Download the essential berardi

THE ESSENTIAL BERARDI
FROM JB
AND
THE SCIENCE LINK TEAM
© 2004 Science Link, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
THE ESSENTIAL BERARDI
PRESENTED BY JB AND
THE SCIENCE LINK TEAM
CONTENTS:
ABOUT JOHN BERARDI – P.3-4
CHAPTER 1 – NUTRITION BASICS: P.5-17
In this chapter, Dr Berardi presents several basic strategies for good nutrition that will not
only help you achieve the body composition you desire but also the lasting health you
desire.
1.1 The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Nutritional Strategies
1.2 Covering Your Nutritional Bases
1.3 Defeating Dietary Displacement Part 1
1.4 Defeating Dietary Displacement Part 2
CHAPTER 2 – STRATEGIES FOR FAT LOSS: P.18-27
In chapter 2, Dr Berardi presents a two-part article giving a brief history of the diet
industry and then debunking some common nutritional myths.
2.1 Lean Eatin’ Part 1
2.2 Lean Eatin’ Part 2
CHAPTER 3 – STRATEGIES FOR MUSCLE GAIN: P.28-37
In this final chapter, Dr. Berardi presents another two-part article discussing the one
mistake most people make when trying to gain weight and then lays out a strategy for
eating to gain muscle while minimizing fat gain. This article, published nearly 5 years
ago, has remained Dr. Berardi’s most popular. And although Dr Berardi does suggest
that there are other ways to gain muscle than the Massive Eating program, this program
has helped so many people gain muscle mass while minimizing fat mass that it should
always be part of your arsenal.
3.1 Massive Eating Part 1
3.2 Massive Eating Part 2
2
INTRODUCTION –
ABOUT JOHN BERARDI
Dr. Berardi's philosophy is simple: people from all walks of life,
from soccer stars to soccer coaches to soccer moms, should
have access to the most recent developments in health,
exercise, and nutrient science.
Dr. Berardi and his company, Science Link, Inc. have one
purpose: to take the latest in advanced nutrition research and
teach it to others in a way that doesn't take an advanced
degree to figure out.
Academic Background
Dr. Berardi has earned a doctoral degree from the University
of Western Ontario (2005) with a specialization in the area of exercise biology and nutrient
biochemistry. Prior to his doctoral studies, Dr. Berardi studied Exercise Science at Eastern
Michigan University (Masters program; 1999) as well as Health Science, Psychology, and
Philosophy at Lock Haven University (Undergraduate program; 1997).
Throughout, Dr. Berardi’s research has focused on the interaction between nutrition, sports
supplementation, and exercise performance. This research has led to the publication of 8
scientific abstracts, 12 scientific papers and textbook chapters, and over a dozen presentations at
scientific meetings. Further, Dr. Berardi has taught college courses in Strength Training, Exercise
Science, Laboratory Techniques in Exercise Science, Nutrient Metabolism, Fitness and Wellness,
and Exercise Nutrition.
Currently, Dr. Berardi is an adjunct professor of Exercise Science at the University of Texas at
Austin.
Professional Background
Through his company, Science Link, Inc., Dr. Berardi has worked in the exercise and nutrition
arena for over a decade, working with individuals from all walks of life, from the sedentary to
athletes at the highest level of sport.
Currently, Dr. Berardi is the director of performance nutrition for the Canadian National Cross
Country and Alpine Ski Teams and the Canadian National Canoe/Kayak Team. He is a
performance nutrition consultant to a number of elite level individual athletes, sports teams, and
Olympic training centres including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Toronto Maple Leafs
The US Bobsled Team
The Canadian National Speed Skating Team
The Calgary Sports Centre/Olympic Oval (Calgary, Alberta)
The Manitoba Sports Centre (Winnipeg, Manitoba)
The University of Texas Women's Track and Field Team
Individual athletes in nearly every sport including professional football (NFL and CFL),
professional hockey (NHL and AHL), professional baseball (MLB), professional
basketball (NBA) and more.
3
Dr. Berardi is also a member of the board of directors for the International Youth Conditioning
Association, the premier international authority with respect to athletic development and young
athlete-based conditioning.
Publications
Dr. Berardi has published over 200 popular press articles for magazines like Men’s Health, Men’s
Fitness, Women’s Health, Muscle and Fitness, Testosterone and more. Further, Dr. Berardi has
authored or co-authored 4 books including:
•
•
•
•
•
Gourmet Nutrition with Dr John Williams (Science Link; 2004)
Scrawny to Brawny with Mike Mejia (Rodale; 2005)
The Grappler’s Guide to Sports Nutrition with Michael Fry (Science Link; 2005)
Precision Nutrition (Science Link; 2006)
Rev It Up (Rodale; 2006)
Some of Dr. Berardi’s articles, audio, and video content can be found online at the following sites:
•
•
•
•
www.johnberardi.com
www.grapplersnutrition.com
www.scrawnytobrawny.com
www.precisionnutrition.com
Coaching Professionals
Through his Precision Nutrition Network (PNN), Dr. Berardi has pioneered a new way of
delivering cutting edge nutrition advice to coaches, strength and conditioning specialists, personal
trainers, nutritionists, therapists, chiropractors, and physicians across the world.
As members of the PNN, these individuals are able to: a) fast track their own nutrition education,
b) deliver Dr. Berardi’s unique and unparalleled expertise to a wide range of clients, patients, and
athletes; c) create new nutrition-based revenue sources based on Dr. Berardi’s work.
If you’re interested in contacting Dr. Berardi directly, he can be reached at [email protected]
4
CHAPTER 1 NUTRITION BASICS
1.1 The Seven Habits of Highly Effective
Nutritional Plans
by John M Berardi
Take a look around the nutrition world.
Confusing, isn’t it?
Conflicting advice is everywhere, and you’re
stuck in the middle. You wonder whether
anyone out there even knows what they’re
talking about, or whether the experts will ever
reach a consensus on anything. You start to
wonder whether you’ll need a degree in
nutritional biochemistry before you can lose
that stubborn abdominal fat.
So what’s the deal? Why so much confusion?
Why does one expert suggest that high protein
is best for everyone, while another expert
suggests high carb and yet another expert
suggests high fat? Besides, what exactly do
high protein, high carb, and high fat really
mean? And why are other experts telling us
that food choices should be based on our
"metabolic type," our "blood type," or our
"ancestry"?
One expert says to eat like a Neanderthal and
another says eat like a Visigoth, or perhaps a
Viking. But while searching for nutritional
Valhalla, most people just get lost and eat like
a Modern American—and end up looking more
Sumo than Samurai.
These days, we have a cacophony of
expertise: lots of confusing noise from the
experts drowning out the signal of truth.
On the surface, it appears as if today’s
nutrition technology is quite advanced. After
all, we have at our disposal more nutrition
information than ever before. More money is
being spent on nutrition research than in any
time in history. Every day, impressive strides
are being made in the field. Dozens of nutrition
experts are rising to prominence. Yet
simultaneously we’re witnessing a steadily
increasing rate of obesity, an increase in
nutrition-related illness (Diabetes, CVD, and
Syndrome X), and an increase in nutritionrelated mortality.
Part of the problem is that much of the
information hasn’t reached the people who
need it. Part of the problem is that even when
it does reach those people, they often don’t
use it. And certainly, the problem is
multifactorial—there are probably many more
reasons than I can list here.
How much more information do we need?
But the curious thing is that many people try to
solve the problem by seeking out more
information. They know it all and still want
more. If there’s one thing of which I am
absolutely convinced, it’s that a lack of good
nutrition information isn’t what prevents us
from reaching our goals. We already know
everything we need to know. Sometimes the
real problem isn’t too little information but too
much.
All the fundamental principles you need to
achieve good health and optimal body
composition are out there already, and have
been for years. Unfortunately, with 500 experts
for every fundamental principle, and very little
money to be made from repeating other
people’s ideas, experts must continually
emphasize the small (and often relatively
unimportant) differences between their
diet/eating plans and the diet/eating plans of all
the other experts out there.
In the world of advertising and marketing, this
is called "differentiation." By highlighting the
small distinctions and dimming out the large
similarities between their program and all the
others, they’re jostling for your next nutritional
dollar.
Now, and let me be clear on this, I’m not
accusing nutrition experts of quackery.
Yes, some programs are utter crap. Those are
generally quite easy to pick out and don’t merit
discussion here. But most experts do know
what they are talking about, can get results,
and wholeheartedly believe in what they’re
doing. Many of the differences between them
5
are theoretical and not practical, and on the
fundamentals they generally agree completely.
It’s all good — sorta
In fact, many of the mainstream programs out
there, if not most of them, will work. To what
extent they work, and for how long, varies. As
long as a program is internally consistent,
follows a few basic nutritional tenets, and as
long as you adhere to it consistently, without
hesitation, and without mixing principles
haphazardly taken from other programs, you’ll
get some results. It’s that simple, and that hard
(as you can see, results depend as much on
psychology as on biochemistry).
But if you’re like most people, you’ll first survey
all the most often discussed programs before
deciding which to follow. And in this appraisal,
you’ll get confused, lost, and then do the
inevitable. That’s right, you’ll revert back to
your old, ineffectual nutrition habits.
Instead of parsing out the similarities between
all the successful plans out there, the common
principles that affect positive, long-term
change, you get thrown off the trail by the
stench of the steaming piles of detail.
The Atkins program works for all patients
under the direct care of the Atkins team—as
long as patients follow it. The Zone program
works for all patients under the direct care of
the Sears team —as long as they follow it. The
Pritkin Diet works for all patients under the
care of the Pritkin team— as long as they
follow it.
Yet, not all three plans are identical. How then,
can they all get impressive improvements in
health and body composition? Well, either
each team somehow magically draws the
specific patient subpopulations most in need of
their plan (doubtful) or each system possesses
some basic fundamental principles that are
more important than the ratios of protein to
carbs to fats.
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Nutritional
Programs
Here’s my take on it. I call these principles,
"The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Nutritional
Programs," a shameless and possibly illegal
play on Steven Covey’s book, "The 7 Habits of
Highly Effective People." (Great book, by the
way—you should read it sometime.)
These aren’t the newest techniques from the
latest cutting-edge plan. Rather, they are
simple, time-tested, no nonsense habits that
you need to get into when designing a good
eating program.
1. Eat every 2-3 hours, no matter
what. You should eat between 5-8
meals per day.
2. Eat complete (containing all the
essential amino acids), lean protein
with each meal.
3. Eat fruits and/or vegetables with
each food meal.
4. Ensure that your carbohydrate
intake comes from fruits and
vegetables. Exception: workout and
post-workout drinks and meals.
5. Ensure that 25-35% of your energy
intake comes from fat, with your fat
intake split equally between saturates
(e.g. animal fat), monounsaturates
(e.g., olive oil), and polyunsaturates
(e.g. flax oil, salmon oil).
6. Drink only non-calorie containing
beverages, the best choices being
water and green tea.
7. Eat mostly whole foods (except
workout and post-workout drinks).
So what about calories, or macronutrient
ratios, or any number of other things that I’ve
covered in other articles? The short answer is
that if you aren’t already practicing the abovementioned habits, and by practicing them I
mean putting them to use over 90% of the time
(i.e., no more than 4 meals out of an average
42 meals per week violate any of those rules),
everything else is pretty pointless.
Moreover, many people can achieve the health
and the body composition they desire using
the 7 habits alone. No kidding! In fact, with
some of my clients I spend the first few months
just supervising their adherence to these 7
rules—an effective but costly way to learn
them.
6
Of course, if you have specific needs, or if
you’ve reached the 90% threshold, you may
need a bit more individualization beyond the 7
habits. If so, give me a shout at
[email protected], or search around on this
site.
Many of these little tricks can be found in my
many articles published right here at T-mag.
But before looking for them, before assuming
you’re ready for individualization; make sure
you’ve truly mastered the 7 habits. Then, while
keeping the 7 habits as the consistent
foundation, tweak away.
1.2 Covering Your Nutritional Acids
by John M. Berardi
It's Out There But I'll Be Damned If I Can
See It
While I do my best try to stay abreast of the
latest nutrition and supplement research, once
in a while I find myself totally ignorant to an
important topic or sound body of literature.
Take, for example, creatine-monohydrate
supplementation. At this year's American
College of Sports Medicine annual meeting, I
heard about this wonder supplement for the
very first time. After asking several naïve
questions, my embarrassed friends and
colleagues informed me that creatine has been
used for years and was perhaps the most
popular ergogenic aid ever! In addition, I found
out that at least 500 studies have been
published, with over 70% of them
demonstrating a positive effect. Go figure
(scratching head)!
Alright, I'm just kidding about not knowing
about creatine, but the fact remains; once in a
while some important literature eludes my
discriminating eye. You can't blame me,
though. A search of Medline (PubMed.com),
my favorite search engine for literature
reviews, narrowed down to all abstracts
published in the year 2003 with the keyword
"nutrition," generates over 2,300 published
papers. Now that's a lot of literature to sort
through!
I See The Light
The latest topic that I've remained fairly
ignorant about until very recently is the strong
relationship between food selection and the
acid-base balance of the body. As many of you
know, I lead the campaign against the old
adage: "a calorie is a calorie." In fact, I've
written an entire article on the topic entitled
Lean Eatin'.
While my crusade has focused on proper food
selections to enhance the thermic effect of
feeding as well as the hormonal response to
different foodstuffs, I've recently acquired a
whole new weapon for my assault. You see,
different foods — based on their digestibility,
micronutrient composition, protein content, and
a number of other factors — can lead to
marked fluctuations in the acid-base status of
the body. Since many of you are probably
wondering what this has got to do with looking
good nekid, I encourage you to read on and
find out how the acid-base balance of the body
is critical to your health, your body
composition, and even your exercise
performance. Furthermore, find out how a few
simple food substitutions and/or a few
inexpensive supplement additions can correct
your acid-base woes.
Before I get down to it however, I've got to give
credit where credit is due. I can't assume full
responsibility for stumbling across this
fascinating line of research. It was actually a
fellow researcher and nutrition colleague, Dr.
Loren Cordain (of Paleo Diet fame) who
pointed me in this direction during a recent
"roundtable" we did together. So, if after you've
read this article you feel compelled to thank
someone for the great information, give him a
shout at PaleoDiet.com (and then you can feel
free to praise me at JohnBerardi.com).
Acid-Base Nutrition Basics
When a food is ingested, digested, and
absorbed, each component of that food will
present itself to the kidneys as either an acidforming compound or a base-forming one. And
when the sum total of all the acid producing
and the base producing micro and
macronutrients is tabulated (at the end of a
meal or at the end of a day), we're left with a
calculated acid-base load. If the diet provides
more acidic components, it will obviously
manifest as a net-acid load on the body. And if
7
it provides more basic components, it will
obviously manifest as a net-base load on the
body.
In the past, scientists have looked for various
techniques to try to quantify whether a food is
acid producing or base producing. One method
that was commonly used was ash analysis.
Using this technique, a food would be
combusted and the ash would be analyzed to
determine how much of the food was alkaline
and how much was acid. When examining the
micronutrients present in many foods we see
that:
• Acidic anions in food include
chloride, phosphorous, sulfates, and
other organic acids.
• Basic/Alkaline cations in food include
sodium, potassium, calcium, and
magnesium.
The ash analysis technique has its limitations,
though. Since simple food/ash analysis doesn't
take into account bioavailability of the nutrients
in a given food, the acid-base balance of the
body after consuming specific foods doesn't
often match the acid or base-producing
estimate generated from the ash analysis. In
other words, the ash analysis ain't all that
effective.
Recognizing this limitation, Remer and Manz
developed food-rating values that they refer to
as PRAL (potential renal acid load) and the
NAE (net acid excretion). (1) The NAE can be
determined directly by measuring the acid and
the ammonium appearing in the urine and then
subtracting out the measured urinary
bicarbonate. This method yields a net acid
excretion score based on direct measurements
of the urine. This score, however, reflects total
acid and base load of a mixed diet and not the
acid or base load of the individual foods in the
diet.
To more accurately predict the acid or base
potential of a given food, another technique is
needed. Unlike the aforementioned technique,
the NAE can be determined indirectly by
adding up all the urinary acidic anions from the
above method and subtracting out the
basic/alkaline cations described above. Since
the urinary anion and cation excretion is
directly related to food intake, it's possible to
approximate net acid or base load from the
composition of the food. This net acid or base
load is called the PRAL (potential renal acid
load).
Therefore, in taking into account the
composition of the food, the bioavailability of
the different micro and macronutrients
(especially protein) of the food, the sulfur
content of the food, and the obligatory dietindependent organic acid losses, it's then
possible to estimate a physiologically
meaningful index of the acid or base load
based on the food consumed (PRAL).
For those of you who don't really care about
PRALs and NAEs, here's the one sentence
summary of what I'm talking about. In layman's
terms, researchers can now analyze a food
and based on its components, determine what
the true acid or base load on the body will be.
If you're still wondering why this is important,
read on.
Why Acid Is Bad
Every cell of the body functions optimally
within a certain pH range (pH is a measure of
the acidity or alkalinity of the body). In different
cells, this optimal range is different, however,
the net pH of the body has to remain tightly
regulated. One common problem with most
industrialized societies is that our diets
produce what's called a "low grade chronic
metabolic acidosis." In other words, the PRAL
of our diets is high and this means that we're
chronically in a state of high acidity. While
there are a number of disease states that
induce severe metabolic acidosis, we're talking
a sub-clinical rise in acidity here. Therefore,
your doc probably won't notice the problem.
But that doesn't mean that you're in the clear.
Your cells will recognize the problem.
So what's wrong with this low-grade chronic
metabolic acidosis? Well, since the body must,
at all costs, operate at a stable pH, any dietary
acid load has to be neutralized by one of a
number of homeostatic base-producing
mechanisms. So, although the pH of the body
is maintained and your doctor visits turn out
fine, many cells of the body will suffer. Here
are some of the most severe consequences of
8
your body's attempt to maintain a constant pH
in the face of an acidic environment:
• Hypercalciuria (high concentrations
of calcium in the urine). Since calcium
is a strong base and bone contains the
body's largest calcium store, metabolic
acidosis causes a release in calcium
from bone. As a result, osteoclastic
(bone degrading) activity increases
and osteoblastic (bone building)
activity decreases. The net result of
these changes is that bone is lost in
order to neutralize the acidic
environment of the body. The calcium
that was stored in the bone is then lost
in the urine along with the acid it was
mobilized to neutralize. This creates a
negative calcium balance (more
calcium is lost from the body than is
consumed) and bones get weak.
(2,3,4,6)
• Negative nitrogen balance (high
concentrations of nitrogen in urine).
Glutamine is responsible for binding
hydrogen ions to form ammonium.
Since hydrogen ions are acidic,
glutamine acts much like calcium to
neutralize the body's acidosis. Since
skeletal muscle contains the body's
largest glutamine store, metabolic
acidosis causes muscle breakdown to
liberate glutamine from the muscle.
The amino acids from this muscle
breakdown are then excreted, causing
a net loss of muscle protein. (2,7)
In addition to bone and muscle loss, other
consequences of acidosis include:
• Decreased IGF1 activity (4)
• GH resistance (4)
• Mild hypothyroidism (4)
are unfortunate consequences of aging. While
it's too early to tell, perhaps some of the bone
and muscle loss evident as individuals get
older is a result of diet-induced acidosis. This
means that employing a few simple acid-base
strategies may help slow osteoporosis and
sarcopoenia.
What's Wrong With Your Diet?
Recently, Sebastian and colleagues compared
the pre-agricultural diet of our ancestors to the
modern North American diet.(8) After
evaluating the two diets for what they call
NEAP (net endogenous acid production) —
essentially the same measure as the PRAL
above — a -88mEq/day acid load
characterized the pre-agricultural diet while the
modern diet was characterized by a
+48mEq/day acid load. What this means is that
our ancestors evolved eating a diet that was
very alkaline/basic and therefore very low acid.
However, modern people are eating a diet that
is high in acid, and therefore very different
from what we evolved to eat. As a result, our
modern diet is responsible for what the authors
have called a "life-long, low grade
pathogenically significant systemic acidosis."
How have we gotten so far off track? Well, the
shift from net base producing foods to net acid
producing foods comes mostly as a result of
displacing the high bicarbonate-yielding plants
and fruits in the diet with high acid grains. In
addition, most of our modern energy dense,
nutrient poor selections are also acid forming.
Finally, high protein animal foods tend to be
acid producing as well.
If you're now wondering how your diet stacks
up, check out the table I've provided below.
This table includes a listing of 114 commonly
consumed foods and their PRAL scores. A
negative PRAL score indicates the food is
basic/alkaline. A positive PRAL score indicates
the food is acidic. A score of 0 indicates the
food is neutral.
• Hypercortisolemia (4,5)
Interestingly, low-grade metabolic acidosis
seems to worsen with age. Many have
speculated that this is due to an age-related
decline in kidney function (and acid excretion).
Of course, osteoporosis and muscle wasting
Food Group and Food
PRAL Score
(mEq/day)
Meat and Meat Products
Average
9.5
Lean Beef
7.8
8.7
9
Chicken
Canned, Corned Beef
Frankfurters
Liver Sausage
Lunch Meat
Lean Pork
Rump Steak
Salami
Turkey Meat
Veal Fillet
13.2
6.7
10.6
10.2
7.9
8.8
11.6
9.9
9.0
Fish Average
7.9
Cod Fillet
Haddock
Herring
Trout
7.1
6.8
7.0
10.8
Milk, Dairy, and Eggs
Milk and non-cheese
average
Low protein cheese
average
High protein cheese
average
Buttermilk
Low Fat Cheddar
Gouda Cheese
Cottage Cheese
Sour Cream
Whole Egg
Egg White
Egg Yolk
Hard Cheese
Ice Cream
Whole milk
Whole Milk Pasteurized
Parmesan Cheese
Processed Cheese
Whole Milk Yogurt w/Fruit
Whole Milk Yogurt Plain
Food Group and Food
1.0
8.0
23.6
0.5
26.4
18.6
8.7
1.2
8.2
1.1
23.4
19.2
0.6
1.1
0.7
34.2
28.7
1.2
1.5
PRAL Score
Sugar and Sweets Average
4.3
Milk Chocolates
Honey
Cake
Marmalade
White Sugar
2.4
-0.3
3.7
-1.5
-0.1
Vegetables Average
-2.8
Asparagus
Broccoli
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Chicory
Cucumber
Eggplant
Leeks
Lettuce
Mushrooms
Onions
Peppers
Potatoes
Radishes
Spinach
Tomato Juice
Tomatoes
Zucchini
-0.4
-1.2
-4.9
-4.0
-5.2
-2.0
-0.8
-3.4
-1.8
-2.5
-1.4
-1.5
-1.4
-4.0
-3.7
-14.0
-2.8
-3.1
-2.6
Food Group and Food
Fruits, Nuts, and Juices
Average
Apple Juice
Apples
Apricots
Bananas
Black Currants
Cherries
Grape Juice
Hazelnuts
Kiwi Fruit
Lemon Juice
Orange Juice
Oranges
Peaches
Peanuts
Pears
Pineapple
Raisins
Strawberries
Walnuts
Watermelon
PRAL
Score
-3.1
-2.2
-2.2
-4.8
-5.5
-6.5
-3.6
-1.0
-2.8
-4.1
-2.5
-2.9
-2.7
-2.4
8.3
-2.9
-2.7
-21.0
-2.2
6.8
-1.9
Grain Products
Bread average
Flour average
3.5
7.0
10
Noodles average
6.7
I'm Here To Straighten Out Your Acids
Mixed Grain Rye Bread
Rye Bread
Mixed Grain Wheat Bread
Wheat Bread
White Bread
Cornflakes
Rye Crackers
Egg Noodles
Oats
Brown Rice
White Rice
Rye Flour
White Spaghetti
Whole Grain Spaghetti
Wheat Flour
4.0
4.1
3.8
1.8
3.7
6.0
3.3
6.4
10.7
12.5
1.7
5.9
6.5
7.3
8.2
After perusing this list it should be apparent
that both the typical modern diet as well as the
typical athletic diet is suspect. After all, even a
high protein diet rich in clean, whole grain
carbs will produce a net acid load. Since a
neutralization of the Western diet without a
change in energy intake or macronutrient
composition has been shown to improve bone
health, to shift nitrogen balance from negative
to positive, to reduce blood cortisol
concentrations, to increase thyroid hormone
production, and to reverse the GH resistance
discussed above, it's important that athletes
take the appropriate steps to shift their diets
away from that low grade chronic metabolic
acidosis we discussed earlier. Here are some
steps for accomplishing this goal:
Food Group and Food
PRAL Score
Legumes Average
1.2
Green Beans
Lentils
Peas
-3.1
3.5
1.2
Fats and Oils Average
Butter
Margarine
Olive Oil
Sunflower Oil
0
0.6
-0.5
0.0
0.0
Beverages
Alkali rich average
Alkali poor average
-1.7
0
Draft Beer
Pale Beer
Stout Beer
Coca-Cola
Cocoa
Coffee
Mineral Water
Red Wine
Tea
White Wine
-0.2
0.9
-0.1
0.4
-0.4
-1.4
-1.8
-2.4
-0.3
-1.2
*This table is adapted from the Remer and
Manz study discussed above (1) and each
PRAL score is based on a 100g portion of
food.
• Use the chart above to calculate a
PRAL score for each meal. To do this,
you simply record the amount (in
grams) of each food you eat in a meal.
Then, multiply the PRAL score listed
by your food amount. For example, if
you've eaten 250g of lean meat (8 oz
or about 1/2 lb), your PRAL score for
the meat will be 7.8 (score for 100g)
multiplied by 2.5 (for the 250g
serving), or 19.5. If you've also eaten
250g of potato (8 oz or 1/2lb), your
PRAL score for the potato is -4 (score
for 100g) multiplied by 2.5 (for the
250g serving) or -10. In addition, if
you've eaten 100g of spinach, the
PRAL score for the spinach is -14. If
you tally up the total score of this
meal, the net PRAL is 19.5 (meat), -10
(potato), -14 (spinach), or -4.5. This
means a meal containing 8 oz of lean
meat; 8 oz of potato, and 3.5 oz of
spinach produces a PRAL of -4.5. In
other words, the meal produces a net
alkalinity. That's what we're looking for.
• After calculating the base or acid
potential of the meal, add more
vegetables regardless of the final tally.
Everyone can always benefit from
more vegetables in the diet. Many
bone specialists are now recognizing
that the most effective way to improve
bone health is to eat lots of fruits and
vegetables. (3)
11
• If you're eating a big meal that's
going to be a net acid producer and
don't want to add more basic foods,
consider adding a small amount of
glutamine to this meal. Exogenous
glutamine supplementation has been
shown to neutralize acidosis. (7)
• A cheaper alternative to glutamine
supplementation is either sodium or
potassium bicarbonate
supplementation. You can add sodium
bicarbonate (in the form of baking
soda) to your beverages including your
protein shakes, which probably are a
bit on the acidic side (see milk above).
A small 2-5g dose of baking soda
would be sufficient to neutralize the
shake. An alternative to baking soda is
alka-seltzer.
• Adding sodium to foods can increase
the base potential and reduce the
acidity of the meal.
A Few Additional Protein Notes
Many doctors, dietitians, and sports
nutritionists have come down on animal protein
for several reasons including its effect on renal
acid load. While it's true that animal protein
(especially animal flesh) does produce a high
PRAL, I find it interesting that the same
"experts" espouse high grain diets. As you can
see from the charts above, whole grains are
also very acid forming.
Another interesting fact is that while a high
protein diet is acid forming, the high protein
diet also seems to counteract some of its own
acid loading potential. (9) In other words, while
protein produces an acid load, it also increases
the body's capacity for excreting those acids.
None of the other acid producing foods are as
effective as protein in doing so. Besides, just
like with the other acid-forming foods, all you
have to do is consume enough basic foods
and supplements to neutralize the acidity.
Conclusions
Just because very few individuals in the
sports-nutrition world are talking about acidbase balance doesn't mean that it's not
important. Employing a few simple strategies
to neutralize your high-acid diet may mean the
difference between chronic low-grade acidosis
— and the associated muscle wasting, bone
loss, and altered hormonal profile — and a
healthy, alkaline diet.
1.3 Defeating Dietary Displacement Part 1
by John M. Berardi
Coffee Anyone?
I’ve got this buddy who seems to love going
out for coffee with members of the opposite
sex. Wait, let me clarify. He loves going out for
coffee with exceptionally good-looking
members of the opposite sex. Almost every
time I call this guy during afternoon hours, he’s
on one of these coffee dates with one of his
little hottie "coffee friends."
Now, I know what you’re thinking. "Going out
for coffee" must be some clever euphemism
we use for sex. After all, what kind of high
Testosterone weight lifter sits around all day
drinking coffee when he could be doing the
"wild thing" with said hotties? But alas, rather
than slowing his testicular production of the
male hormone, my buddy assures me these
"coffee dates" are components critical to his
style of dating—and his success. Intrigued, I
decided to give the coffee date a try.
The Origin of Obesity?
So there I am, sitting in my favorite coffee shop
across from my "coffee friend." Things are off
to a good start. We’re laughing, she’s playing
with her hair, and she’s reaching across the
table touching my arm when I make a
particularly witty comment. Note to self: "I’m in
there!"
I order a green tea, a pitcher of water, and two
chicken breast sandwiches (no bread, no
mayonnaise, double the vegetables, please).
Because it’s my "free" or "cheat" day, I preorder dessert— a slice of warm apple pie. With
mouth agape and that "where do you put it
all?" look on her face, my coffee friend orders
a chocolate brownie and a double latté. Then it
happens: she starts asking the nutrition
questions.
12
Internally, I groan. Only fifteen minutes into the
meeting and we’re talking about the subject I
usually like to steer clear of when I’m off the
clock, especially with new people. It’s better to
slowly wean them onto my diet ideas than to
launch right into it during the first meeting.
Damn my buddy and his "coffee dates"!
But then, during the ensuing conversation,
which wasn’t as bad as I'd initially predicted,
something else happened. In talking nutrition
with my coffee friend, I realized that during this
meal I was getting a very clear insight into the
very "obesification" of North America.
Now, this girl is definitely not obese. She’s
young, thin, and a real hottie. But in ten or
twenty years, she will be obese if she
continues to regularly dine on rich chocolate
brownies and frappaccinos for lunch, bagels
and coffee for breakfast (her admitted
breakfast of choice), soda throughout the day,
and leftover casserole for dinner.
Of course, obesity isn’t imminent in her case.
She’s a young, intelligent, and reasonably
disciplined woman, and she’ll probably be able
to restrain her eating habits (i.e., curtail her
total daily energy intake) enough to stave off
full-blown obesity. But the fact is, simply
moderating ones portions isn't enough to
achieve optimal body composition and health.
Dietary Displacing: The "All-Treat" Diet
At this point some of you might be thinking,
"Hold on just a minute, JB, didn’t you order the
apple pie? Why are you railing against her
when you’re just as guilty of ordering junk as
she is?" Sorry, that sort of thinking is flawed.
There's a big difference between a healthy diet
to which treats are occasionally added and an
all-treat diet. In the former, less healthy foods
are consumed rarely and in addition to healthy
foods. In the latter, less healthy or unhealthy
foods are consumed often and instead of
healthy foods. This is called food displacement
and must be avoided if optimal body
composition and health are your goals.
Sure, I did indulge in a slice of sugar-laden
junk food, this being one of the two "treats" I
ate that week. But looking only at the junk food
that we ate presents a woefully incomplete part
of the picture. The presence of bad food in
both of our diets is much less important than
the absence of good food in hers.
To elaborate: I ate a small amount of junk food
in addition to my antioxidant rich, protein filled,
nutrient dense meal, which was just one of
seven such meals I ate that day—and that was
one of seven such days that week! She ate
some junk. Period.
She started her day with junk, ate a lunch of
junk, and filled the rest of the day with junk as
well. I got all the antioxidants, micronutrients,
and protein I needed, while she spent the
entire day eating the nutritional equivalent of a
cardboard box.
Based on our activity levels and basal
metabolic needs, we both probably met our
energy needs for the day (in terms of total
energy ingested vs. total energy expended),
but I actually got some nutrition that day. She
just got calories, and her calories came from
what we call "displacing foods."
You see, the bagel, the brownie and latte, the
soda, etc. were consumed instead of good
healthy choices. So, in essence, their empty
calories displaced the good, nutrient dense
food she could've otherwise eaten. She
consumed nothing but empty calories, calories
more likely to be stored as fat than burned,
calories that actually degrade health or do
nothing to improve it, calories that'll make her
hungry and food-obsessed all day, and
calories that'll make her tired just an hour or
two after consumption.
I ate 49 healthy meals plus two treats that
week. She had all treats. Big difference, huh?
Convenience and Calories: Overfed,
Undernourished
Know anyone else like this girl? Chances are
you know lots of other individuals like her! In
the US alone, there are about 129.6 million
overweight individuals and probably many
more well on their way, just like my coffee
friend. These stats beg the question—how did
otherwise intelligent people get to be so bad,
exchanging good nutrition for empty calories?
13
While an explanation is probably multifactorial,
there are a few simple answers that pop into
my mind.
First, I think that North Americans strive daily
for nutritional convenience. Sure, when the
typical person goes out for a nice dinner at a
restaurant, he or she usually gets a decent
meal. But, unlike many Europeans (the French
and the Italians come to mind), North
Americans select everyday meals for speed
and convenience.
A nice egg and spinach omelet with oats and
pineapple on the side takes some time to
prepare and eat. On the contrary, a bagel and
coffee can be carried into the car and eaten on
the way to work. So in our quest for speed and
convenience, we get very little in the way of
good nutrition. That’s why we’re overfed and
undernourished, and that's how people can eat
so much yet still have nutrient deficiencies.
Secondly, I think we’ve gotten too calorie
conscious. Most people who make poor food
selections aren’t stupid. They know if they
want to be thin, they can only eat a certain
amount of calories per day. If they eat more,
they either feel monumentally guilty or, much
less often, they head to the gym for marathon
cardio sessions designed to exercise those
extra calories off.
In trying to walk that thin tight rope of energy
balance, they realize if they eat good, healthy
food (i.e. marinated chicken breast with a
spinach salad and a piece of fruit), they’ll be
eating a bunch of calories which simply don’t
taste as good as the brownies they’re craving.
In this sense, the healthy food will displace the
tasty junk they often crave.
So in an attempt to get the tasty brownie
calories, they choose instead to displace the
good chicken and spinach calories, kicking
them out of the diet. In their minds, "a calorie is
a calorie" and therefore if they simply eat a
brownie instead of the chicken, they’ll stay just
as thin. Thin, in our society, is synonymous
with healthy. Little do they realize they’re
setting themselves up for losses in lean body
mass, an ever slowing metabolic rate,
micronutrient deficiencies, and all sorts of
nutrition related health problems including
diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and
syndrome-x (basically insulin resistance).
It’s hard to stay lean when the metabolism is
dwindling as a result of insufficient protein
intake and a low thermic effect of feeding. The
metabolic rate takes another plunge because
of deficiencies in essential fatty acids, not to
mention decreasing muscle mass.
It’s also pretty difficult to stay lean if you’ve got
diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or
syndrome-x. To support this notion, all we
need to realize is that in the last twenty years
the incidence of obesity has doubled, yet our
average daily energy intake hasn’t increased
much at all!
North Americans aren’t getting so darned fat
and/or unhealthy simply because of
overeating. Often they replace good foods with
the super-sized sugars, the trans fats, and the
other nasty fast food ingredients. The good
foods have the power to negate the effects of
these nasty, health-degrading junk foods, but
because people become too concerned with
energy balance, they simply displace the good
stuff.
In fact, if people simply ate a high protein,
antioxidant and micronutrient rich diet
supplemented with junk food, they’d end up
leaner and healthier than those who got the
same amount of calories (and often even fewer
calories) from empty, displacing foods.
Cheat Meals
People often ask me what I think about cheat
meals. Generally, what they want to know is,
"Do I really have to eat clean all the time?" The
answer is a qualified "yes." You should plan
out your diet in advance, choosing only clean
foods, and then eat everything on your plan.
One or two days a week, if you so desire, you
can eat foods that wouldn’t normally be found
on your plan in addition to and not instead of
the healthy foods.
Usually I add such foods at the end of the day,
when I’m already stuffed with lean meat, EFAs,
fruits and veggies. That tends to limit my ability
to indulge. Of course, in strict fat loss phases,
these calories should be the first to go.
14
Bottom line: As long as it doesn’t displace the
good calories, you can have your cake and eat
it too. Chew on that a while and then check
back next week for Part II of this article:
"Displacing Debates"!
1.4 Defeating Dietary Displacement Part 2
by John M. Berardi
Paralysis by Analysis
In part one of this article, I presented a few
ideas as to why the obesity rate is rapidly
increasing in spite of the fact that, on average,
our calorie consumption as a society hasn’t
increased all that much.
In that article, I discussed the idea of a
"displacing" food, a food that provides very
little nutrition while simultaneously taking the
place of the nutritious foods you might have
consumed instead. In my opinion, displacing
foods are covering our breakfast, lunch, and
dinner tables and it’s this shift toward empty
calories that's making us unhealthy and obese.
In this article, I’d like to discuss another
displacement idea. While displacement foods
are probably at the root of many of our health
and body composition crises, what I call
"displacement debates" have also become a
real problem. According to my definition, a
displacement debate is a debate that, rather
than helping people move closer toward
healthy nutritional choices, simply acts to
confuse and paralyze them.
of suggesting that people just do something,
these groups continue to bicker about who’s
right at the expense of an ever-growing obesity
rate.
Below I’ve presented six of the interesting
displacing debates I’ve heard argued lately.
Hopefully by discussing them I can put to rest
the idea that these issues are of critical
importance to your overall health and body
composition.
I’d like you to understand that these represent
small, fine tuning details that are only relevant
to a small percentage of the population, if that.
On the whole, these debates do more to
confuse and paralyze people than to
encourage them to take their health into their
own hands.
The Top 6 Displacing Debates
1. Fruit is Bad Now?
We all know fruit provides fiber, vitamins,
minerals, and low glycemic index
carbohydrates, so it should be no surprise that
many experts recommend eating a few
servings of fruit each day. Heck, this notion
has even been turned into a clichéd rhyme:
"An apple a day keeps the doctor away!"
Yet some experts out there (short-sighted
experts with a real lack of perspective, I might
add) actually suggest that fruit might be bad for
us! That’s utter nonsense.
For example, the average North American
barely knows what a carbohydrate, protein, or
fat is, yet when they hear well-respected
experts at the ADA recommend high carb diets
and the highly (though not universally)
respected Atkins group recommend low carb
diets, they get so confused and frustrated they
ultimately do little or nothing proactive to
improve their health.
So, imagine you’re someone with a lifetime of
eating habits that are less than optimal (for
some of you, it might not be so hard to do) and
you’re exposed to this debate. What do you
do? Well, nine times out of ten, you figure that
if there’s a chance fruit is bad for you, you
might as well stay away from it — probably
better to reach for a Big Mac instead. After all,
it does taste better.
This argument is an example of a displacing
debate: an academic argument that pushes
the more important problems out of the public
discourse. For the average North American,
following either the ADA recommendations or
the Atkins recommendations would go a long
way toward improving their health. But instead
Verdict: Eat the damn fruit.
2. Raw? Organic?
Speaking again of fruits (and vegetables), it’s
recommended that the average person
consume two pieces of fruit and three servings
15
of vegetables per day as a bare minimum.
Athletes probably need even more, yet most
North Americans (athletes included) consume
far less than the standard recommendation of
five servings of fruits and vegetables.
However, rather than simply recommend more
fruit and veggies (no matter how you can get
them, for any fruits and vegetables are better
than none), experts spend their time fighting
about canned fruits and veggies vs. raw fruits
and veggies. And then they fight about raw
fruits and veggies vs. organic fruits and
veggies! Sure, I agree that raw, organic fruits
and vegetables are best since they probably
have a higher micronutrient count, but let’s
face the facts: any fruits and veggies are better
than none!
So again, imagine you’re someone with a
lifetime of bad eating habits and you’re
exposed to all this bickering. What do you do?
Well, you'll probably avoid the fruits and
veggies, wait for the experts to finish dueling it
out, and reach for a Snickers bar instead.
Verdict: Get sufficient fruits and vegetables in
your diet before worrying about whether
they’re organic or not. Once you’ve done that,
worry on.
3. Raw Milk vs. Regular Milk
What about milk? Most T-Nation readers know
my stance on moo juice. In my opinion, it’s not
necessary, doesn’t always "do the body good,"
and should be minimized in the diet (although I
see no need for total elimination unless you’re
lactose intolerant).
However, if we could simply get more people
to drink milk instead of sugary soda, we’d have
less obesity and disease. But instead of
focusing on healthy behaviors, experts will
bicker on and on about regular milk vs. raw
milk. Of course, all this does is serve to draw
negative attention to milk and away from the
other healthy decisions people could be
making.
Sure, if it were possible to get raw milk that
was guaranteed aseptic, it would be better
than processed, pasteurized milk. But faced
with the confusion, what do you, the
hypothetical sub-optimal eater, do? Well, nine
times out of ten, you avoid both kinds of milk
and drink another Coca-Cola instead.
Verdict: Limit milk, and drink calorie-free
beverages like water and green tea instead.
4. Tap Water vs. Bottled Water
Speaking of beverage consumption, people
are dehydrated because they drink too little
water while drinking too many caffeinated,
diuretic drinks (coffee, soda, and alcohol).
Dehydration leads to all sorts of health
problems for the inactive, not to mention the
decrements in athletic performance seen in
dehydrated athletes.
But rather than simply promoting the heck out
of water consumption, experts will bicker on
and on about tap water vs. bottled water. Sure,
good quality bottled water is usually a better
choice, but don’t be one of these people who
stay away from tap water, forget to pick up
their bottled water, and simply remain
dehydrated.
Verdict: Drink sufficient water first; worry about
the source later. (Of course, you may want to
avoid drinking out of puddles next to pig farms
in Uganda.) Put a water filter on your tap or
buy one of those filter jugs you store in your
fridge and be done with it.
5. Glass vs. Plastic
And how about the bottles the water comes in?
That’s right, the glass vs. plastic debate. Just
the other day, I was recommending that a
group of my athletes pick up some Tupperware
so they could whip up all of their meals and
shakes in the morning. It’s easy to make a
good food choice during the day when you’ve
got all your good food with you, pre-cooked,
pre-wrapped, and ready to be eaten.
After the talk, one of the athletes came up to
me and told me he avoids Tupperware
altogether because of the potential leeching of
xenoestrogens into his food. When I asked
what he uses to store his food in, he told me
he doesn’t even preplan his meals. He also
told me he needed to lose fifteen pounds and
16
that he was overweight because his nutrition
sucked!
Buddy, I agree that glass containers may be
marginally better than plastic, but for the love
of God, pick up some plastic if it'll help you
plan your meals! And this was a world-class
athlete! You can imagine how the average guy
fares!
Verdict: Plan your meals in advance, storing
them in woven baskets if necessary. Buy the
best containers you can afford. If you can get
the glass versions, great; if not, the generic
plastic ones will do just fine.
are less than optimal and you’re exposed to all
this bickering about lean protein. What do you
do? Well, when you’re afraid of the meat you
have access to, you shy away from all types of
lean meat and reach for another bagel. Bad
choice!
Verdict: Find the best meat you can by going
around to various grocery shops and butchers.
Owners of health food stores may also be able
to help you locate the best stuff. But don’t be
afraid to eat the meat you find in your grocery
store — the reports of your impending death
are greatly exaggerated.
Conclusion
6. Free Range vs. Extremely Limited Range
Meat
Most weightlifters eat lots of protein and that’s
no mistake. I’ve outlined the myriad of benefits
associated with a high protein diet in my
article, The Protein Prejudice. One of the best
ways to get all that protein is by eating a lot of
protein and micronutrient-rich lean meat.
Protein supplements are okay to supplement
your diet, but real food should be your
nutritional mainstay and there’s nothing better
than good ol’ fashioned meat.
Since eating more protein can increase
metabolic rate, improve your weight loss
profile, increase protein turnover, accelerate
exercise adaptation, and (when replacing
dietary carbohydrate) decrease the chance of
cardiovascular disease, it should be clear that
most people would do well to increase their
consumption of lean meat.
These are just a few of the displacing debates
gaining momentum in the nutrition world.
Throughout your lifetime, you’ll be inundated
with new experts, new nutritional plans, and
new "revolutionary systems." Rather than
letting these new ideas be a source of
frustration and confusion, do your best to get
past the marginalia, to get past the differences
between all the new programs, and try to
discover for yourself the basic principles all the
successful programs seem to be built upon.
Most importantly, when faced with a choice
between two good options, one of which may
be marginally better than the other, but both of
which would be an improvement over what
you're currently doing, just pick one and go
with it. You can optimize later, as long as you
make an improvement now. There's no
debating that.
So imagine the dismay someone might
experience when hearing that the experts are
now bickering about the type of meat we
consume. Many experts muddy the waters
when discussing free range vs. grain fed meat,
telling people that grain fed meat (the only kind
you can find in many grocery stores in North
America) is full of toxins, bad fats, and
hormones.
Sure, free-range meat is probably a better
choice, although there’s little proof the
supposed toxins and hormones actually get
passed on to us. But again, imagine you’re
someone with a lifetime of eating habits that
17
CHAPTER 2 –
STRATEGIES FOR FAT LOSS
the questions as simple and obvious, and
always had all the answers."
2.1 Lean Eatin’ Part 1
by John M Berardi
Therefore, it doesn't seem such a mystery why
people buy into the gimmickry. Telling the
people what they want to hear wins them over.
The problem is that while radical diets,
gadgets, and pills may work in the short run,
they often compromise an individual's health
and well-being more than the extra fat does if
they're overweight. This makes the cost to
benefit ratio ridiculously low. The other
problem is that these strategies don't typically
work in the long run. So if you're trying radical
new methods, it's a safe bet to assume that
after the "treatment" is over, you'll likely go
back to normal.
With summer fast approaching, "beach-think"
has set in and the current most-popular
question is, "Oh wise and mighty JB who
knoweth and loveth the alimentary arts while
abhorring all that is adipose, how might I battle
my corpulence?" Okay, okay, it's more like,
"Hey jackass, how do I get rid of my gut?" but
a guy can dream of eloquent questions from
glib readers, can't he?
Fed up with answering the gut question for the
bazillionth time, this article was born. In fact,
this article is the transcript from one of the
lectures I recently gave at Ian King's excellent
Bigger, Stronger, Leaner! seminar in Toronto.
If you think it's time to bring out those abs for
summer, then this is the article for you!
Gadgets and Gimmickry
The science and art of eating for fat loss and
muscle gain have become big business.
Unfortunately, this big business, in the eternal
quest to get paid, has taken the focus off
excellent eating and excellent exercise
regimens. Instead, with infomercials, marketing
and advertising, and strategic alliances with
the media (magazines, TV, etc), the diet and
exercise industry has confused most people to
the point that all they can do now is call up 1800 numbers or jump on a secure server with
their credit card ready. Some of these
infomercials not only ignore the role of diet and
exercise, they try to convince you those things
aren't necessary when you buy their fat melting
vibrating belts and magic pills.
Why has this transpired? Well, the answer is
simple. And for three easy payments of
$19.95, I'll tell you. No, no, just kidding. How
about a quote instead?
"Throughout history, the difference between
scientists and physicians on the one hand, and
quacks and promoters on the other, has been
that the scientists and physicians have
attempted to show both what they knew and
what they didn't know while the promoters saw
Now personally, I love being lean, but I also
enjoy my good health. And my focus remains
on using the basics of good, natural food
selection and an active lifestyle that includes
regular, preplanned physical activity. Anyone
who's read my work knows that I'm not a big
fan of prepackaged meals, gadgets or magic
potions. As revolutionary as it sounds, I believe
you can get lean by manipulating your diet and
exercise alone.
So the purpose of this article is to provide a
scientific basis for making good food
selections, the real "secret" behind getting and
staying lean. More specifically, I'll discuss the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
Why a calorie is not a calorie
Why a protein is not a protein
Why a carbohydrate is not a carbohydrate
Why a fat is not a fat
How to choose your food wisely
Okay, let's dive in and prepare to "get your
beach on."
A Calorie Is Not A Calorie
While the gurus and pundits of the past
believed that all calories were created equal,
and while much of the current dietetics herd
still believes it, I'm here to tell you why it just
ain't true. To do so, I'll focus on three main
arguments: the Thermic Effect of Feeding
(TEF), cross-cultural studies, and the effects of
isoenergetic diets using different foods.
18
The TEF, as I've said many times before,
represents the additional caloric expenditure
(above resting metabolism) that it takes to
digest, absorb, and process the food you eat.
Studies on the thermic effect of different foods
have been important in describing the different
effects of the macronutrients on metabolism.
The TEF lasts from between one to four hours
after eating a meal. When adding up the
thermic effects from each of your meals, this
extra metabolism represents between 5% and
15% of your total daily energy expenditure.
Therefore, if your daily energy expenditure is
3,000kcal, about 150 to 450kcal of that comes
from the TEF. Interestingly, different
macronutrients tend to have different effects
on metabolism.
Welle et al. (1981) and Robinson et al (1990)
demonstrated that during a normal six hour
period of rest and fasting (basal metabolism),
subjects burn about 270kcal. When eating a
single 400kcal meal of carbs alone (100g) or
fat alone (44g), the energy burned during this
six-hour period reached 290kcal (an additional
20kcal). Interestingly, when eating 400kcal of
protein alone (100g) the subjects burned
310kcal during this six-hour period (an
additional 40kcal). Therefore, protein alone
had double the thermogenic power vs. fat or
carbs alone!
Swaminathan et al (1985) demonstrated that
during a normal fasted 90-minute period, both
lean and obese subjects burned about 110
calories. When consuming a 400kcal, fat only
meal (44g), the lean subjects burned 125kcal
(+15kcal) while the obese subjects only burned
110kcal (+0Kcal).
This indicates that while the lean can upregulate metabolism when eating fat, the
obese may, in fact, have a defect in their
thermogenic response mechanisms for fat.
When fed a 400kcal mixed meal (P+C+F), the
lean subjects burned 130kcal (+20kcal) during
the 90-minutes while the obese burned
125kcal (+25kcal) during the 90-minutes.
These data demonstrate that mixed meals are
more thermogenic than fat only meals and that
lean people have a better TEF response than
the obese.
So now that you understand that different
macronutrients (at the same energy intake)
can alter calorie balance within a single meal,
here's another interesting argument for the fact
that all calories were not created equal. In a
study by Campbell et al (1991), 6,500 rural and
urban Chinese were compared to the US
population norms for energy intake,
macronutrient breakdown, and health. This is
an important comparison due to the fact that
obesity and cardiovascular diseases have
reached epidemic proportions in North
America while the prevalence is much lower in
China. Check out this data on average nutrient
intake:
U.S.:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Energy - 30.6kcal/kg
Carbohydrate - 42% (224g)
Fat Intake - 36% (85.86g)
Alcohol - 7%
Fiber - 11g/day
Protein - 15% (80g)
% Protein from Animal - 70% (56g)
BMI (wt/ht*ht) - 25.8
China
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Energy - 40.6kcal/kg
Carbohydrate - 71% (504g)
Fat Intake - 14% (44g)
Alcohol - 5%
Fiber - 33g/day
Protein - 10% (71g)
% Protein from Animal - 11% (7g)
BMI (wt/ht*ht) - 20.5
It's interesting to note that while the Chinese
have a much lower body mass index (as
represented by weight in kg/height squared in
meters) and a much lower prevalence of
obesity and cardiovascular disease, they eat
about 25 to 35% more food than we do! Now,
the Chinese tend to be more active than we
are, but when the numbers were corrected for
activity levels, the differences remain!
Looking at the macronutrient breakdowns, the
Chinese are on a high-carb diet, no doubt. But
they're not fat. And while their protein intake,
by percentage, is lower, they do get nearly as
much total protein, by gram amount, as we do.
Perhaps we could take a lesson from the
Chinese. Clearly not all calories are created
equal because if they were, the Chinese would
19
be fatter than we are! But instead, the average
100kg Chinese person gets to enjoy a
4060kcal diet while keeping his lean physique.
food while staying leaner. Just ask the
Chinese.
A Protein Is Not A Protein
I know, I know, that study is only
epidemiological and therefore lacks some
explanatory power, but stay tuned as I present
two final studies to demonstrate that all
calories were not created equal.
In a study by Demling et al (2000), the
researchers demonstrated that food choice
and timing could be more important than total
calorie intake. Before the study began,
overweight police officers, eating about 2100
to 2300kcal per day, tipped the scales at
216lbs with 56lbs of fat mass (25% fat) and
158lbs of lean mass. They were eating about
74g protein, 380g carbs, and 56g fat. Since
this is clearly a hypocaloric diet, they should've
been losing weight. But they weren't.
Unfortunately for these poor guys, they were
eating only 10% of their calories at breakfast
and a whopping 50% of their calories right
before bed. In addition, 50% of their carb
intake was sugar! After diet counseling, these
guys still ate the same diet in terms of
macronutrients, but they ate 70% of their
calories during the active parts of their day and
80% of their carb intake was complex and low
on the GI scale. At the end of twelve weeks
these guys lost 3lbs of weight and 5lbs of fat
while gaining 2lbs of lean mass. And this was
without changing exercise habits! While these
changes weren't huge, it's clear that food
choices and timing make a difference.
In another study by T-mag's own Doug Kalman
et al (2001), Doug showed that a 1200kcal,
high-protein (47%P, 36.5%C, 16.5%F) diet
was more effective than a 1200kcal, moderateprotein (24.5%P, 48.3%C, 27.2%F) diet for fat
loss. Subjects in the high-protein group lost
6.3lbs of body weight, 5.3lbs of fat weight, and
only 1lb of lean weight. The moderate protein
group lost 3.1lbs of body weight, no fat weight,
and 4.5 whopping pounds of lean weight. Try
telling these subjects that a calorie is a calorie!
In the end, there clearly are ways to burn more
calories and lose more weight while eating
diets differing in macronutrient content but
similar in energy intake. In addition, if you can
believe it, there may even be ways to eat more
In this section, I'd like to demonstrate that not
all proteins were created equal. Specifically, I'll
briefly discuss whey and casein protein, fast
and slow protein, animal and vegetable
protein, cod/fish protein and soy protein.
The topic of whey vs. casein has been
discussed ad nauseum lately so rather than
belabor this issue, I'll quickly summarize a few
studies.
Demling et al (2000) compared two groups on
a 2100 to 2300kcal diet containing 143gP
(26%), 286gC (52%), and 49gF (20%). Both
groups weight trained for twelve weeks but
received 75g of their daily protein intake from
either a whey-based drink or a milk-protein
isolate drink (80% casein, 20% whey). At the
end of the study, the milk-protein isolate group
lost more fat (15.4lbs vs. 9.2lbs), gained more
lean mass (9lbs vs. 4.4lbs), and gained more
upper and lower body strength than the whey
group. It appears that milk protein isolate
ingestion, when on a training program, may be
a better way to enhance fat loss and muscle
gain.
Lands et al (1999) showed that when
supplementing with 20g of whey or casein for
three months, the whey group had upregulated their antioxidant defense systems
and had increased performance in an
anaerobic exercise task. The casein group
didn't improve on any of the above parameters.
Therefore whey may be better for antioxidant
protection.
Since the fast vs. slow debate focuses on
whey (fast) vs. casein (slow), let's address that
research here. In studies by Boirie et al (1997)
and Dangin et al (2001), it was shown that
whey protein is better for up-regulating protein
synthesis while casein protein is better for
down-regulating protein breakdown. Not much
more has to be said about this since it's been
discussed about a thousand other times on
this site alone. The take-home message from
these studies is that a milk protein blend or a
supplement containing whey + casein may be
your best bet for body composition
improvements.
20
Next up, what about those kooky vegetarians?
Well, in comparing an omnivorous diet (meat
containing) with a vegetarian diet, Campbell et
al (1995, 1999) demonstrated that strength
gains and body composition improvements are
impaired when meat is removed from the diet.
In their studies, subjects weight trained for
twelve weeks while consuming a 2300kcal diet
consisting of 70-90gP (12-15%), 267-317gC
(49%), and 82-87gF (7-11%). The only
difference between groups was the fact that
one group ate a meat-free diet while the other
group ate meat. At the end of the twelve
weeks, the meat eaters lost 2.8lbs of fat while
gaining 3.74lbs of lean tissue. The
vegetarians, on the other hand, lost no fat
weight and lost 1.76lbs of lean tissue. Bottom
line, meat seems to be an essential part of the
diet.
Regarding fish in the diet, Lavigne et al (2001)
demonstrated that cod protein was better than
soy or casein for increasing muscle glucose
sensitivity and for preventing insulin resistance
in high-fat fed rats. Since codfish has a
favorable omega-3 profile, the researchers
duplicated their work using only the protein
component of cod and the benefits remained
the same. This indicates that eating fish may
improve your carbohydrate sensitivity and
ultimately your body composition and these
effects may be independent of the fatty acid
profile.
Finally, Lohrke et al (2001) showed that
growing pigs fed a diet consisting of soy as the
only source of protein had lower body weights,
amino acid imbalances, increased cortisol
levels, and increased muscle breakdown. The
casein-fed pigs grew normally. This study
indicates that a diet containing exclusively a
low quality protein (soy in this case) may
interfere with normal growth and development.
So, how do we use this information to our
advantage? Well, since different protein
sources confer different benefits, your best bet
is to eat some fish protein (cod, salmon, tuna),
some lean meat protein, and some milk protein
isolates or whey/casein blends each day.
Eating from a limited list of protein sources is a
big mistake.
Depending on their individual needs, my
clients typically eat a different protein source
with every meal so that by the end of the day
they've gotten complete protein from egg
whites, fat free cheese, milk protein isolate
shakes, cottage cheese, salmon or tuna and
lean beef, not to mention the incomplete
sources like mixed beans and mixed nuts.
Summary of Part I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
With all the media hype out there, the key
to staying lean and mean is still diet,
specifically, good food choices.
A calorie is not a calorie because the
macronutrient content of each meal affects
the body's response to the feeding. That
basically means you could change your
body composition by eating the same
amount of calories each day, but making
different food choices. Meal timing also
plays an important role.
A high protein diet may be better than a
moderate protein diet for fat loss.
A protein is not a protein because different
kinds of proteins affect the body in different
ways. Milk protein isolate (80% casein,
20% whey) may be better than whey alone
if your goal is fat loss. Whey looks like it's
better for antioxidant protection, however.
A supplement containing whey + casein
may be your best bet for body composition
improvements.
Meat eaters can lose fat faster and gain
more muscle than vegetarians, even if the
vegetarians eat the same amount of
calories and get the same amount of
protein.
Eating fish may improve your carbohydrate
sensitivity and ultimately your body
composition.
Soy still sucks as a primary protein source.
Next week, I'll discuss why a carb is not a carb
and why a fat is not a fat, plus provide a list of
2.2 Lean Eatin’ Part 2
by John M Berardi
With summer fast approaching, "beach-think"
has set in and the current most popular
question is, "Oh wise and mighty JB who
knoweth and loveth the alimentary arts while
abhorring all that is adipose, how might I battle
21
my corpulence?" Okay, okay, it's more like,
"Hey jackass, how do I get rid of my gut?" but
a guy can dream of eloquent questions from
glib readers, can't he?
Fed up with answering the gut question for the
bazillionth time, this article was born. In fact,
this article is the transcript from one of the
lectures I recently gave at Ian King's excellent
Bigger, Stronger, Leaner! seminar in Toronto.
If you think it's time to bring out those abs for
summer, then this is the article for you!
Last week, in Part I, I wrote about how all
calories and all proteins aren't all equal,
despite rights guaranteed to them by the
Constitution. Carrying the argument further…
A Carbohydrate Is Not A Carbohydrate
In this section, I'd like to demonstrate that not
all carbohydrates were created equal.
Specifically, I'll briefly discuss:
1. The insulin index vs. the glycemic index
2. The superiority of low-GI and II diets
3. The difference between liquid carbohydrates
While older carbohydrate classification
schemes were centered on the notion of
simple vs. complex carbohydrates (a structural
classification), newer schemes focus more
appropriately on the absorption profiles
(glycemic index) and physiological effects
(insulin index) of these carbohydrates (a
functional classification).
The Glycemic Index (GI) is a classification
scheme based on the blood glucose rise after
consuming a carbohydrate food. This measure
is based on the absorption profile of the food
and was originally considered an indirect, but
adequate measure of the insulin response to
food. The assumption was that the insulin rise
would be proportional to the glucose rise.
However, recent research has demonstrated a
dissociation of the glycemic response and the
insulin response to the food. Therefore the
insulin index was created.
The Insulin Index (II) is an index of the
magnitude of insulin secretion as a result of
food ingestion. Of course, this is the direct
measure that the glycemic index could only
approximate. Since insulin is a tricky hormone
to manage, it's best to know exactly what's
happening with this guy, especially if you have
poor insulin sensitivity or poor carbohydrate
tolerance.
Studies by Holt et al (1996) and Ostman et al
(2001) highlighted some of these differences
between glycemia and insulinemia.
Interestingly, while the glycemic and insulin
indices of many foods were similar, some
foods caused unpredicted responses. As
shown in the following graph, foods like yogurt
and milk had relatively low-glycemic indices,
but very high insulin indices. White and brown
rice, on the other hand, had high-glycemic
indices, but low insulin indices. The point here
is that if you want to effectively manage body
composition, you should choose your
carbohydrates based on both the glycemic and
insulin indices.
Unfortunately, there are only limited insulin
data out there, leading us to continue to rely in
some cases only on the glycemic index.
More complete glycemic and insulin indices
can be easily located by doing an Internet
search on these two terms.
So the next appropriate question would be,
"What does the literature say about low GI and
II diets vs. higher GI diets?" Well, here's a
summary:
Ludwig et al (2000) described the following list
of benefits for eating a low GI diet:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Better nutrition (better micronutrient
profile and more fiber)
Increased satiety
Decreased hunger
Lower subsequent energy intake
(second meal effect)
Fat loss
Better fasted insulin and glucose
In a study by Agus et al (2000), it was
demonstrated that during a short, 6-day, lowcalorie diet, a low-GI carb intake preserved
metabolism and enhanced fat loss vs. a highGI diet. The low GI group saw a 5% decline in
metabolic rate and a 7.7lb weight loss while
the high-GI group saw an 11% decline in
metabolic rate and a 6.6lb weight loss. In these
22
subjects, fasted glucose and insulin values
were lower in the low-GI group, indicating
better glucose and insulin sensitivity.
Spieth et al (2000) and Ludwig et al (2000)
showed that 4 months of low-GI eating was
superior to 4 months of high-GI eating in
overweight teens. The low-GI group lost 1.5
points on the BMI scale and 2.2 lbs while the
high-GI group gained 2.88lbs and increased
their BMI. In addition, these studies showed
that a low GI meal reduced food intake during
subsequent meals while the high GI meal lead
to overeating.
Finally, Pawlak et al (2001) showed that in
rats, a low-GI diet led to decreased fasting
insulin and glucose values, decreased fat
mass, and decreased insulin and glucose
values during a glucose tolerance test.
Therefore, body comp as well as glucose and
insulin sensitivity improved.
The bottom line here is that when all else is
equal, a diet containing mostly low-GI
carbohydrates is superior to a high-GI diet for
losing fat, preserving metabolic rate, and
maintaining healthy insulin sensitivity and
glucose tolerance.
Next, I'd like to illustrate the differences
between popular liquid carbohydrates including
maltodextrin, dextrose, fructose, and sucrose.
Maltodextrin is a glucose polymer (a string of
glucose units put together, similar to the
protein peptide). It is therefore, by definition, a
complex carbohydrate. However it's more
complex nature does NOT slow digestion.
Therefore, the GI and II remain high.
Maltodextrin is the absolute best carbohydrate
to consume during exercise for rapidly
delivering blood glucose and for muscle
glycogen recovery. It's also best for fluid
uptake.
Dextrose (glucose) is a simple carbohydrate
unit (similar to the amino acid). While it's good
for exercise situations (malto is better), you're
probably better off adding some dextrose to
your maltodextrin formula. A little bit of
dextrose may enhance the already excellent
fluid uptake that occurs with maltodextrin
during exercise.
structure, it can possibly cause GI problems
and/or decrease fluid uptake with exercise.
Fructose, unlike other simple carbs, has to be
"treated" in the liver and it reaches the muscle
slowly.
Finally, sucrose consists of glucose and
fructose units bonded together. Therefore,
upon digestion, you get glucose and fructose
in the GI (and the benefits and consequences
of each).
Based on the three studies I reviewed (Blom et
al 1987, ven Den Burgh et al 1996, Piehl et al
2000), it appears that dextrose is 72% faster
than fructose for muscle glycogen resynthesis.
As a result, at the end of 8 hours, muscle
glycogen was 30% higher with dextrose
ingestion. However, in another study, at the
end of 4 hours, muscle glycogen was 15%
higher with maltodextrin ingestion vs. dextrose.
So dextrose kicks fructose's butt although
malto beats up on dextrose.
A Fat Is Not A Fat
In this section, I'd like to demonstrate that not
all fats were created equal. Specifically, I'll
briefly discuss:
1. Fat Structure - Fatty Acid Chains and TGs
2. MCTs - Medium Chain Triglycerides
3. Olive Oil - Monounsaturated Fatty Acids
4. CLA - Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
5. Fish Oil - Omega 3 Polyunsaturated Fatty
Acids
As discussed in The Fat Roundtable, there are
three different types of fatty acids; saturated
(coming from animal fats), monounsaturated
(coming from olive oil and avocados), and
polyunsaturated (coming from flax oil, hemp
oil, fish oil, canola oil, safflower oil, etc).
Dietary fat, rather than simply floating around
as free fatty acids, typically is packaged up in
the form of a triglyceride. Basically, a
triglyceride consists of 3 fatty acids (usually all
of the same type) bound together by a glycerol
backbone. Essentially, the glycerol backbone
has 3 carbons and a fatty acid is attached (via
a dehydration/synthesis reaction) to each of
the 3 carbons.
Fructose is a simple carbohydrate unit, but it's
structurally different from glucose. Due to its
23
Based on this structural phenomenon,
scientists have recently begun exploring an
interesting development in fat science. They've
begun making "structured lipids." In essence
what they're doing is making diacylglyerols (2
of the carbons have fatty acids attached while
1 does not) and special triacylglycerols (where
there are fats of different lengths and
properties attached to each carbon).
In clinical studies, these structured lipids have
been shown to increase protein synthesis in
patients suffering from wasting. In addition,
these fats are easily oxidized (like the long
chain fatty acids in fish oil) which leads to a
thermogenic response rather than a storage
response. As a result these structured lipids
are now being heavily studied. While they're
not on shelves yet, I wouldn't be surprised if
these structured lipids become food additives
in the near future.
MCT's and CLA, probably due to their early
introduction to the weightlifting scene and the
huge media hype associated with this
introduction, have gotten a bad reputation.
These fats may, in fact, assist in weight loss.
MCT's, due to their medium chain length, are
easily oxidized by skeletal muscle. This is due
to the fact that MCT's are quickly and easily
transported to the fat furnace, the
mitochondrion. As a result, research (Hill et al
1989) has demonstrated that TEF
(thermogenic effect) with MCTs is double that
of other fats, making it comparable to protein in
this regard.
CLA has remained a relative mystery to the
research community. This is probably due to
the various forms (isomers) of CLA.
Regardless, some research (Blankson et al
2000) has shown that 12 weeks of CLA
supplementation (at doses above 3.4g/day)
can increase LBM and decrease fat mass vs.
olive oil. While the olive oil group gained 1.5
lbs of fat and no lean body mass, the CLA
group lost 4.5 lbs of fat and gained 3 lbs of
LBM.
Speaking of olive oil, even this "good fat" is
better than saturated fat for body composition.
In a study comparing safflower oil, beef fat,
palm fat, and olive oil, it was shown that olive
oil leads to a 14% higher oxygen consumption
rate than the other fats.
Finally, if you've been around the T-mag
community for a while you'll know that my
favorite fats are those in fish oil. Delarue et al
(1996) showed that fish oil supplementation
(6g/day added to the diet) dramatically
changed the metabolism of fats and
carbohydrates.
During an OGTT (oral glucose tolerance test drinking a big 75g whack of liquid sugar and
measuring the subjects for 2 hours afterward),
the fish oil group burned 27g of fat vs. 20g in
the placebo group. The fish oil group also
burned 28g or carbs while storing 36g and the
placebo group burned 51g of carbs while
storing only 14g.
In addition, baseline insulin was 30% lower in
fish oil group and insulin responses to OGTT
were 50% lower in the fish oil group. What this
tells us is that fish oil allows the body to burn
more fat and store more muscle glycogen,
repartitioning fuel away from fat cells toward
muscle cells.
Since fish oils are polyunsaturated fats, it's
important to not only increase fish-oil intake,
it's important to shift the ratio of
polyunsaturated fat to saturated fat (P/S). Van
Marken, Lichtenbelt et al (1997) showed that
the polyunsaturated fat to saturated fat ratio is
important to metabolic rate. A higher ratio of
P/S leads to metabolic increases (22%
increase in TEF and 3% increase in daily
RMR).
So, if there's one thing you need to take from
this discussion, I think it should be that, all else
being equal, the fat composition (not just total
intake) of your diet is very important to your
body composition. Saturated fats, while
necessary to a small extent, should only make
up a small part of your diet while other fats like
olive oil, fish oil, flax oil, MCTs, and CLA all
have a place on your plate. This way you can
get the same amount of daily energy from fats
while gaining lean mass and without gaining
body fat.
Choosing Your Food Wisely
24
So, with all the research out of the way, I hope
that I've made a good argument for the fact
that while total energy intake is important to
energy balance, smart macronutrient choices
go a very long way in shifting the energy
balance equation in your favor. But to drive the
point home, I'd like to give a living example of
this fact.
One of my clients told me that he was a big fan
of my work and my nutritional advice.
However, he was convinced that his body
simply couldn't get lean. The problem was that
this gentleman got fat by using the calorie
counting method. In fact, he used my very own
Don't Diet method (the nerve of him!). He
exercised regularly, training with weights 4x
per week and doing daily cardio (mixing up
interval exercise with endurance type
exercise). In addition, he always ate about 500
calories below what his maintenance should
have been. Yet he got fat anyway and was
walking around at 25% body fat. He thought he
was destined to be chubby forever.
So, was it true? Was he really fat loss
resistant? Had my Don't Diet plan failed? I was
perplexed so I had him write down everything
he ate for a week. When sitting down with him
a week later, the answer to his dieting woes
was obvious. He was eating all the wrong
foods. His diet was full of the media promoted
fat free/super sugared/over
processed/synthetic/bleached supermarket
foods.
He believed that the foods he was choosing
were good for him, but in fact, he was eating a
diet designed for fat storage. When calculating
the numbers, it worked out to be about 2,300
kcal at 30% protein, 50% carbs, and 20% fat.
But the foods he used to make up these
numbers were atrocious. He was eating way
too much saturated fat, was drinking way too
many whey protein shakes with milk, and was
consuming too much sugar and processed,
high-GI carbohydrate. There was very little
natural fiber in his diet and he rarely ate
vegetables or fruit. No wonder he couldn't lose
weight!
Now, how on earth could he have believed that
his diet was good? Well, although this data is a
little old, I wanted to share it with you anyway
because it's very telling about the power of
marketing. In 1992 the National Cancer
Institute spent $400,000 on an ad campaign to
encourage the consumption of fruits and
vegetables. That same year Kelloggs spent 32
million advertising Frosted Flakes alone! No
wonder people don't know what foods are
good for them!
So, back to the client. Well, it turns out that he
had been down this road before. When he first
started gaining weight, he decided to go on a
diet program. He followed a ridiculous, muscle
wasting, low calorie diet full of sweeteners and
terrible tasting foods. And he lost some weight.
But the minute he went back to eating what he
thought was healthy and sensible (as
described above); he gained all the fat back
and then some!
So, now that I had him under my tutelage,
what was the solution?
First I taught him where the produce aisle is.
We gave him a list of the foods he could
choose from. In addition, I taught him to
combine his meals such that he was eating
lean protein, good fats, and lots of fruits and
veggies. We didn't count calories or pre-plan
meals; we just made sure he had enough
protein in the diet (200g). And guess what?
Months later, he's still dropping fat while
maintaining his lean mass. He's eating far
more calories than he ever had before and
enjoying meals more than he ever had before.
In addition, he has a better health profile
(blood chems) than before.
The bottom line is that diet isn't that hard.
When you feed the body wholesome foods, the
appetite regulates itself and you don't have to
monitor very much. However, by harnessing
the powers of good food selection and smart
calorie counting, weight loss comes easy!
Here are some basic rules for how to improve
your eating habits:
•
•
Get used to the taste of food without
dressings, sweeteners, etc. Ultimately
you'll grow to like the natural taste of foods
you once though tasted bland.
Try to eat more like a true vegetarian (i.e.
the bulk of the diet should come from
fruits, veggies, unprocessed and
unbleached food). But don't get me wrong;
I don't want you swearing off meat.
25
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"Supplement" your unprocessed
vegetarian-like diet with the high-protein
foods discussed above.
Add unheated healthy oils to your foods.
Drink only calorie-free beverages (green
tea, water, etc.).
Unfortunately the worst foods usually are
the most convenient and the most
processed foods. Avoid eating for
convenience alone.
Avoid any easy-to-prepare breakfast foods
(waffles, french toast, etc) as they're
loaded with fattening trans-fatty acids.
Avoid products containing the ingredients
or words "partially hydrogenated," "high
fructose corn syrup," etc.
Avoid fast/fried food.
Avoid foods or meals that are high in both
fat and carbohydrate.
In addition to these rules, here's the list of food
choices that I give to many of my clients.
These foods should make up about 80% of
your daily diet and, as indicated above, you
should be eating many of these foods each
day, not simply picking one or two selections to
eat all the time.
•
Fish oil
For active individuals, the other 20% of your
daily calories should come from the following
sources (in order to enhance your recovery
from intense exercise). The liquid meal should
come during and after exercise while the
second high-carb meal should come about 1-2
hours later.
Liquid meal (during exercise and immediately
post exercise):
•
•
Protein: Whey hydrosylates/Isolates
Carbohydrates: High-GI liquid, Glucose
(dextrose), Maltodextrin
Solid meal (2 hours post exercise):
•
•
Protein: Plain yogurt
Carbohydrate: High GI, solid-fiber cereal
In addition, here's the other list that I give to
my clients. These are foods to avoid at all
costs:
Proteins:
Protein:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fish: Salmon, Tuna, Cod
Eggs
Chicken breasts
Cottage cheese
Milk protein isolates
Whey-casein blends
Lean Red Meat
Carbohydrates:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vegetables
Mixed beans
Low-GI fruits
Oatmeal/Oat bran
Mixed-grain bread
Small amounts of protein-enriched pasta
•
•
•
•
•
Fatty meats
Fatty dairy
Most lunch meat
Large amounts of milk
Large amounts of soy
Carbohydrates:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regular bread
Added sugar
Most cereals
Soda
Fruit juice
Bagels
Fruit bars
Candy
Fats:
Fats:
•
•
•
•
Flax oil
EPA/DHA
Olive oil
Mixed nuts (no peanuts)
•
•
•
•
Margarine
Vegetable oil
Corn oil
Heated/fried oil
26
In conclusion, food selection is one of the more
important determinants of your body
composition. Using the rules above, you can
make your fat loss quest much easier than you
ever imagined!
27
CHAPTER 3 –
STRATEGIES FOR MUSCLE GAIN
3.1 Massive Eating Part 1
by John M Berardi
Pop Quiz, Hotshot
Pretend you're back in high school and mean
ol' Mr. Berardi has just passed out a pop quiz.
Luckily, there's only one question:
Which of the following statements is true?
A) Most people succeed in
training well enough to grow,
but they fail in eating well
enough to grow.
B) Most people eat well
enough to grow, but they don't
train well enough to grow.
Pencils down. Okay, which is it? If you said
"A," give yourself a gold star. But don't feel too
badly if you chose "B." To an extent, both
answers are correct. Most people probably
train and eat incorrectly! But if I had to pick one
answer that was more true than the other, I'd
say "A" would be the best choice. If you're not
growing, it's probably your diet, not your
training, that's holding you back.
With this article I'm throwing down the gauntlet.
This is your wake up call if you've ever made
any of the following statements:
"I eat a lot of food. In fact, it
feels like I'm eating all day!
But I just can't get any bigger."
"I can't gain a pound of
muscle. My parents are both
skinny, so it must be genetic."
"I've always had a fast
metabolism. That's why I can
stay lean but can't get any
bigger."
"I'm scared to go on a bulking
diet because I don't want to
lose my abs."
"I've tried mass-building diets
before and put on a little
muscle, but most of the weight
I gained was fat."
Sound familiar? Then this article is for you,
toothpick legs.
What You're Doing Wrong
Now you may be asking, "If I'm not eating well
enough to grow, Mr. Smartypants, what am I
doing wrong?" In my opinion, there are three
major things that most people do incorrectly
when trying to gain muscle mass:
1) They don't understand
energy balance (calories in vs.
calories out).
2) They don't eat the right
foods at the right times (poor
meal combinations).
3) They don't learn their
physiological responses to
nutrients (insulin sensitivity,
carb, and fat tolerance).
Below (and in Part II) I'll describe practical
ways to fine tune all three. By the end of this
series, you should know how much food you
need to grow, what combinations of foods you
should eat and when you should eat them, and
how to figure out your own personal,
individualized macronutrient needs.
Energy Balance: You might be surprised!
So what is energy balance? Here's the simple
equation:
Energy Balance = Energy
Intake - Energy Expenditure
Energy intake is made up of what you eat and
drink. Energy expenditure is made up of
several factors including resting metabolic rate
(RMR), calorie cost of activity, thermic effect of
food (TEF), and adaptive thermogenesis (the X
factor). The balance of intake and expenditure
is an important factor in weight gain or loss. If
you have a positive energy balance (intake
exceeds expenditure), you gain weight. A
negative energy balance (intake is less than
28
expenditure) dictates that you'll lose weight.
Simple enough.
Remember, however, that energy balance is
only one factor in getting massive (or getting
lean for that matter). And although it's the most
basic and simplest part of understanding your
needs for growth, ironically, most people totally
screw it up! So let me be your metabolic guide.
Below I'll provide some practical ways to
navigate through the harsh jungle of energy
balance equations so that you'll emerge ready
to tackle the challenge of muscle growth. Pick
up your pencils again, class. Better yet, grab a
calculator!
Step #1: Resting Metabolic Rate
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) is the energy it
costs the body to basically keep alive. This
doesn't include the costs of getting your butt
out of bed and moving around; those numbers
are calculated in later. Although you might not
guess it, about 50 to 70 percent of your entire
day's calorie expenditure is a result of the
RMR. So, let's figure out your RMR right now.
Determining RMR:
To start off with, you need to take your body
weight in pounds and convert it to kilograms.
(International readers, please bear with us silly
non-metric Americans for a moment.) This is a
simple conversion. Just divide your body
weight by 2.2.
Next you take your percent of fat and multiply it
by your body weight (which is now in
kilograms). This will give you your fat mass
(FM) in kilograms. Next simply subtract this
number from your total weight in kilograms and
you'll have your fat free mass (FFM) in
kilograms.
Before we go on, why don't we try this out on
me. Since I'm an athlete with a body weight of
200lbs at 5% body fat, I'd take my total body
mass and divide it by 2.2:
Total body mass in kilograms
= 200lbs / 2.2 = 91 kg
Next I'd multiply this kilogram number (91 kg)
by my percent of body fat. Remember,
percents are really decimals so 5% equals
0.05, 12% bodyfat will be .12 etc.
Fat Mass = 91kg x 0.05 =
4.55kg FM
Next I subtract this fat mass number (4.55 kg)
from my total body mass (91kg):
Fat Free Mass = 91kg - 4.55kg
= 86.45kg
Therefore my fat free mass is 86.45 kilograms.
From that I can determine my RMR. The
formula for RMR is as follows:
Resting Metabolic Rate for
Athletes (in calories per day) =
500 + 22 x fat free mass (in
kilograms).
Again, for me, I'd multiply 22 times my fat free
mass and add 500 to that number as shown
below:
RMR= 22 x 86.45 + 500 =
2402
Therefore my resting metabolic rate is about
2400 calories per day. Everyone have their
RMR figured out? Good, let's move on.
Step #2: Cost of Activity
The Cost of Activity represents how many
calories are required to move your butt around
during the day. This includes the cost of
walking out to your car, scraping the ice off the
damn thing, driving to work, pinching the
secretary's ass, going to lunch with the boys,
and of course, training after work. These
factors make up about 20 to 40% of your daily
caloric intake based on your activity level. So
let's figure out your costs of activity. I'll use
myself as an example again.
Determining Activity Costs:
Cost of Daily Activity is equal to the RMR you
calculated above multiplied by an activity factor
that fits your daily routine. I've listed some
common activity factors below.
29
Activity Factors:
1.2-1.3 for Very Light (bed
rest)
1.5-1.6 for Light (office
work/watching TV)
1.6-1.7 for Moderate (some
activity during day)
1.9-2.1 for Heavy (labor type
work)
Note: Don't consider your daily workout when
choosing a number. We'll do that later.
With this information we can get back to
determining my calorie needs. Since I work at
a university, most of my day is pretty
sedentary. Even though I run back and forth
between the lab and classes, I've selected 1.6
as my activity factor. Therefore the amount of
calories it takes to breathe and move around
during the day is about 3800 calories as shown
below:
RMR x Activity Factor = 2400
calories x 1.6 = 3800 calories
Costs of Exercise Activity:
Next, we need to determine how many calories
your exercise activity burns so that we can
factor this into the totals. Exercise activity can
be calculated simply by multiplying your total
body mass in kilograms (as calculated above)
by the duration of your exercise (in hours).
Then you'd multiply that number by the MET
value of exercise as listed below. (MET or
metabolic equivalent, is simply a way of
expressing the rate of energy expenditure from
a given physical activity.)
MET values for common activities:
high impact aerobics... 7
low impact aerobics... 5
high intensity cycling... 12
low intensity cycling... 3
high intensity walking - 6.5
low intensity walking - 2.5
high intensity running... 18
low intensity running... 7
circuit-type training... 8
intense free weight lifting... 6
moderate machine training... 3
So here's the formula:
Cost of Exercise Activity =
Body Mass (in kg) x Duration
(in hours) x MET value
And here's how I calculate it for myself:
Exercise Expenditure for
weights = 6 METS X 91kg x
1.5 hours = 819 calories
Exercise Expenditure for
cardio = 3 METS X 91 kg x .5
hours = 137 calories
Add these two together and I burn 956 total
calories during one of my training sessions.
Since my training includes about 90 minutes of
intense free weight training and 30 minutes of
low intensity bicycling (four times per week),
my exercise energy expenditure might be as
high as 1000 calories per training day!
The next step is to add this exercise number to
the number you generated when multiplying
your RMR by your activity factor (3800 calories
per day in my case).
So 3800 calories + about 1000 calories = a
whopping 4800 calories per day! And we're not
done yet! (Note: I rounded 956 up to 1000 for
the sake of simplicity. If you're a thin guy trying
to gain muscle, it's better to round up anyway
than to round down.)
Step #3: Thermic Effect of Food
TEF is the amount of calories that it takes your
body to digest, absorb, and metabolize your
ingested food intake. This makes up about 5 to
15% of your total daily calorie expenditure.
Since the metabolic rate is elevated via this
mechanism 10 to 15% for one to four hours
after a meal, the more meals you eat per day,
the faster your metabolic rate will be. This is a
good thing, though. It's far better to keep the
metabolism high and eat above that level, than
to allow the metabolism to slow down by eating
infrequently. Protein tends to increase TEF to
a rate double that of carbs and almost triple
30
that of fats so that's one of the reasons why I'm
a big fan of protein meals.
weather induces increased metabolic activity
and heat production).
Determining the Thermic Effect of Food:
With all that said, you don't need to do any
math on this part or fiddle with your calorie
total. This is just something to keep in mind.
To determine the TEF, you need to multiply
your original RMR value (2400 in my case) by
0.10 for a moderate protein diet or 0.15 for a
high protein diet. So this is what the formula
looks like:
TEF = RMR x 0.10 for
moderate protein diet (1 gram
per pound of bodyweight)
TEF = RMR x 0.15 for high
protein diet (more than 1 gram
per pound of bodyweight)
Since I eat a very high protein diet (about 350
to 400 grams per day), I use the 0.15 factor
and my TEF is about 360 calories per day as
displayed by the calculation below:
Thermic Effect of Food = 2400
calories x 0.15 = 360 calories
per day
Now add that to your calorie total.
Step #4: Adaptive Thermogenesis
I like to call Adaptive Thermogenesis the "X
factor" because we just aren't sure how much
it can contribute to daily caloric needs. Some
have predicted that it can either increase daily
needs by 10% or even decrease daily needs
by 10%. Because it's still a mystery, we
typically don't factor it into the equation.
Just for interest's sake, one factor included in
the "X factor" is unconscious or spontaneous
activity. Some people, when overfed, get hyper
and increase their spontaneous activity and
even have been known to be "fidgety." Others
just get sleepy when overfed - obviously the
fidgeters will be burning more calories that the
sleepy ones.
Other factors include hormone responses to
feeding, training, and drugs, hormone
sensitivity (insulin, thyroid, etc), stress
(dramatically increases metabolic rate) or
temperature induced metabolic changes (cold
Step #5: Putting it all together
Okay, so how many damn calories do you
need to consume each and every day? Well,
adding up RMR plus activity factor (3800
calories in my case), cost of weight training
(819 calories), cost of cardio (137 calories),
and TEF (360 calories), we get a grand total of
about 5116 calories! (Remember, that's just
my total. You'll get a different number.)
Now that's a lot of food! And I must eat this
each and every day when I want to gain
weight. Are you surprised at how many
calories I need? Most people are. So the next
time you complain that you're "eating all day
and can't gain a pound" you'd better
realistically evaluate how much you're really
eating. If you're not gaining a pound, then
you're falling short on calories.
The Secret is in the Surplus!
So at this point, the keen T-mag readers that
aren't afraid of massive eating might ask the
question, "Since this is technically just your
maintenance level, how can you get bigger by
eating this amount? Wouldn't you need more?"
The answer is simple. Since I train only four
days per week this diet would meet my needs
on those four days. But on my three off days
per week I'd be in positive calorie balance by
about 1,000 calories per day! (That extra
thousand calories isn't being used when
training, in other words.) This adds up to a
surplus of 3,000 calories per week. And this is
where the growth happens!
I especially like this "staggered model"
because rather than trying to stagger your
calorie intake on a daily basis by eating
different amounts of food on different days, I
let my training cycle my calories for me. This
way I can eat the same thing every day while
preventing my body from adapting to that
habitual level of intake. Just like we vary our
training to prevent adaptation, prevention of
31
dietary adaptation is one of the secrets to
changing your body composition.
At this point, I want to stop and give you a
week to think about your energy needs. Go do
the math if you haven't already, figure out how
many calories you need, and take some time
to compose yourself. After you've realized that
you've been grossly under-eating, start
thinking about ways to add calories to your
diet. In the next installment we'll discuss how
to design an eating program that's
individualized for your own needs. We'll also
get down to the nitty-gritty and talk about what
kinds of foods you should and shouldn't be
eating. I'll meet you back here next week!
if you always have high levels of blood fats and
carbs in the presence of insulin (the kind your
body makes, not the kind that comes in a
syringe), your muscles will slow their uptake of
nutrients and all that fat and carbs will feed the
fat cells. Can you say Shamu?
3.1 Massive Eating Part 2
by John M Berardi
Before you make a rash decision and try to
eliminate insulin, I've got to let you know that
insulin is very anabolic. It's responsible for carb
and amino acid delivery to the muscles for
recovery and growth. So you need insulin, but
you need to control it. And when you eat to
promote insulin surges, you've got to be sure
that you have the ideal profile of
macronutrients in your blood to ensure that this
insulin surge leads to muscle gain and not fat
gain. This is where meal combinations come
into play.
Now that I know how much to eat, what's
next?
Let's start with some meal combinations to
avoid.
Eating to get massive is a juggling act between
three important concepts. As I stated in Part I,
energy balance is only one. In focusing only on
energy balance, individuals are ignoring the
acute effects of eating on hormones,
metabolism, and energy storage. So someone
who argues that calorie balance is the only
determinant in changing body composition is
making the situation too simplistic.
Avoid meals containing fats and carbs
One of the goals of eating to grow should be to
maximize the muscle gain to fat gain ratio.
Basically you want to pack on the most muscle
with the least amount of fat gain. To do this
you need to understand which meal combos to
pursue and which to avoid. The foundations of
my recommendations in this area are based on
the avoidance of a nasty scenario. The worst
case scenario for someone trying to pack on
muscle while minimizing fat gain is to have
high blood levels of carbs, fat, and insulin at
the same time.
This is nasty because chronic elevation of
insulin can increase the rate of transport of fats
and carbs into fat cells. Although initially insulin
shuttles nutrients into muscle cells, chronic
insulin elevation will cause the muscles to
become insulin resistant and refuse to take up
nutrients. The adipose tissues, however, are
greedy little pieces of cellular machinery and
continue to take up nutrients at a rapid rate. So
Unfortunately, this is the typical meal of the
Western diet. As a result, it's no wonder that
obesity is an epidemic. Meals with a high
carbohydrate content in combination with highfat meals can actually promote a synergistic
insulin release when compared to the two
alone. High fat with high-carb meals represent
the worst possible case scenario.
Now, some people have argued that fat lowers
the glycemic index of foods and should
therefore be included in carb meals. But
remember, the glycemic index only gives a
measure of glucose response to a meal, not
insulin response. And sometimes the glucose
responses to a meal and the insulin responses
to a meal aren't well correlated. So although
you might be slowing the rate of glucose
absorption into the blood by adding fat to your
meals, you'll promote high blood levels of fats,
carbs, and insulin. And that's a no-no!
Avoid meals high in carbs alone
Ironically, since the liver converts excess
carbohydrates into fats, a very high
carbohydrate meal can actually lead to a blood
profile that looks like you just ate a high carb
and high-fat meal! That's why high-carb diets
32
don't work any better than ones rich in fats and
carbs. High carb meals easily promote high
blood levels of fats, carbs, and insulin, too.
Okay, so now that we know which meal
combinations are evil. Let's be proactive and
talk about what meal combinations to
concentrate on.
Eat meals containing protein and carbs
(with minimal fat)
It's well known in the research world that
eating carbs and protein together also creates
a synergistic insulin release (much like the fat
and carb meals above). But in this scenario,
that insulin release is just what we want. By
having a few meals per day that cause high
blood levels of insulin, carbs, and amino acids
(as long you don't have chronic high blood
levels of insulin all day long), the body tends to
become very anabolic, taking up all those
carbs and amino acids into the muscle cells for
protein and glycogen synthesis. And since
there's no excess fat for the fat cells, fat gain is
minimized.
Obviously this combination is beneficial during
the post-workout period, but in addition you
might want one or two additional insulin spikes
per day to promote anabolism during a mass
phase. Again, as long as you aren't elevating
insulin all day long, you won't become insulin
resistant.
At this point some may argue that although this
scenario might not promote fat gain, those high
insulin levels will prevent fat breakdown
(lipolysis). And they're completely correct! But
you have to understand that most meals
(unless they contain only certain types of
protein) will elevate insulin levels to the point
that lipolysis is prevented. So you can't escape
that unless you eat a ketogenic diet with only
specific types of low insulin releasing proteins.
But since ketogenic diets don't put on muscle
mass and there are all sorts of problems
associated with them, I think they should be
avoided. Since muscle gain is the goal, two or
three meals per day of anabolism are
necessary to get bigger and that means
protein plus carbs with minimal to no fat.
Eat meals containing protein and fat (with
minimal carbs)
Although it's desirable to eat some meals each
day that release lots of insulin, upregulate
protein synthesis, and fill up carb stores, it's
advisable to avoid too many such meals. I
discussed the reasons for this above (reduced
insulin sensitivity and prevention of fat
burning), but also, since we all know that
essential fatty acids are so important to health
and favorable body composition, eating protein
and carb meals all day will prevent the
ingestion of healthy fats. And that's no good.
In an attempt to balance out your two or three
carb plus protein (minimal fat) meals each day,
you should be eating an additional two to three
meals consisting of protein and fat with
minimal carbs. Taking in 30% of each major
class of fatty acids (polyunsaturates,
monounsaturates, saturates) is a good mass
building tip when thinking about which fats to
consume.
Taking a step back, the purpose of protein plus
fat meals is to provide energy and amino acids
without causing large, lipolysis-preventing
insulin spikes. In addition, after fatty meals that
contain no carbs, the body oxidizes less carbs
(more carbs are stored and retained in the
muscle as glycogen) and burns more fat for
energy. So basically you'll be burning fat for
energy and storing carbs in the muscle after
such meals.
I hope that it's clear now that by properly
combining meals, you can use the acute
effects of food to your advantage. Eat protein
plus fat during some meals and you may be
burning fat during certain portions of the day.
Eat protein plus carbs for some meals and you
may be growing during other portions of the
day. Although I know some will think this is
blasphemy, this type of eating may actually
help you get bigger while reducing your body
fat during the same training phase.
Real Meals
Don't you hate it when you read a diet article
only to find yourself asking, "So what exactly
do I eat anyway?" Well, here are some
examples of typical meals to consume when
following this program:
Protein plus carb meals (minimal fat - <5g)
33
2 scoops of protein powder
mixed in with 1 serving of
oatmeal
1 sliced banana
1 cup of regular or lactose free
skim milk
1 serving Grow!
1 can tuna fish
1 cup of regular or lactose free
skim milk
2 pieces of whole grain bread
Vegetables
8 egg whites
1 scoop of protein in 1 serving
of oatmeal
1 slice of whole grain bread
1 piece of fat free cheese
Vegetables
2 cups of regular or lactose
free skim milk
1 scoop protein
2 pieces of fruit
1 can tuna fish
1 scoop protein powder
Vegetables
1 tablespoon of concentrated
fish oils
2 scoops protein powder in
water
1 tablespoon flax oil
Here's a list of good fats and proteins for the
protein plus fat meals:
Fats: Concentrated fish oils
(PUFA-omega 3), flaxseed oil
(PUFA-omega 3 and 6), olive
oil (MUFA), canola oil (MUFA
and PUFA), fat from nuts
(MUFA and PUFA), fat from
beef and eggs, animal fat
(SFA)
Proteins: beef, salmon, whey,
casein, turkey, whole eggs,
pork
Individual Differences - Are You Sensitive?
Here's a list of good carbs and protein for the
protein plus carbohydrate meals:
Carbs: apples, oranges,
oatmeal, all bran cereals,
vegetables, mueslix, white
pasta, flax bread, yams
Protein: chicken, whey,
casein, turkey, egg whites,
skim milk, tuna, cottage
cheese
Protein plus fat meals (minimal carbs<10g)
1 can salmon
1 scoop protein powder in
water
Vegetables
1 tablespoon of concentrated
fish oils
8-12 oz lean beef
Fat free cheese
1 tablespoon of olive oil
Vegetables
In the last section I recommended splitting six
daily meals up into about three protein and
carb meals and about three protein and fat
meals. This plan works well for most people in
terms of maximizing muscle gain while
minimizing fat gain when overfeeding.
However, just like different training programs
are necessary for different individuals,
individual responses to nutrition are varied. So
rather than telling you that there's one program
for all, I hope to give you some tips so that you
can determine which eating plan is best for
you.
The factors governing your response to
different nutritional intakes are pretty diverse,
but one major factor I've been focusing on
lately is insulin and glucose tolerance. In my
mind, insulin sensitivity seems to be the most
important factor dictating how the body will
handle carbs. For those who have high insulin
sensitivity, the body responds to carb intake
with small insulin surges. Although the insulin
surges are small, the cells are very responsive
to that little amount of insulin and do a great
job of becoming anabolic. Since lots of insulin
34
can inhibit fat loss, the ideal scenario is to
become very insulin sensitive so that only
small amounts of insulin are required for
anabolism and so that those small amounts of
insulin don't prevent fat loss.
glucometer, some glucose test strips, and a
standard glucose beverage (ask your
pharmacist about this because it has to be a
specific kind. Pepsi won't work). Once you've
got the goods, you'll plan your test.
In my experience, individuals who have high
insulin sensitivity maximize their muscle to fat
ratio on diets that are high in carbs and lower
in fat (50% carbs, 35% protein, 15% fat).
Those with moderate insulin sensitivity tend to
do best on diets that are more isocaloric (30%
carbs, 40% protein, 30% fat). And those with
poor insulin sensitivity do best on diets that are
low in carbs (50% protein, 35% fat, 15%
carbs).
After going at least 24 hours without exercise
(do this test after a day off from training), you'll
wake up in the morning (fasted at least 12
hours) and you'll take a blood sample from
your finger tip. Write down this number. Then
drink your glucose beverage and continue to
take blood samples at 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120
minutes. Record all the numbers at each time
point. Here's a little chart of what you should
expect:
So within the framework of this article, if you're
highly insulin sensitive, more than three of your
daily meals would be carb plus protein meals.
If your insulin sensitivity isn't so great, more
than three of your meals will be protein plus
fat.
Normal Insulin Excellent Insulin
Sensitivity and Sensitivity and
Glucose
Glucose
Tolerance
Tolerance
Insulin Sensitivity - I Want Your Blood
So the next question is how do you know if
you're sensitive or not? Did you cry at the end
of Titanic when Leonardo DiCaprio's character
sank like a blue Freezer Pop into the North
Atlantic? Well, there you go; you're sensitive.
Me? I cried like a baby. Okay, okay, actually
there are several methods.
The easiest thing to do is just think about what
types of diets you respond to best. If low carb
diets work great for you, then you're probably
insulin insensitive. If you can eat a lot of carbs
and not get fat then you're probably insulin
sensitive. If you'd like something more
concrete than that, read on.
Some experts use very simplistic
recommendations for testing insulin sensitivity,
methods I disagree with. For example, I've
heard the statement that if you have an appleshaped physique or if you get sleepy after a
carb meal then you're insulin resistant
(insensitive). In my opinion, these are way too
non-specific and tell you very little about your
nutrient needs or if you're making progress.
Instead, I prefer methods that, although more
time consuming, are objective. The first is an
oral glucose tolerance test. For this you need
to go to your local pharmacy and purchase a
Fasted Blood
<100mg/dl
<70mg/dl
Glucose
Peak Blood
<180mg/dl at
<130mg/dl
Glucose
peak
Time to
Maximum
Blood
30-60 minutes 15-30 minutes
Glucose
Level
Time Back to
Fasted
30-60 minutes 60-90 minutes
Glucose
Level
The second test that I like to recommend for
assessing insulin sensitivity is a fasted glucose
and insulin test. For this you need to see your
doctor. This test is simply a blood draw in the
fasted state. It's easy to do. Just schedule an
appointment, the nurse will do a single blood
draw, and then the lab will measure the levels
of insulin and glucose in your blood at this
time. Using one of the following equations,
you'll have both an insulin sensitivity score and
a pancreatic responsiveness score:
Insulin Sensitivity =
Fasted Insulin (mU/L) / 22.5 x
e ^ -ln(Fasted Glucose
(mmol/L))
OR
35
Fasted Insulin (pmol/L) x
(Fasted Glucose (mmol/L) /
135)
Pancreatic Beta Cell Function =
(20 x Fasted Insulin (mU/L)) /
(Fasted Glucose (mmol/L)-3.5)
OR
(3.33 x Fasted Insulin (pmol/L)
/ (Fasted Glucose (mmol/L)3.5)
If you're not a math whiz or don't own a
calculator, have your doctor do the math for
you. Remember, you have to go to his office to
get the test done in the first place. Once you
have these values, compare your numbers to
the following to see how sensitive you are:
Insulin Sensitivity
Lower score = more sensitive
Normal insulin sensitivity:
score should be below 2
Excellent insulin sensitivity:
score will be around 0.5
Pancreatic Beta Cell Function
Higher = better pancreatic
function and insulin release
Normal pancreatic function:
score should be about 100
Excellent pancreatic function:
score will be above 200
Once you've collected these measures, you'll
have a better indication of what type of diet
you need to consume. I recommend doing
these tests at least once every few months to
see how your diet and training is impacting
your insulin sensitivity.
Let's Get Sensitive!
So let's assume that you've done the tests
mentioned above and you weren't happy with
the results. You're insulin insensitive and,
dammit, you don't like it! Well, instead of
resigning yourself to a flabby midsection for
the remainder of your days there are some
things you can do to increase insulin
sensitivity.
Both aerobic and resistance training greatly
increase insulin sensitivity through a variety of
mechanisms. So include both in your program.
I've seen tremendous increases in insulin
sensitivity with three to four intense weight
training sessions per week lasting 1 to 1.5
hours per session. These sessions should be
coupled with at least three or four aerobic
sessions lasting 30 minutes per session. To
really target insulin sensitivity, you'd want to
perform weight training and cardio separately.
In addition, supplements like omega 3 fatty
acids, fish oils, alpha-lipoic acid, and chromium
can increase insulin sensitivity. I typically
recommend starting out with 600 mg of alphalipoic acid (ALA) and concentrated fish oils
containing a total of six to ten grams of DHA
and EPA (the most active omega 3 fats in fish
oils).
On the flip side, stimulants like ephedrine and
caffeine can decrease insulin sensitivity due to
their effects on metabolism. Furthermore, the
low carb, high-fat diets that have become
popular can also lead to decreased insulin
sensitivity. That's why my trainees don't take
stimulants or go on no-carb diets (unless
they're dieting down for a show and then they'll
do occasional no-carb diets every few months
for a maximum of three weeks at a time).
So if your insulin sensitivity isn't ideal the first
time you measure it, try the approaches I listed
above. Then go back after a month or two and
re-test. You'll see that the numbers look much
better.
Individual Differences - Experimentation
Even though the last section will help you
better define where you stand with the insulin
issue, probably the most productive way of
determining which eating program is best for
you is to experiment on yourself. So for eight
weeks, I encourage you to follow a 50% carb,
25% protein, and 15% fat diet that exceeds
your energy needs (as determined in Part I of
this article). During this time, record your gains
in terms of muscle mass and fat mass. This
will give you a muscle:fat ratio.
36
Then go back to your normal eating for eight
weeks. After those eight weeks, try a new diet
of 30% carbs, 40% protein, and 30% fat for
eight more weeks. Again record the muscle:fat
ratio.
After these 24 weeks you should know which
type of diet is more effective for your body
type. I know it seems like quite a bit of time to
devote to figuring out your eating needs, but
assuming that you've been training for years or
plan to be training for years to come, 24 weeks
is only a small period of time. In addition, the
results of your efforts will be applicable for the
rest of your life.
something about it by following
my suggestions above.
Remember, if you aren't putting on muscle
while following a good weight training program,
then it's probably your diet that's to blame.
With Massive Eating, your problem is solved,
so no more excuses! If you ever find yourself
making statements about your genetic
limitations or your unreasonably fast
metabolism, revisit these articles for a wake up
call. "Limitations" can become challenges to
work through or just weak excuses that keep
you down.
Now, shouldn't you go get something to eat?
Remember, however, that when constructing
your eating plan you must realize that just
because you're following a diet with 50%
carbs, 25% protein, and 15% fat or a diet 30%
carbs, 40% protein, and 30% fat, that doesn't
mean that each meal is made up of these
proportions. In fact, the meals should not all be
of these proportions because this will mean
undesirable blood levels of fat, carbs, and
insulin. So using the techniques I taught you
during the meal combination section, design a
plan that has different proportions of
macronutrients during different meal times but
that achieves the optimal proportions of (4030-30 or 50-25-15) by the end of the day.
Summary
Here's a quick and dirty summary of the
Massive Eating plan:
1) Read Part I and determine
your daily caloric needs.
2) Eat meals consisting of fat
and protein together with very
little carbs. Also eat protein
and carbs together, but with
very little fat in those meals.
Don't eat carbs by themselves
and don't eat carbs with fat.
3) Determine your
macronutrient ratios based on
your level of insulin sensitivity.
You can do this with the tests I
explained or you can just try
different diets consisting of
different rations of protein,
carbs and fat. If you're insulin
insensitive you can do
37