A recent conversation with a friend inspired me to write this short article that will hopefully convince you that for the majority of the population, weight loss comes down to a reduction in calories. Period. As I was sitting there listening to a list of 'rules' her nutritionist gave her to follow I couldn't help but attempt to debunk some of the blasphemy I was hearing.
A lot of older nutritionists these days give out advice that came out of the 70's; their time period. It was the beginning of the whole 'fat makes you fat' era that unfortunately lots of people still fall for today. Lots of studies have shown that the main factor responsible for weight loss is simply consuming less calories than you're burning. The most ridiculous thing she told me her nutritionist told her to do was to not eat after 8pm. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Your body doesn't have a little clock inside it which waits for 8:01pm after which it shoves excess calories into fat cells.
Your body requires x number of calories a day to simply survive. That number is on average 2000. If you consume 1500 calories a day you'll be in a deficit of 500 calories. A pound of fat is 3500 calories, so if for seven days you eat 500 less calories a day, by the end of the week you'll be at a total deficit of 3500 calories which is roughly a pound of fat lost. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the basis of weight loss 99.99% of the time.
Low-carb and low-fat are not something to lose sleep over. Per gram, fat is higher than protein and carbs in calories, so if you eat less fat you're essentially eating less calories which is why people go on crazy low fat diets, ignoring the tons of health benefits that fats offer.
People choose to ignore the real science behind it and instead rather listen to someone who's taking their money to offer them outdated advice that won't get them anywhere. If these 'diets' work, great, but in the end there were easier ways to get there. If you're out with friends for dinner and it's 8:15 (gasp), don't restrict yourself from eating. Know how many calories you're consuming each day and even if it's 10 or 11pm and you still haven't hit your target calorie goal, go ahead and eat and get to that number.
Oh, after my half hour speech I figured I had convinced her that timing doesn't matter. We had to cut the conversation short to go have dinner because it was 7:40 and it would take more than 20 minutes to get to the restaurant and order.
If you're interested here's a quick study to read:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WN4-4C4FMW6-JJ&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1964&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1622928281&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=04b83c48025420a3c2ee6ff2253f742f&searchtype=a
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Weight Loss in the New Year
I wanted to write a little blurb about what is probably the most popular new year's resolution.. losing weight. Needless to say that every year around this time people's biggest goal is to lose weight in the new year. If they need to lose weight then that's great; I definitely encourage people to have a goal and stick to it, but where people fall short is in sticking to their goals.
I read somewhere once, not in these exact words, that it's not the goal we enjoy or want, but the 'getting there'. All throughout December and earlier, people are already planning their weight loss for the new year and getting all excited and then when the new year comes around their motivation to reach their goal drops with each passing month. You can probably graph gym attendance throughout a year and it wouldn't surprise me to see it peak in January then drop.
One mistake people make is seeing their goal, take weight loss as an easy and common example, as a short-term thing that they'll be 'done' with once the weight has dropped. That's a perfect recipe for failure. Not only that but motivation to reach and stick with your goals is a whole other topic. It's better to see the start of the year as a change in your HABITS, not a temporary change that will help you lose some weight. Make a plan to change your eating habits, change the time you wake up everyday to have time to make more food from home, schedule some time for the gym, but most importantly stick to your plan whatever it is.
If you start to see your goal as something that you will have completed when you reach your target weight, I can guarantee you there will be a rebound effect. Always allow yourself to eat what you like in moderation. People make the mistake of taking things to the extreme, especially with these New Year's weight loss goals. Something like "starting today I'll never eat chocolate again", or "instead of working out for one hour I'm going to work out for seven" are very unrealistic expectations. The weight will always drop off quickly at the beginning and then slow down, and this is where people lose their drive. Weight loss and muscle gain follow a similar pattern, the beginning is always the easiest and then they plateau. Don't forget that a smaller body requires less calories to fuel, so once you've dropped a decent amount of weight and you still feel like you want to drop a little more, look over your diet again because if you track calories you might realize that you're eating the same amount that you did before you lost the weight.
I read somewhere once, not in these exact words, that it's not the goal we enjoy or want, but the 'getting there'. All throughout December and earlier, people are already planning their weight loss for the new year and getting all excited and then when the new year comes around their motivation to reach their goal drops with each passing month. You can probably graph gym attendance throughout a year and it wouldn't surprise me to see it peak in January then drop.
One mistake people make is seeing their goal, take weight loss as an easy and common example, as a short-term thing that they'll be 'done' with once the weight has dropped. That's a perfect recipe for failure. Not only that but motivation to reach and stick with your goals is a whole other topic. It's better to see the start of the year as a change in your HABITS, not a temporary change that will help you lose some weight. Make a plan to change your eating habits, change the time you wake up everyday to have time to make more food from home, schedule some time for the gym, but most importantly stick to your plan whatever it is.
If you start to see your goal as something that you will have completed when you reach your target weight, I can guarantee you there will be a rebound effect. Always allow yourself to eat what you like in moderation. People make the mistake of taking things to the extreme, especially with these New Year's weight loss goals. Something like "starting today I'll never eat chocolate again", or "instead of working out for one hour I'm going to work out for seven" are very unrealistic expectations. The weight will always drop off quickly at the beginning and then slow down, and this is where people lose their drive. Weight loss and muscle gain follow a similar pattern, the beginning is always the easiest and then they plateau. Don't forget that a smaller body requires less calories to fuel, so once you've dropped a decent amount of weight and you still feel like you want to drop a little more, look over your diet again because if you track calories you might realize that you're eating the same amount that you did before you lost the weight.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Why I Don't Like Commercial Gyms, And The Lonely Squat Rack
.jpg)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwLN8ZweaI_rHyLMrwzCe8NGK7OS8B_Wn5OVlelze7ceo8sHyMijF8CpPZUmhiaXrIsya_Cwmns4cQN55Buwetefcr-qgmPazPrtnmjwY-gPsXLJRSQ9auJdBdIP5aY6dcdN9GRFJPDJ0H/s1600/6a00e551f88ac088330120a53949eb970c-800wi(2).jpg
So I had to sign up at a new gym the other day and sad to say, it was one of those hair gelled guys-hoe bag girls-spend half the time on your cell phone-upper body only workout kind of gyms. I know I'm speaking for pretty much 99% of the gyms out there but from the moment I walk in I want to keep my head down, earphones in and get my workout done and leave. I'll be talking about Mr. Hair Gel in this post quite a bit in reference to your typical gym rat.
Why don't I like commercial gyms? I don't like the fancy colours, personal trainers 'training' their clients while just actually wasting their time and money, smoothie bars, the majority of people's time spent socializing between reps, TVs all over the place, fitness assessment crap that doesn't actually measure anything, to name a few. As they come to me I'll be sure to name some more.
I haven't been to these 'normal' gyms in a long time, at least 6 months, since the last half a year has been spent in my school's high performance room focusing on strength training. I've made a shift from the aesthetic look of fitness to general strength training. I'm happy to say they have a couple of olympic bars at this gym, but I'm appalled to say that there's only one squat rack.
I like that people feel that when they belong to a gym they belong to a community of people who share their interest in fitness, but when it becomes another meeting place to socialize and talk on your phone while resting, then they're just getting in the way of people who actually are there to work out. I wasn't surprised to see the majority of guys in the gym working only on their upper body while neglecting the things they use to walk everyday, which brings me back to the lonely squat rack. Why people neglect this piece of machinery is beyond me. All you really need is a bar and two hooks, no need for the entire rack. Yet it's been known to be the king of exercises for ages. Squats work your entire body from head to toe, if you squat you're working your quads, core, hips, back, and that's where real strength comes from. Those guys pushing 12 plates on the leg press aren't doing their quads justice. The squat is built around the hip drive which forces your hips to drive your body up after lowering the weight. Mark Rippetoe wrote a book called Starting Strength where he gave a diagrammatic illustration of where strength comes from. Imagine a person standing up and a bull's eye drawn from their 'core' going out in all directions. The centre, around the hips, is the origin of strength, and as the circle moves out to the extremities you see a drop in strength. Guys with big arms from doing 12,000 curls a day can curl a lot, but ask them to do 10 pull ups and they probably wouldn't be able to do 5. The guy who trains pull ups can do more curls than Mr.Hair Gel (I'm not mad at hair gel users cos I'm going bald).
It's funny to see guys with huge upper bodies walking around on tooth picks thinking they own the gym, and everything else. In a match of brute strength, these guys would fall down like a stack of bricks. Muscle size/quantity doesn't equal strength; there were guys training Olympic weightlifting in my old gym that are half my size and could pull two to three hundred pounds off the floor into the air over their head under control, something I can only dream to do. Ask Mr. Hair Gel to do that. They wouldn't look like they go to the gym if you saw them walking around. It seems like most personal 'trainers', if not all of them are only taught to train their clients with machines that make things easy and don't actually require you to do any work. All muscles are trained to work alone, not in synchrony, so when you push, your triceps haven't learnt to work with your chest.
I don't care so much that these guys walk around thinking they're the sh*t, but what bothers me is the stereotype that people hold that muscle size is directly related to strength. I can guarantee you it's not.
Friday, November 19, 2010
The Most Ridiculous Things I've Seen In The Gym
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhArTliEfYKQvZ6mKRgnzSIabnYjCT0R3uY6-iLJEGZ9T2ItK1c4Z7jc9Oc8aULGuIAdQVaNYjKlQe4zAMMam5i1gUquV33xZ7UhEhAPdGk2OIDSkNYwN9s1iyKTV6dCtndwJEMmZdz0h0/s320/fail.jpg
So I thought this would be a fun little blurb rather than the usual mumbo jumbo I write where half the time I wonder if the things I say are even right.
I think it's time to make a list of the dumbest things I've seen go on in a gym.. in no particular order.
Prepare for atrocity.
1) One guy telling his friend 'form is key' then proceeding to demonstrate to fellow gym buddy the most abysmal way to perform a squat that I've ever seen.
2) Aformentioned fellow gym buddy is watching his friend exercise telling him 'good form'. Please. Why. How. Where did he even get the idea he was ready to give out advice after just being taught the wrong way to do something!
3) One guy in a Parasuco t-shirt with the sleeves rolled up and his bling hanging out (like anyone cares), hair gelled doing 18 variations of bicep curls, then going to the mirror in between sets to check on his lip ring.
4) Someone squatting in jeans. That made my brain hurt.
5) This guy was FULLY dancing in front of the mirror between sets. He has his iPod on and looked like he was right in the middle of a 'So You Think You Can Dance' audition. He had absolutely no shame. None. Actually this might have been the worst, I couldn't stop staring. I watched him complete an entire dance in disbelief.
6) Girls that have ramped up the treadmill to practically an 85 degree angle and are holding on for dear life while attempting to finish their 12 hour cardio session.
7) This one guy was working out in flip-flops. Let us pray for him.
8) Instead of gloves, one guy was using kitchen sponges to hold the weights.. you know, just incase he spontaneously had an urge to start cleaning afterwards. (Thanks to Robby for this one)
Feel free to add to this list of atrocities in the comments section.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Is a Calorie a Calorie?
This is a debate that's been going on for ages, and while I do believe a calorie is a calorie, I don't take someone's healthy weight level as an indicator of health. What I mean is that just because someone dropped weight down to what's considered healthy for their height, age, etc., the way they do it is ultimately what matters. I wouldn't advise someone to starve themselves to lose weight if it comes at the expense of their health.
Fad diets are extremely common these days. Almost every magazine you see will have some sort of claim on the front cover about some new way to lose 800 pounds in 5 minutes or something absurd like that. While these diets do tend to work for what they are in the end, they all play around the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention that they will more than likely cause a rebound in weight gain.
If they tell you that you can eat what you want and still lose weight, it's true, but only because you're eating them in smaller portions without realizing. Or if they tell you to have a small breakfast then pig out at dinner (and magically lose weight), it's because you're at a net caloric deficit by the end of the day since you didn't overdo it at breakfast (again, without realizing). That's just an example of the idea behind them all. The average consumer doesn't understand (or know) the energy equation, so to them these diets all seem revolutionary once they start to see the weight come off.
In this article a professor of nutrition went on a mainly Twinkie diet and lost 27 pounds. Bottom line, putting health aside he proved his point. From a calorie perspective, weight loss only requires that you be in a deficit of calories. This really only goes so far and eventually things like hormones, hunger, mood swings etc will start to kick in and can determine how far someone's willing to take their diet.
Here's the article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/professor-loses-27-lbs-on-twinkie-diet/article1791760/
I'm in no way qualified to make any sort of argument here, mostly becuase I just don't know enough, but I'll offer my input regardless. Basically what he did worked. A pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories, so if you do the math that means to lose 1 pound of body mass a week you should eat 500 less calories a day than your body requires. Real life is much more messy than that, but this gives you an idea of how to work with numbers if you count calories. It's not hard to cut out 500 calories a day from your diet if your goal is slow and steady weight loss. That's roughly 2 slices of bread or 2 cups of pasta or a few tablespoons of olive oil. Remember that fats carry 9 calories per gram (more than carbs or protein), but fats themselves have lots of health benefits, so if you're trying to cut calories then dropping fats slightly will help, but not at the expense of protein. I would replace processed carbs for fats and keep fruits, veggies and protein high.
Fad diets are extremely common these days. Almost every magazine you see will have some sort of claim on the front cover about some new way to lose 800 pounds in 5 minutes or something absurd like that. While these diets do tend to work for what they are in the end, they all play around the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention that they will more than likely cause a rebound in weight gain.
If they tell you that you can eat what you want and still lose weight, it's true, but only because you're eating them in smaller portions without realizing. Or if they tell you to have a small breakfast then pig out at dinner (and magically lose weight), it's because you're at a net caloric deficit by the end of the day since you didn't overdo it at breakfast (again, without realizing). That's just an example of the idea behind them all. The average consumer doesn't understand (or know) the energy equation, so to them these diets all seem revolutionary once they start to see the weight come off.
In this article a professor of nutrition went on a mainly Twinkie diet and lost 27 pounds. Bottom line, putting health aside he proved his point. From a calorie perspective, weight loss only requires that you be in a deficit of calories. This really only goes so far and eventually things like hormones, hunger, mood swings etc will start to kick in and can determine how far someone's willing to take their diet.
Here's the article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/professor-loses-27-lbs-on-twinkie-diet/article1791760/
I'm in no way qualified to make any sort of argument here, mostly becuase I just don't know enough, but I'll offer my input regardless. Basically what he did worked. A pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories, so if you do the math that means to lose 1 pound of body mass a week you should eat 500 less calories a day than your body requires. Real life is much more messy than that, but this gives you an idea of how to work with numbers if you count calories. It's not hard to cut out 500 calories a day from your diet if your goal is slow and steady weight loss. That's roughly 2 slices of bread or 2 cups of pasta or a few tablespoons of olive oil. Remember that fats carry 9 calories per gram (more than carbs or protein), but fats themselves have lots of health benefits, so if you're trying to cut calories then dropping fats slightly will help, but not at the expense of protein. I would replace processed carbs for fats and keep fruits, veggies and protein high.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Omega 3
http://emed.com.au/extras/2665/fish-oil-456.jpg
I've wanted to write about Omega 3 fatty acids for a long time, but I always get overwhelmed by the amount of information there is out there to the point where I don't know how to begin.
I came across this article in the news yesterday and thought it would be a good starting point for my blurb on Omega 3. The researchers in this study were looking at the effects of DHA (I'll explain later) on Alzheimer's disease. Long story short, they concluded that DHA, and Omega 3 for that matter, doesn't do anything to reverse Alzheimer's. REALLY?! (Someone has to come up with a sarcasm font).
Here's the article:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/02/alzheimer-fish-oil-dha-supplements.html
Whoever thought that Omega 3 does anything close to reversing such serious conditions?! I was shocked that this study even took place. Here's the full study:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/304/17/1903
This is why I hate mainstream media. They didn't test with fish or fish oil, and they go and conclude that a fatty acid found in fish oil doesn't reverse Alzheimer's. They used DHA-rich algae instead.
Here's what the participants were given:
The study drug was an algal-derived DHA (Martek Biosciences, Columbia, Maryland) administered as capsules, dosed as 1 g twice per day for a total daily dose of 2 g. Algal DHA contains approximately 45% to 55% of DHA by weight and does not contain eicosapentaenoic acid.
The sad thing is that people that buy into this study are now more inclined not to invest in Omega 3 supplements, or even eat more fish for that matter. Oh well, more for me! Noms noms.
So now that my rant is over, let me introduce you to some Omega 3 background and hopefully make you realize why you need to be supplementing with it. Omega 3s are polyunstaurated fatty acids, basically giving reference to the number of hydrogen bonds on the carbon chain. Unlike margarine and lard which are saturated fatty acids and solid at room temperature, polyunsaturated ones are liquid, which is why Omega 3 supps are either capsulated or in liquid form. There's a lot of research that shows that our modern diet has shifted from a Omega6:Omega3 ratio of approx 1:1, to 10:1 - 20-25:1. That's an insane increase towards a more Omega 6 rich diet which is associated with many of the most common sicknesses. Man evolved and their genetic patterns are much closer to a diet that reflects a 1:1 ratio.
Omega 3s health benefits are mainly attributed to three main fatty acids, ALA (Alpha-linolenic acid, EPA (Eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (Docosahexanoic acid). ALA is found in mainly dark green veggies, soybeans, flaxseed and some others, but the downfall is that the body isn't very efficient at converting it to EPA and DHA, which are mainly responsible for the health benefits. EPA and DHA sources are primarily cold water fish.
Here's a list of some health benefits associated with Omega 3:
- Reduction in inflammation in your body
- prevention of cancer cell growth
- Help prevent cardiovascular diseases
- Increase energy levels
- Improve sleep
- Help to improve concentration
- Reduce high blood pressure
- Can help with symptoms of depression
- Inhibit thickening of arteries
- Reduce the amount of lipids and cholesterol in the blood
- Maintain the fluidity of cell membranes
If you're wondering at this point how much Omega 3 you should be getting in your diet, I don't really have an answer for you. I've read about and experimented with many different doses and can only share with you what has worked for me. I've been the most consistent with about 4g combined EPA/DHA a day and have felt the most benefits from that amount. Let me explain something really quick. All Omega 3 tablets are made a standard 1g size. The actual content of EPA/DHA in each individual pill itself varies though. So when I say I take 4g I don't mean 4 pills, I mean I add the amount of EPA/DHA in each pill so that the number of pills I'm taking has a combined EPA/DHA content of 4g.
I took them for about 7 or 8 months before I started 'feeling' any sort of effect. Note that most of the benefits of Omega 3 are not really anything you can 'feel'. Given that our brain is mostly comprised of DHA fats, it's not surprising when I tell you that after about 7 or 8 months I started feeling like my memory improved phenomenally. I used to have trouble remembering very basic things and now I surprise myself at the detail I can remember, just in general. Not only that but I'm way more alert and when I'm working on something that requires lots of attention I can focus much much more. I'm in no way absolutely attributing all this to Omega 3, I'm sure since I fixed my diet way back all these little things play a part in the bigger picture.
It's also recommended you store your Omega 3 supps in the fridge or freezer since they can oxidize and go rancid if left out. I'll post a couple of studies that support the claim that higher doses than those recommended on the labels actually are more beneficial for your health.
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=84
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/3/438
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Convenience over health
If I had to sum up the average person's lifestyle in today's society in one word it would be: convenience. Everything we do from the moment we wake up till we go to bed revolves around finding the best solution in the shortest amount of time. Microwave breakfasts, drive throughs, to name a few. I will admit I fall victim to some of these myself, but for the most part it's not hard to look past all the bullpoop and realize that convenience really does come with a price. Living in a society of instant gratification, it's not surprising to see this effect. We want things done now and we'll pay the price later. Feeling good for just a moment is the reason we throw logic and rational thinking out the window, unfortunately a little too often.
Choosing the option that requires the least amount of effort seems to be the norm nowadays. Food can now be bought ready cooked and only requiring heating, but if you're even too lazy to do that then with a simple phone call you can have food delivered to your doorstep. All that's left is for the food to be fed to you. Gym 'routines' are now designed to be completed in a certain amount of time with the minimal amount of effort required, hard work is a thing of the past.
I'm more concerned with the diet aspect of this since it interests me more, although I'm a firm believer that when you go to the gym you should know exactly what you're doing and why you're doing it.
When did people start to think that putting their breakfast in the microwave and heating it for a few minutes does anything even remotely good for their health? All it takes is waking up say half an hour earlier to have the time to prepare something half-decent. Even instant oats which take less than 2 minutes to make are a million times healthier than say any generic brand of cereal. I make mine on the stove but I cook my eggs while they're cooking so it really isn't taking me any extra time. It's easy to wake up and pick up something on the way to work but it's not easy to take back the years of damage that millions of chemicals and toxins are doing to your body every day. Waking up early also gives you more time to prepare lunch for the day but sometimes if you're really pressed for time then it helps when making dinner the night before to make extra, and just take it with you the next day.
I believe people need to make more long-term changes to their everyday habits and behaviours. I have no doubt in my mind that there are no shortcuts. Convenience really does have a pricetag, and as humans, being the creatures of habit that we are, it's hard to change once we find something we're used to. It takes a lot to change something once it becomes ingrained in who you are; I myself still revert to my old habits sometimes and neglect certain aspects of my health. The important point though is that I've managed to change some core behaviours.
Start small, cut out some things from your diet that don't need to be there. Instead choose the option that requires more work on your behalf. That's really what it takes, because unfortunately the better option is usually the one that needs more effort. Try waking up a little earlier and making your breakfast for a few days. Cook extra the night before, put it in a tupperware and take it with you the next day. It will save you money on food and will be better for you.
Choosing the option that requires the least amount of effort seems to be the norm nowadays. Food can now be bought ready cooked and only requiring heating, but if you're even too lazy to do that then with a simple phone call you can have food delivered to your doorstep. All that's left is for the food to be fed to you. Gym 'routines' are now designed to be completed in a certain amount of time with the minimal amount of effort required, hard work is a thing of the past.
I'm more concerned with the diet aspect of this since it interests me more, although I'm a firm believer that when you go to the gym you should know exactly what you're doing and why you're doing it.
When did people start to think that putting their breakfast in the microwave and heating it for a few minutes does anything even remotely good for their health? All it takes is waking up say half an hour earlier to have the time to prepare something half-decent. Even instant oats which take less than 2 minutes to make are a million times healthier than say any generic brand of cereal. I make mine on the stove but I cook my eggs while they're cooking so it really isn't taking me any extra time. It's easy to wake up and pick up something on the way to work but it's not easy to take back the years of damage that millions of chemicals and toxins are doing to your body every day. Waking up early also gives you more time to prepare lunch for the day but sometimes if you're really pressed for time then it helps when making dinner the night before to make extra, and just take it with you the next day.
I believe people need to make more long-term changes to their everyday habits and behaviours. I have no doubt in my mind that there are no shortcuts. Convenience really does have a pricetag, and as humans, being the creatures of habit that we are, it's hard to change once we find something we're used to. It takes a lot to change something once it becomes ingrained in who you are; I myself still revert to my old habits sometimes and neglect certain aspects of my health. The important point though is that I've managed to change some core behaviours.
Start small, cut out some things from your diet that don't need to be there. Instead choose the option that requires more work on your behalf. That's really what it takes, because unfortunately the better option is usually the one that needs more effort. Try waking up a little earlier and making your breakfast for a few days. Cook extra the night before, put it in a tupperware and take it with you the next day. It will save you money on food and will be better for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)