. spot reduction)?

Therefore, if spending time on these machines isn't going to make a lick of difference for the amount of fat you are carrying in your butt, the only real possible outcome is that all the time spent ab- and adducting will make your glute muscles bigger.

Hmm… bigger glute muscles AND the same amount of fat covering the area? Somehow I don’t imagine increasing hip girth while remaining as unshapely as ever is really the look most women were going for.

Thankfully, most females who use these machines actually lift such a trifling amount of weight that these exercises don't contribute to either fat loss or muscle gain. So while using them doesn’t make their butts look bigger, these machines still remain a colossal waste of time.

Quite possibly THE most unflattering machine in the gym… and it's useless to boot!

Remember, a muscle only looks "toned" once you remove a large amount of fat off your body. And when it comes to fat loss, most seated exercises don't do much good (p.s. this includes spinning).

Therefore, if you really wanted to improve the appearance of your butt, instead of wasting time on the thigh master, leg press, and donkey kick machines, markedly better results would be achieved by squatting, deadlifting and lunging.

These activities, when performed with a sufficiently heavy load, all contribute to a little bit of muscle growth AND a large amount of fat loss, which is the real secret to looking "toned".

P.S. Don’t worry about weight training making you too bulky. Women don’t have anywhere near enough testosterone to develop “man muscles”, unless your idea of post-workout nutrition comes in the form of a syringe.

P.P.S. If you want to know what constitutes heavy for the general populace, aim for weights you can lift at least 6 times, but an absolute max of 12 repetitions at the high end.

P.P.P.S. Stopping at 12 simply because that is what is written in your program and not because that's actually where muscle fatigue occurs does not count as a heavy set.

P.P.P.P.S. All activities performed while standing on a BOSU are by default, NOT HEAVY.

Now imagine how amazing it would be if you walked into the women's only section and saw a long line of females waiting to use the squat rack. Alas, this will never happen because you won't find a squat rack within 100 miles of a women's only area of a gym.

Sad, so very sad.

Diet Food Debacle

I know this comes as a surprise for many people, but the food industry does not have your best interests in mind when they design products. No matter what kind of "health" claims the food industry slaps on the label, their primary concern is always to make a healthy profit.

And what's the best way to sell more product? Design foods in such a fashion that consumers (i.e. you) are compelled to eat more of them.

This is why products like 100 Calorie Thinsations are such a phenomenal scam.

Let's take a look at what goes into a 100 kcal package of Oreo Thin Crisp Cookies:

Enriched wheat flour, sugar, glucose-fructose, canola oil with TBHQ and citric acid, cocoa, corn starch, sodium bicarbonate, salt, ammonium bicarbonate, monocalcium phosphate, colour, artificial flavour.

An impressive list to say the least. Four of the first six ingredients are various forms of simple sugar and ingredient #4 is a highly processed (aka garbage) fat.

Obviously, no one would argue that eating Oreos is conducive to improving someone's health. Yet I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard "gurus" recommending these snacks when they are packaged in their 100 calorie form.

Am I missing something here?

Telling dieters that these snacks are ok makes about as much sense as telling someone to avoid regular Oreos, but that if they break that Oreo in half, they can eat all the "half Oreos" they want.


Now with only 1/2 the logic!

Sometimes I wonder if food manufacturers have a competition to see who can come up with the most ridiculous products and actually get them to market. But when I go grocery shopping and look into the carts of my fellow shoppers, I realize the joke is on me.

Obviously this is but a small sampling of the many diet and exercise mistakes I see people make on a regular basis, but they are among the biggest errors. Just to remind you what those mistakes were, here they are again:

Major Fat Loss Mistakes Women Make

  1. An over-reliance on low-intensity physical activities.
  2. Terrible exercise selection when they do resistance train.
  3. Eating too many highly processed “diet” foods.

Hopefully none of you reading this article find yourself making any of these mistakes but if you are, do yourself a favour and make a change today for the better.

Tomorrow I'll be tying this mini series together by walking you through exactly what that number on the scale does and doesn't tell you. I'll also be making some suggestions for what numbers you really need to be paying attention to… and let me tell you, it's not what you think!

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!


What to do Next:
  1. Like this post? Then let me know by clicking "Like".
  2. Link this post to your social media pages so your friends can check it out too!
  3. Agree or disagree? Leave a comment below.
  4. Why not stay awhile? I encourage you to check out another great article.

]]> http://graemethomasonline.com/is-yoga-making-you-soft/feed/ 0 Skinny Fat: Not Just Hollywood’s Problem http://graemethomasonline.com/skinny-fat-not-just-hollywoods-problem/ http://graemethomasonline.com/skinny-fat-not-just-hollywoods-problem/#comments Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:29:35 +0000 GT http://graemethomasonline.com/?p=8327 skinny fat woman

On the whole, I swear that I am a pretty even keeled individual, but lately I've developed a real distaste with the vast numbers of individuals I encounter who are skinny-fat and seemingly proud of it. For those of you who have never heard the term before, it can best be described as: Skinny fat "When someone is thin and looks great in clothes, but is all flabby underneath" Urban Dictionary The muscle devoid physique of a skinny fat person Ok, I'll admit... the Urban Dictionary is not the most credible source; however, it does a pretty darn good job of defining skinny-fatness. Academically, I suppose we could label skinny-fatness as the condition where someone has a healthy body mass index (BMI: 18-25), but a body composition* that is anything but.

Continue Reading >

]]> Part II – Is Yoga Making You Soft? | Part III: Scale Subterfuge: Does Body Weight Matter?

On the whole, I swear that I am a pretty even keeled individual, but lately I've developed a real distaste with the vast number of individuals I encounter who are skinny-fat and seemingly proud of it.

For those of you who have never heard the term before, it can best be described as:

Skinny fat
"When someone is thin and looks great in clothes, but is all flabby underneath"
Urban Dictionary


The muscle devoid physique of a skinny fat person

Ok, I'll admit… the Urban Dictionary is not the most credible source; however, it does a pretty darn good job of defining skinny-fatness.

Academically, I suppose we could label skinny-fatness as the condition where someone has a healthy body mass index (BMI: 18-25), but a body composition* that is anything but.

*If you are unclear of the significance of BMI vs. scale weight vs. body composition, I'll be discussing these in greater detail in a soon to be released article.

Whereas skinny-fatness used to be a look primarily reserved for Hollywood Starlets, more and more females seem to want to emulate this physique.

Whether this "thin at all costs" distorted body image is a product of biology, cultural mores or just plain plain old-fashioned marketing, the current prevalence of skinny-fatness is reaching epidemic proportions… and the fitness industry deserves its fair share of the blame.

Actually, a good portion of the blame can be directed towards "Celebrity" trainers and their ilk. The widespread media coverage these individuals enjoy allows them to propagate their programs and products to millions… and the health of women everywhere suffers.

I'll use a recent celebrity case to help you appreciate the thinking that leads to skinny-fatness.

Several weeks ago, Hollywood starlet Gwyneth Paltrow revealed that she is suffering from osteopenia, a condition commonly viewed as the precursor to full blown osteoporosis. Obviously, this is a very serious condition not to be taken lightly.

Normally when we think of osteoporotic women, we picture a 75-year old female who has long since passed through menopause and whose body now suffers from the loss of the bone protecting hormones, estrogen and progesterone.

However, Gwyneth is only 37 and completes 2 hours of combined resistance and cardio training daily, frequently under the watchful eye of her trainer. As any 1st year kinesiology student could tell you, resistance training is supposed to be good for your bones.

Which begs the question: just how does someone 37-years old working under the supervision of a professional become osteopenic anyway?!?!?

It happens because Gwyneth and her pea-brained trainer, Tracy Anderson, are the poster children for everything that is wrong with the conventional approach to female physical fitness.

For those of you unfamiliar with Tracy Anderson's work, she is a "big-time" Hollywood trainer. Now when it comes to determining who is a big-time trainer in Hollywood, that designation stems from the quality of your marketing materials and how many names you can drop in a minute… it really has nothing to do with your knowledge or actual qualifications.

Anyway, Anderson is well-known for her Tracy Anderson Method, a fitness program that counsels females to never lift a weight HEAVIER THAN 3 LBS. I wish I were making this up but it's true!

Anyway, if you've got 3 minutes to spare (and promise not to hate me for sending you here), you can watch a short video clip about Tracy and her training methods that is posted on Oprah's website (now there's another poster child for terrible diet and exercise practices).

So to summarize the key tenets of this program:

  • Weights no heavier than 3 lbs
  • A workout room that is cranked hotter than a sauna
  • A bizarre series of exericse bands hanging from the ceiling?

And Gwyneth feels this woman is "the exercise genius of all time"?

That's a direct quote by the way…

Seriously – these two fools deserve each other.

Maybe someone needs to point out to Tracy that 99% of females everywhere have purses that weigh more than 3 lbs and that muscle growth is only produced under adequate strain… but as the old saying goes: you can't teach a mule to dance.

Now it would be bad enough if that is all that the Tracy Anderson Method about, but there's far more to her assinine program.

To help fuel these ridiculous daily 2-hour long workouts, this is what Tracy tells Gwyneth to eat:

 

I took the liberty of running a nutritional analysis on this meal plan. I tried to alternate between the higher and lower protein options suggested by Madamoiselle Anderson so as not to bias my results, but something tells me it probably wouldn't have mattered.

Under Tracy's recommendation, Gwyneth is to eat:

  • 950 kcal
  • 30 g fat
  • 115 g carbohydrates
  • 80 g protein

It's no wonder Gwyneth's bone are more brittle than porcelain. This anemic amount of total calories, fat and protein is insufficient for someone who sits at a desk all day, let alone someone exercising 2 hours a day.

Seriously – the only thing this diet is not lacking in is kale.

Honestly, how is it even possible to devise a meal plan with 3 meals centered around kale, while keeping a straight face? Even the most militant vegan dietitian would consider this to be cruel and unusual punishment.

Oh but Gwyneth needs the kale because it is high in calcium! Fat lot of good all that kale did for Ms. Paltrow's bone status…

Although Gwyneth is a more extreme example, I had to share her story with you because it perfectly represents the distorted mindset that underlies the skinny-fat mantra. Unfortunately, far too many females I encounter make a number of similar critical diet and exercise mistakes that continue to leave them skinny-fat… mistakes I'll cover tomorrow.

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!


What to do Next:
  1. Like this post? Then let me know by clicking "Like".
  2. Link this post to your social media pages so your friends can check it out too!
  3. Agree or disagree? Leave a comment below.
  4. Why not stay awhile? I encourage you to check out another great article.

]]> http://graemethomasonline.com/skinny-fat-not-just-hollywoods-problem/feed/ 0