More on Exercise And Weight Loss

I am posting a comment my client Alan made in response to my last post because he illustrated the point I was making... that exercise plus nutrition works outstandingly well for weight loss.

Here's what Alan had to say:

Hmmm, this is a pretty loaded topic for me. I've lost 90 lbs since I decided to lose weight. The first 40 lbs were due to dietary changes (Weight Watchers), but I was stuck for a LONG time at that plateau and I knew I needed exercise to make any more progress. Once I started training with you, the changes in weight loss were dramatic. I still needed to watch my diet, and I changed the protein/carb ratios, but there's no doubt that exercise AND diet were the reason I reached my goal.

Another point Alan made is that not all exercise is created equal when it comes to stimulating hunger...

The other issue this brings up for me is that I now use interval training to CONTROL my hunger. I do feel hungry around weight training, but interval training suppresses my hunger, and I often run stadiums in the middle of a mini-fast (16 - 18 hours).

So combine the right exercise program with a low-carb nutritional approach and you can get in incredible condition. I've seen this happen time after time with my clients.

Exercise and Weight Loss In The News

Time Magazine's cover story this week is titled "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin."

I think Gary Taubes first wrote about this in a book I read called Good Calories, Bad Calories .

Here's an excerpt on this topic from an article Taubes wrote in New York Magazine:

The one thing that might be said about exercise with certainty is that it tends to makes us hungry. Maybe not immediately, but eventually. Burn more calories and the odds are very good that we’ll consume more as well.

John Cloud, author of the article in Time Magazine, is saying the same thing:

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued.

Cloud cites a study from the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE (PLoS is the nonprofit Public Library of Science). In the study, 464 overweight women who didn't regularly exercise were randomly assigned to four groups. Women in three of the groups were asked to work out with a personal trainer for 72 minutes, 136 minutes, and 194 minutes, per week for six months; women in the fourth group were the control and were told to maintain their usual routines.

What did they find?

On average, the women in all the groups, even the control group, lost weight, but the women who exercised --sweating it out with a trainer several days a week for six months -- did not lose significantly more weight than the control subjects did.

Church explains this in terms of compensation:

Whether because exercise made them hungry or because they wanted to reward themselves, (or both), most of the women who exercised ate more than they did before they started the experiment. Or they compensated in another way, by moving around a lot less than usual after they got home.

Another study by Dr Neil King, from QUT's Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, conducted in collaboration with the University of Leeds in the UK, and published in the latest edition of the International Journal of Obesity, supports Taubes' argument.

In this study, 35 overweight and obese people from the UK, went on a 12-week supervised exercise program that was individually tailored to expend 500 calories per session. During this time their weight loss and behavioral outcomes were monitored.

Dr King found that the role of exercise as an effective weight management method could be undermined by 'compensatory responses' such as a person's increased hunger and food intake as a result of their increased energy expenditure.

King says:

People, who we refer to as compensators, are those who compensate for the increase in exercise-induced energy expenditure, by adjusting their food intake. For some people this might be in responses to an automatic biological drive, whereas for others it might be a deliberate reward-based increase.

Dr King said what this study showed was that some individuals were predisposed to compensatory responses, rendering them resistant to the theoretical weight loss benefits of exercise.

Taubes explains this in Good Calories, Bad Calories:

What may be the single most incomprehensible aspect of the last half-century of obesity research is the failure of those involved to grasp the fact that both hunger and sedentary behavior can be driven by a metabolic-hormonal disposition to grow fat, just as a lack of hunger and the impulse to engage in physical activity can be driven by a metabolic-hormonal disposition to burn calories rather than store them.

He continues:

By this logic, those who become obese have a constitutional tendency to fatten, whereas those who remain lean have a constitutional tendency to resist the accumulation of fat.

I think that Taubes' argument is valid. I can see it with my clients. Some people have a metabolic-hormonal disposition to accumulate fat while others are more inclined to burn fat and build muscle. So I think the information is useful to help people understand underlying factors that may have caused them to gain weight and get out of shape.

But while some people may have been more inclined to accumulate fat before we started working together, more often than not, they are successful at losing fat and building muscle through diet and exercise once we begin training... especially when the diet is low-carb and the exercise is resistance training combined with high-intensity intervals.

Techniques like using a food-diary to become conscious of food choices, increasing fat-burning muscle with resistance training and performing high-intensity intervals are all very effective for fat loss.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject....

Low Carb Diets And LDL

In my previous post, I wrote about a recent study which compared the effects of a very low-carbohydrate, high-saturated-fat diet with a low-fat diet to evaluate long-term weight loss over a one-year period. The outcome of the study was that the low-carb group lost more weight and had greater decreases in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol, which is all good. But they also increased their LDL cholesterol.

According to everything we've read and heard, an increase in LDL is not so great because LDL is, supposedly, the bad stuff that clogs arteries and causes heart disease. But it turns out that this is not the case.

In a recent post Dr. Eades discusses the same study and dispels this myth. First Dr. Eades points out that "numerous studies have shown that whenever subjects go on low-carb diets, they end up increasing the size of their LDL particles." He goes on to state that "large, fluffy LDL particles are not only harmless, but may be protective. If they are protective, what’s wrong with having a bit more of them?"

The second point he makes is that LDL is hard to measure. So the number you see on your lab report is calculated using the William Friedewald equation. And here's where it gets interesting. It's well-known that if your triglycerides are over 400 mg/dl the equation doesn't work, which is noted on the lab report.

But what is less well-known is that the same holds true if your triglycerides are under 100 mg/dl... the equation is no longer valid and your LDL should be measured.

I know that my triglycerides are well under 100mg/dl. And I'll bet that the same is true for many of the readers of this blog.

So if you've been eating low-carb and your triglycerides are under 100mg/dl, the next time you have your blood work done, have your LDL measured and not calculated. And have the size of the LDL particles tested, as well.

Then the next time someone tries to tell you that the low-carb diet is not good for your health you can inform them that: Not only is a low-carb diet is the best way to lose weight. It will also improve your health and longevity!

Long Term Study Compared Low Carb With Low Fat Diet

A new study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, compared the effects of a very low-carbohydrate, high-saturated-fat diet (LC) with a low-fat (LF) diet to evaluate long-term weight loss over a one-year period.

One hundred eighteen dieters with abdominal obesity and at least one additional metabolic syndrome risk were randomly assigned to either the LC diet (4% carbohydrate, 35% protein and 61% fat) or the LF diet (46% carbohydrate, 24% protein and 30% fat).

Of the 118 who started, 69 individuals completed the one-year trial, 33 in the LC group and 36 in the LF group. The LC group lost 14.5 kg (about 32 pounds) while the LF group lost 11.3 kg (about 25 pounds). So the LC group lost a little more not a lot. But compared with the LF group the LC group had greater decreases in triglycerides and greater increases in HDL and LDL cholesterol.

The researchers concluded that "The LC diet may offer clinical benefits to obese persons with insulin resistance."

More evidence in favor of the low-carb diet.

Hat tip to Conditioning Research.

New Fitness Transformation: Rick

Read what Rick Alvarado has to say about his fitness transformation....

"A few things happen when you turn forty and are in my career field, Police Officer. You see co-workers start to age more and you feel your back ache from lugging around a twenty-five pound gun belt for a 12.5 hour shift. When you fill out work related forms you see you are closer to darkening a new bubble which will take you out of your thirties and place you in the old person category 40-44.

Most of all you see the young officers fresh from the academy in the age range of 22-25. They are lean and have that I will conquer the world attitude. They stand upright and don't hesitate to jump over a fence or chase down a suspect. They laugh when you are in the locker-room and you moan and groan as you take off your gun belt and ballistic vest.

It was at thirty-eight that I decided to add something to my already hard workout routine, or so I thought. I made an appointment with Mikki and met with her at Starbucks on the Mesa. I looked at her and thought she looked like she was in great shape. But I was five foot eight inches, weighing in at 185-190 pounds. I thought I could bench press her and maybe teach her a thing or two about bulk and strength - after all I was a cop!

Mikki looked me over like a drill sergeant at boot camp and asked me what my goals would be if she took me on as a client. Easy answer, to be in better shape and get stronger duh..... Mikki again gave me a look over and decided to take me on as a client. I thought she must be impressed with me for my age and size (All Chest). Little did I know she had other plans for me. I look back now and think she must have been excited to show me how fit I truly was!

So my first workout with Mikki started off simply enough - a quick photo of how I looked. Then for forty-five minutes, Mikki showed me what kind of shape I was in. And all I could say was HOLY MACKEREL - was I hurting, huffing and puffing. Once it was over she smiled and said, see you next week right? I wanted to say "NO" but I knew I had found the right coach, trainer and mentor to make me into a better human, both physically and mentally. I left and almost could not drive home, my arms weighed so much. I was sore for three days and I remember thinking, is this worth it? Will I gain what I want out of it in order to be in better shape. The answer was, "YES".

In the time I have been with Mikki - a little over a year and a half - I have accomplished more with my body than I ever have. I now weigh in at about 163 pounds, I no longer feel sore from a long work-shift and I can keep up with those younger officers at work. In fact, I am in better shape than most of them! I see Mikki once a week and look forward to working with her. I am learning what my body is capable of when trained properly.

Mikki has extended my career and given me added focus in an already demanding field. She has taught me to push through each set of exercises and I have come to tell myself, my life could depend on this squat or kettle bell snatch! I have also trained and finished two half marathons, one in Portland and one in San Diego. I have posted times of two hours, three minutes and two hours, two minutes. Not bad for a forty year man with asthma who hates running! There are so many things I could write about what I have accomplished, but it all goes back to one person, Mikki Reilly, who without, I would not have found the fountain of youth."

Get Moving For Health In May

May is National Physical Fitness and Sports Month. This year, Fitness Transform joins the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports to challenge Americans to get moving for health and to get active and fit during May Month.

According to Melissa Johnson, executive director of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, which started National Physical Activity and Sports Month in 1983, “Americans of all ages need to incorporate more movement into their daily lives. Adults need at least 30 minutes of activity 5 days each week. This can be done by choosing to bike or walk instead of driving, taking stairs instead of elevators, or pushing a lawnmower instead of riding one. Children need at least 60 minutes of daily active play. They need to run, climb, jump, and just get up and move around, away from their desks, the television and computer games.”

Twenty minutes of vigorous physical activity three times a week, such as sports, aerobics, working out in the gym, and running, have added health benefits. Johnson says, “But it’s important to understand that you don’t need to sweat in a gym or run a marathon to reap the health benefits of daily physical activity. Even 30 minutes a day, broken up into shorter increments of ten or fifteen minutes, can greatly improve your health.”

Mention this post and you'll receive 25 percent off of your first four personal training sessions. Begin your fitness program today!

The High Protein Diet And Kidney Damage

I was reading a post by Dr Eades recently, where he was examining a study which showed that high-dose thiamin (vitamin B1) may be an effective treatment for diabetic nephropathy, when I came across an interesting response to a comment.

The commenter was talking about how his friends and family give him a lot of grief about his high protein diet. They are concerned that all the protein may cause damage to his kidneys, so they encourage him to eat more "heart healthy grains."

Dr Eades responded to this comment by saying... "The idea that protein damages the kidney is a myth. It’s the elevated glucose that causes the damage, the protein leak is the effect."

In truth, the myth has been around forever. And there's no research to back it up. Although studies have shown that in individuals with pre-existing unhealthy kidneys, excessive protein may indeed cause undue strain on the kidneys. There's not one scientific study, using healthy adults with normal kidney function, which has shown that excessive protein causes kidney damage.

In fact, quite the contrary....

In one study, researchers examined the renal (kidney) function of bodybuilders and other well-trained athletes with a high and medium protein diet. The athletes underwent a 7-day nutrition record analysis as well as blood sample and urine collection to see if a high and medium protein diet affected kidney function.

The study found that both groups of athletes had renal clearances of creatinine, urea, albumin, and glomular filtration rates that were within the normal range. The authors concluded “there were no correlations between protein intake and creatinine clearance, albumin excretion rate, and calcium excretion rate.” In other words, a high protein diet does not impair kidney function in well-trained athletes, at least in the short term.

More recently, researchers investigated the effect of protein intake on renal function in women over an 11-year period. The study involved 1624 women who were enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study, were 42–68 years of age in 1989, and gave blood samples in 1989 and 2000.

The study found that high protein intake was not significantly associated with change in estimated glomerular filtration rate in women with normal renal function. The authors concluded "high protein intake was not associated with renal function decline in women with normal renal function."

From the results of these two studies you can see that there is no evidence that high protein diets are harmful to the kidneys of healthy athletes and women. It's elevated glucose that causes the damage....

Two Essential Skills For Weight-Trainers

An excellent guest post by my old friend, Charles Staley. He used to live here in Santa Barbara and we trained in the same gym!

Two Essential Skills For Weight-Trainers
By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com

While there are a lot of characteristics and traits that define skilled lifting, I believe there are two primary skills that truly separate experts from novices. The two skills I'm about to discuss allow lifters to pursue their craft for years without the troubling injuries that typically plague unskilled exercisers and Bowflex collectors.

Skill #1: The Ability To Maintain A Neutral Spine
I consider this to be the premier, hallmark ability of a skilled lifter. In essence it's the one skill that definitively distinguishes real lifters from gym wanna-be's who spend most of their time on the leg press.

If you were to isolate one skill that stacks the odds in your favor when it comes to keeping your spine healthy and pain-free, it's the ability to keep said spine "neutral" at all times, but especially when it's loaded. When you stand sideways in front of a mirror, you'll notice a natural curve in your low back. Maintaining that curve when you do squats, deadlifts, Olympic lifts, etc., is the essence of the neutral-spine concept.

While the low back will inevitably "round" during extremely deep squatting maneuvers, you should be able to hold your arch while squatting to parallel, and in the start position for deadlifts, cleans, and snatches. People who cannot demonstrate this ability are prevented from doing so by one or both of the following two conditions:

Insufficient Motor Skills:

Quite simply, being unfamiliar with maintaining a neutral spine. For whatever reason, you've never been taught how to do it, and you proceed with the assumption that you're doing everything properly, even though you're rounding your low back enough to make your chiropractor pee himself in sheer amazement. If you're not certain that you've acquired this skill, it's a good bet that you haven't. Seek out the services of a competent coach or trainer. "Competent" being the operative word here. My pet technique for teaching how to maintain a properly arched spine is to imagine that someone is touching you on the low back with a wet ice cube. If you vividly imagine this (or actually try it!) you'll instinctively arch your low back. Now the trick is to maintain that arch while you lift!

Ed Grimley has very short abs and hams - look how high the front of his pelvis is. Note: I often see slightly less-catastrophic postural tendencies among male trainees after years of high-rep crunches in an attempt to obtain the fabled six-pack. The take-home lesson is that if you ask a muscle to maximally shorten millions of times over a period of years, it'll oblige your incessant requests by getting shorter- permanently.

Short and/or Tight Hamstrings and/or Rectus Abdominus:

Due to their attachment points on the pelvis, both of these muscles, when tight/short, cause the pelvis to tilt posteriorly. Here's a simple demonstration that'll help you visualize the effect that short abs have on your pelvic position: Standing sideways in front of a mirror, place your left index finger on your pubic bone, and your right index finger on your lower sternum. Next, make your fingers approach each other by contracting your abs, and watch what happens to the arch you used to have in your low back.

While some people manage to lift with a posterior tilt for years without apparent injury, a neutral spine can safely withstand greater loads. Learn it and live it - or risk permanently injuring your lumbar spine. It's your choice.



(Above): Check out my low back position during these heavy deads.
I don't have the biggest deadlift in the World but I do have good spinal mechanics!

Skill #2: The Ability To "Seat" The Scapulae
I consider this skill the "little brother" to the neutral spine skill just discussed. And as it turns out, the ability to maintain a neutral spine also tends to facilitate good scapular seating, and vice-versa.

Seating the scapulae is actually an amalgam of two separate but similar skills:

Retraction:

This is the easier and more familiar of the two skills, so I'll cover it first. Scapular retraction is simply the ability to pull your scaps together behind you, as if you were trying to pinch a quarter between them. Sometimes the easiest way to understand a movement pattern is to first practice the opposite of that movement, so try this drill: stand normally, and extend your arms straight out in front of you. First, protract your scaps by trying to extend your hands even further forward than they were in a natural position. Next retract your scapulae by doing the opposite- just pull your shoulder blades backward and try to see how close you can move them toward each other. This is how your scaps should be positioned during any type of bench pressing incidentally, and in fact, benching is perhaps the primary application of this skill.

Depression:

Shrugging your shoulders is an example of scapular elevation. Scapular depression, of course, is the opposite of that. And while shrugging is a very natural motion (I do it instinctively anytime my wife asks me anything) depression tends to be far less familiar. Check out the video below for a great drill to learn what it feels like to depress your scaps:



The good news is that the inability to seat your scaps is rarely due to short muscles - usually it's just a motor-skill issue. So practice those pull-aparts, and anytime you're pressing (vertically or horizontally) remember that the bar should move over the smallest possible range of motion, not the longest. This is accomplished through scapular seating.

Oh, by the way, were you wondering why I'm advocating this skill in the first place? It's because the shoulder is in its most protected position when the scapulae are kept snug to the torso during loaded activities.

Good luck with these two skills, and if you find yourself perplexed, follow that link below and post your questions!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About The Author

Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.

Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.

http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com

Humans Have Brown Fat

Researchers have found that adult humans also have brown fat (previously thought only to be present in infants and animals) which burns fat and produces heat. The significance is that if scientists can find a way to activate this fat, it could open the door to new treatments for obesity.

For more information, check out this NY Times article....

The Big Red Meat Study

If you keep up with the news, you've probably read or heard about the recent study which suggests that older Americans who eat large amounts of red meat have an increased risk of death from heart disease and cancer.

According to the report, researchers gave a food questionnaire to approximately half a million people (ages 50-71) who took part in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. Participants responded to 124 questions regarding specific food and drink intake as well as portion size in the previous twelve months. Then researchers followed this group for ten years and recorded their findings.

At the end of ten years, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died. Researchers checked causes of death and overall mortality against reported meat consumption and concluded that “Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality."

My first response to this study: correlation does not equal causation.

Dr Michael Eades points out that the media decides which studies get press and which studies do not. He highlights a couple of other recent studies which had opposite results and did not get reported by the press.

I'd like to see a study conducted on Americans who eat only grass-fed, organic, free-range meats, which are more like the meats our Paleolithic ancestors ate. Wouldn't that be much healthier than eating all the antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, and chemicals in meats that come from the feedlot?