Fb-Button
calories – Piero Maina's Website – Never Give Up!

Piero Maina's Website – Never Give Up!

Tag: calories

  • 3500 Calories To Lose A Pound: Is This Formula All Wrong?

    3500 Calories To Lose A Pound: Is This Formula All Wrong?

    Title: 3500 Calories To Lose A Pound – Is This Formula All Wrong?
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: www.BurnTheFat.com
    Word count: 1256 words

    3500 Calories To Lose A Pound – Is This Formula All Wrong? By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    Most fitness conscious people have heard that there are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, so if you create a deficit of 3500 calories in a week, you lose a pound of weight. If you create a deficit of 7000 calories in a week, you lose two pounds, and so on. Right? Well, not so fast…

    Dr. Kevin Hall, an investigator at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda has done some interesting research about the mechanisms regulating human body weight. He recently published a new paper in the International Journal of Obesity that throws a wrench in works of the “3500 calories to lose a pound” idea.

    Some of the equations in his paper made my head hurt, but despite the complex math he used to come to his conclusions, his article clearly prompts the question, “3500 calories to lose a pound of WHAT?” His paper also contained a lot of simple and practical tips you can use to properly balance your caloric intake with output, fine tune your calorie deficit and help you retain more muscle when you diet.

    Below, I’ve distilled some of the information into a simple bullet-point summary that any non-scientist can understand. Then I wrap up with my interpretation of how you can apply this data in your own fat loss program:

    Calculating the calories required to lose a pound and fine-tuning your caloric deficit

    • 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).
    • But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.
    • The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calorie deficit
    • Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.
    • Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate aggressive low calorie diets better than already lean people)
    • Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.
    • whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss
    • The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable energy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories.
    • If you lose lean body mass, then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.
    • If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound.
    • But if you create a 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you manage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter’s Dunce cap)
    • If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you may need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person
    • Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet and after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight
    • Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the “plateau”). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can’t hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)
    • Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat versus lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)

    So, based on this info, should you throw out the old calorie formulas?

    Well, not necessarily. You can still use the standard calorie formulas to figure out how much you should eat, and you can use a 500-1000 calorie per day deficit (below maintenance) as a generic guideline to figure where to set your calories to lose one or two pounds per week respectively (at least that works “on paper” anyway).

    Even better however, you could use this info to fine tune your caloric deficit using a percentage method and also base your deficit on your starting body fat level, to get a much more personalized and effective approach:

    15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit

    20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit

    25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit

    31-40% below maintenance calories = very aggressive deficit (risky)

    50%+ below maintenance calories = semi starvation/starvation (potentially dangerous and unhealthy)

    (Note: According to exercise physiologists Katch& Mcardle, the average female between the ages of 23 and 50 has a maintenance level of about 2000-2100 calories per day and the average male about 2700-2900 calories per day)

    Usually, we would suggest starting with a conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance. Based on this research, however, we see that there can be a big difference between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut.

    If you have very high body fat to begin with, the typical rule of thumb on calorie deficits may underestimate the deficit required to lose a pound. It may also be too conservative, and you can probably use a more aggressive deficit safely without as much worry about muscle loss or metabolic slowdown.

    If you are extremely lean, like a bodybuilder trying to get ready for competition, you would want to be very cautious about using aggressive calorie deficits. You’d be better off keeping the deficit conservative and starting your diet/cutting phase earlier to allow for a slow, but safe rate of fat loss, with maximum retention of muscle tissue.

    The bottom line is that it’s not quite so simple as 3,500 calories being the deficit to lose a pound. Like lots of other things in nutrition that vary from person to person, the ideal amount of calories to cut “depends”…

    Note: The Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle program not only has an entire chapter dedicated to helping you calculate your exact calorie needs, it was designed very specifically to keep a fairly conservative approach to caloric deficits and to maximize the amount of lean tissue you retain and minimize the amount of metabolic adaptation that occurs when you’re dieting. The approach may be more conservative, and the fat loss may be slower, but it has a better long term track record… You can either lose weight fast, sacrifice muscle and gain the fat back like 95% of people do, or lose fat slow and keep it off forever like the 5% of the people who know the secrets. The choice is yours. For more information, visit: http://www.burnthefat.com

    References:

    Forbes GB. Body fat content influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise. Ann NY Acad Sci. 904: 359-365. 2000

    Hall, KD., What is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss? Int J Obesity. 2007 Epub ahead of print.

    McArdle WD. Exercise physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human performance. 4td ed. Williams & Wilkins. 1996.

    Wishnofsky M. Caloric equivalents of gained or lost weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 6: 542-546.

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialistTom Venuto 8

    (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). Tom is the

    author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches

    you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using

    methods of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness

    models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase

    your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com

  • Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

    Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

    Title: Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: www.BurnTheFat.com

    Word count: 1860 words

    Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

    By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for short, has been promoted as one of the most effective training methods ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss and for cardiovascular fitness. One of the most popular claims for HIIT is that it burns “9 times more fat” than conventional (steady state) cardio. This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo Tremblay at Laval University in 1994. But what if I told you that HIIT has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular cardio… What if I told you that the same study actually shows that HIIT is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio??? Read on and see the proof for yourself.

    “There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.”

    – Mark Twain

    In 1994, a study was published in the scientific journal Metabolism by Angelo Tremblay and his team from the Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. Based on the results of this study, you hear personal trainers across the globe claiming that “HIIT burns 9 times more fat than steady state cardio.”

    This claim has often been interpreted by the not so scientifically literate public as meaning something like this: If you burned 3 pounds of fat in 15 weeks on steady state cardio, you would now burn 27 pounds of fat in 15 weeks (3 lbs X 9 times better = 27 lbs).

    Although it’s usually not stated as such, frankly, I think this is what some trainers want you to believe, because the programs that some trainers promote are based on convincing you of the vast superiority of HIIT and the “uselessness” of low intensity exercise.

    Indeed, higher intensity exercise is more effective and time efficient than lower intensity exercise. The question is, how much more effective? There’s no evidence that the “9 times more fat loss” claim is true outside the specific context in which it was mentioned in this study.

    In order to get to the bottom of this, you have to read the full text of the research paper and you have to look very closely at the results.

    13 men and 14 women age 18 to 32 started the study. They were broken into two groups, a high intensity intermittent training program (HIIT) and a steady state training program which they referred to as endurance training (ET).

    The ET group completed a 20 week steady state aerobic training program on a cycle ergometer 4 times a week for 30 minutes, later progressing to 5 times per week for 45 minutes. The initial intensity was 60% of maximal heart rate reserve, later increasing to 85%.

    The HIIT group performed 25-30 minutes of continuous exercise at 70% of maximal heart rate reserve and they also progressively added 35 long and short interval training sessions over a period of 15 weeks. Short work intervals started at 10 then 15 bouts of 15 seconds, increasing to 30 seconds. Long intervals started at 5 bouts of 60 seconds, increasing to 90 seconds. Intensity and duration were progressively increased over the 15 week period.

    The results: 3 times greater fat loss in the HIIT group

    Even though the energy cost of the exercise performed in the ET group was twice as high as the HIIT group, the sum of the skinfolds (which reflects subcutaneous body fat) in the HIIT group was three times lower than the ET group.

    So where did the “9 times greater fat loss” claim come from?

    Well, there was a difference in energy cost between groups, so in order to show a comparison of fat loss relative to energy cost, Tremblay wrote,

    “It appeared reasonable to correct changes in subcutaneous fat for the total cost of training. This was performed by expressing changes in subcutaneous skinfolds per megajoule of energy expended in each program.”

    Translation: The subjects did not lose 9 times more body fat, in absolute terms. But hey, 3 times more fat loss? You’ll gladly take that, right?

    Well hold on, because there’s more. Did you know that in this oft-quoted study, neither group lost much weight? In fact, if you look at the charts, you can see that the HIIT group lost 0.1 kg (63.9 kg before, 63.8 kg after). Yes, the HIIT group lost a whopping 100 grams of weight in 15 weeks!

    The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before, 60.1 kg after).

    Naturally, lack of weight loss while skinfolds decrease could simply mean that body composition improved (lean mass increased), but I think it’s important to highlight the fact that the research study from which the “9 times more fat” claim was derived did not result in ANY significant weight loss after 15 weeks.Based on these results, if I wanted to manipulate statistics to promote steady state cardio, I could go around telling people, “Research study says steady state cardio (endurance training) results in 5 times more weight loss than high intensity interval training!” Or the reverse, “Clinical trial proves that high intensity interval training is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio!”

    Mind you, THIS IS THE SAME STUDY THAT IS MOST OFTEN QUOTED TO SUPPORT HIIT!

    If I said 5 X greater weight loss with steady state, I would be telling the truth, wouldn’t I? (100 grams of weight loss vs 500 grams?) Of course, that would be misleading because the weight loss was hardly significant in either group and because interval training IS highly effective. I’m simply being a little facetious in order to make a point: Be careful with statistics. I have seen statistical manipulation used many times in other contexts to deceive unsuspecting consumers.

    For example, advertisements for a popular fat burner claim that use of their supplement resulted in twice as much fat loss, based on scientific research. The claim was true. Of course, in the ad, they forget to tell you that after six months, the control group lost no weight, while the supplement group lost only 1.0 kilo. Whoop de doo! ONE KILO of weight loss after going through a six month supply of this “miracle fat burner!”

    But I digress…

    Back to the HIIT story – there’s even more to it.

    In the ET group, there were some funky skinfold and circumference measurements. ALL of the skinfold measurements in the ET group either stayed the same or went down except the calf measurement, which went up.

    The girths and skinfold measurements in the limbs went down in the HIIT group, but there wasn’t much difference between HIIT and ET in the trunk skinfolds. These facts are all very easy to miss. I didn’t even notice it myself until exercise physiologist Christian Finn pointed it out to me. Christian said,

    “When you look at the changes in the three skinfold measurements taken from the trunk, there wasn’t that much difference between the steady state group (-6.3mm) and the HIIT group (-8.7 mm). So, much of the difference in subcutaneous fat loss between the groups wasn’t because the HIIT group lost more fat, but because the steady state group actually gained fat around the calf muscles. We shouldn’t discount simple measurement error as an explanation for these rather odd results.”

    Christian also pointed out that the two test groups were not evenly matched for body composition at the beginning of the study. At the beginning of the study, the starting body fat based on skinfolds in the HIIT group was nearly 20% higher than the ET group. He concluded:

    “So while this study is interesting, weaknesses in the methods used to track changes in body composition mean that we should treat the results and conclusions with some caution.”

    One beneficial aspect of HIIT that most trainers forget to mention is that HIIT may actually suppress your appetite, while steady state cardio might increase appetite. In a study such as this, however, that can skew the results. If energy intake were not controlled, then some of the greater fat loss in the HIIT group could be due to lowered caloric intake.

    Last but not least, I’d like to highlight the words of the researchers themselves in the conclusion of the paper, which confirms the effectiveness of HIIT, but also helps put it in perspective a bit:

    “For a given level of energy expenditure, a high intensity training program induces a greater loss of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of moderate intensity.”

    “It is obvious that high intensity exercise cannot be prescribed for individuals at risk for health problems or for obese people who are not used to exercise. In these cases, the most prudent course remains a low intensity exercise program with a progressive increase in duration and frequency of sessions.”

    In conclusion, my intention in writing this article wasn’t to be controversial, to be a smart-alec or to criticize HIIT. To the contrary, additional research has continued to support the efficacy of HIIT for fat loss and fitness, not to mention that it is one of the most time efficient ways to do cardiovascular training.

    I have recommended HIIT for years in my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, using a 1:1 long interval approach, which, while only one of many ways to do HIIT, is probably my personal favorite method. However, I also recommend steady state cardio and even low intensity cardio like walking, when it is appropriate.

    My intentions for writing this article were four-fold:

    1. To encourage you to question where claims come from, especially if they sound too good to be true. 2. To alert you to how advertisers might use research such as this to exaggerate with statistics. 3. To encourage the fitness community to swing the pendulum back to center a bit, by not over-selling the benefits of HIIT beyond what can be supported by the scientific research. 4. To encourage the fitness community, that even as they praise HIIT, not to condemn lower and moderate intensity forms of cardio.

    As the original author of the 1994 HIIT study himself pointed out, HIIT is not for everyone, and cardio should be prescribed with progression. Also, mountains of other research has proven that walking (GASP! – low intensity cardio!) has always been one of the most successful exercise methods for overweight men and women.

    There is ample evidence which says that obesity may be the result of a very slight daily energy imbalance, which adds up over time. Therefore, even a small amount of casual exercise or activity, if done consistently, and not compensated for with increased food intake, could reverse the obesity trend. HIIT gets the job done fast, but that doesn’t mean low intensity cardio is useless or that you should abandon your walking program, if you have the time and if that is what you enjoy and if that is what’s working for you in your personal situation.

    The mechanisms and reasons why HIIT works so well are numerous. It goes way beyond more calories burned during the workout.

    Train hard and expect success,

    Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS Fat Loss Coach www.BurnTheFat.com

    Reference: Tremblay, Angelo, et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. Vol 43. no 7 (July). Pp 814-818. 1994..

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness Tom Venuto 8

    writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The

    Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without

    drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best

    bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of

    stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting:

    www.BurnTheFat.com

  • 2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

    2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

    Title: 2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: www.burnthefat.com
    Word count: 999 words

    2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

    By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    The controversies over cardio for fat loss are  endless: steady state versus intervals, fed versus fasted, long and easy versus  short and intense, and so on. Obviously there is a lot of interest in cardio  training and how to do it right. Sadly, most people are still doing 2 things  terribly wrong and it’s killing their results…… As best as I can figure, there  are two major reasons why people are still mucking up their cardio programs for  fat loss.

    REASON #1: NOT ENOUGH FOCUS ON TOTAL CALORIES BURNED

    Most people aren’t burning enough darn calories.

    Why? Well, I guess they are too busy worrying about the “proper” type of exercise (which machine or activity), the mode (steady state or intervals), the “optimal” ratio of intervals, or the “best” duration.Some people coast along on the treadmill at 2.3 miles per hour or some similar sloth-like pace and they think that just by hitting a TIME goal, such as 45 or 60 minutes, that with “X” duration completed, they are assured to get the results they want. On the other extreme, we have folks who have found or created some mega-intense, super-duper short training protocol like the “4-minute wonder workout from Japan.” Just because the workout is high in intensity and it is performed in intervals, they too think they are assured to get the results they want.

    What’s missing in both cases is the realization that total fat loss over time is a function of total calories burned over time (assuming you don’t blow your diet, of course).

    AND…

    Total calories burned is a product of INTENSITY times DURATION, not intensity OR duration.

    Too much focus on one variable at the exclusion of the other can lead to a less than optimal total calorie burn and disappointing results. And remember, intensity and duration are *variables* not absolutes! (“Variable” means you can change them… even if your “guru” says you can’t!)

    When you understand the relationship and interplay between INTENSITY X DURATION you will find a “SWEET SPOT” where the product of those variables produces the maximal calorie burn and maximum fat loss, based on your current health condition and your need for time efficiency.

    REASON #2: TOO MUCH FOCUS ON WHAT TYPE OF CALORIES BURNED

    As best as I can figure, there is one whopper of a mistake that is still KILLING most people’s cardio programs and that is…

    Way too much focus on WHAT you are burning during the workout – fats or carbohydrates – also known as “substrate utilization.”

    This idea comes from the notorious “fat burning zone” myth which actually tells people to exercise SLOWER and LESS intensely to burn more fat.

    Hold on a minute. Pop quiz. Which workout burns more calories?

    (A) A 30 minute leisurely stroll through the park

    (B) A 30 minute, sweat-pouring, heart-pounding, lung-burning run?

    Like, DUH!

    And yet we have trainers, authors and infomercial gurus STILL telling us we have to slow down if we want to burn more fat??? Bizarre.

    The reason people still buy it is because the “fat burning zone” myth sounds so plausible because of two little science facts:

    • The higher your intensity, the more carbs you burn during the workout
    • The lower your intensity, the more fat you burn during the workout

    And that’s the problem. You should be focusing on total calories and total fat burned during the workout and all day long, not just what type or percentage of fuel you are burning during the workout.

    It’s not that fat oxidation doesn’t matter, but what if you have a high percentage of fat oxidation but an extremely low number of calories burned?

    If you really want to be in the “fat burn zone,” you could sit on your couch all day long and that will keep you there quite nicely because “couch sitting” is a really low intensity (“fat-burning”) activity.

    (Of course, “couch sitting” only burns 37 calories per half hour…)

    HERE’S THE FAT-BURNING SOLUTION!

    In both cases, the solution to burning more fat is drop dead simple: Focus your attention on how you can burn more TOTAL calories during your workout and all day long. If you want to burn more fat, burn more calories and you can do that by manipulating ANY of the variables : intensity, duration and also frequency. If you build your training program around this concept, you will be on the right track almost every time.

    BUT WAIT – THERE IS MORE TO IT…

    Naturally, we could argue that it’s not quite this simple and that there are hundreds of other reasons why your cardio program might not be working… and I would agree, of course. But on the exercise side, the ideas above should be foremost in your mind.

    On the nutrition side, you have to get your act together there too.

    For example, many people increase their food intake at the same time as they start a cardio training program thereby putting back in every calorie they burned during the workout! Then some of them have the nerve to say, “SEE, cardio doesn’t work!”

    Incidentally, this is the exact reason that a few studies show that adding cardio or aerobic training to a diet “did not improve fat loss”: It’s not because the cardio didn’t work, it was because the researchers didn’t control for diet and the subjects ate more!!

    It should go without saying that nutrition is the foundation on which every fat loss program is built.

    Choose the combination of type, intensity, duration and frequency that suits your lifestyle and preferences the best, and WORK THE VARIABLES to get the fat loss results you want, but whichever cardio program you choose, remember that a solid fat burning nutrition program, such as Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle is necessary to help you make the most of it.

    Train hard and expect success,

    Tom Venuto Fat Loss Coach www.BurnTheFat.com

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness Tom Venuto 8

    writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The

    Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without

    drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best

    bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of

    stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting:

    www.burnthefat.com

     

  • The Low Carb Diet Cheat Sheet Accelerate Your Fat Loss With 1 Simple Food Tweak

    The Low Carb Diet Cheat Sheet Accelerate Your Fat Loss With 1 Simple Food Tweak

    Title: The Low Carb Diet Cheat Sheet Accelerate Your Fat Loss With 1 Simple Food Tweak

    By  Line: Tom Venuto

    Website: www.BurnTheFat.com!

    Word Count: 2000

    carbs - evil or just optional

    I like reducing carbs for maximizing fat loss.

    That’s why I’m always surprised when I get an email or see a comment from someone who thinks I’m against low carb diets or that low carbing doesn’t work or that low carb is just a fad.Not true. In fact, I’ve used a special variation of the reduced carb diet for years to prepare for bodybuilding contests or when I want to get my body fat extremely low (the “ripped abs” look).

    The best fat loss diet of all?

    I’ll even go as far as saying that, although there are many diets that can work, restricting carb calories is probably the most effective approach of them all… if it’s done intelligently.

    Why do some people think I’m anti-low carb? I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I’ve spoken out against the old school low carb thinking, where some devotees still believe carbs are inherently fattening, “bad” (even “evil”) foods and that carbs and insulin drive fat gain, independent of excess calories.

    Maybe it’s because they’ve seen my muscle-building (aka “bulking”) meal plans, which have  large amounts of carbs – usually at least half my total calories from carbs.

    Or maybe it’s because they see my fat loss meal plans and they notice I still eat 150 to 200 grams of carbs per day (the woman’s equivalent might be 120-130 grams). Some low carbers wouldn’t dream of eating that many carbs even on the long-term maintenance phase.

    What IS “low carb?” How Low is Low?

    Now that I’ve made it clear that I’m NOT against low carbing, a good question is, what IS a low carb diet? There are so many different types of reduced carb diets out there, the definition of low carb has gotten pretty fuzzy.

    For example, I’ve seen diet reviews that call the Zone diet “low carb” even though it prescribes 40% of the calories from carbs. I’ve heard many people refer to paleo as low carb, when the carbs, according to Loren Cordain, could run anywhere from 22% to 40% (Cordain refers to this as “moderate” carb).

    On the other end, some people don’t think anything is “low carb” unless it’s under 100 grams a day or even a full-blown ketogenic diet.

    So the first thing I want to do is clarify the TYPE of reduced carb diet I use:

    I use the bodybuilding low carb, high protein diet. If your goal is less fat and more muscle, you can use it too, so keep reading – even if you’re not a bodybuilder – because this melts fat like a blowtorch on butter.

    Bodybuilding nutrition, which I’ve been teaching to my readers of all ages and backgrounds for years in BurnTheFat Feed The Muscle, has phases that you shift in and out of based on your goal at the moment:

    Phase I is “baseline nutrition” for maintenance, muscle gain and long-term lifestyle (lots of carbs). Phase II is for maximized fat loss (moderate carbs), and Phase III is the contest diet (low carbs) – the strictest and lowest carb of the three.

    The fat loss phases (Phase I or Phase II) have the following characteristics:

    1. The diet is low to medium carb; it is not zero carb, very low carb or ketogenic.
    2. The diet does not prescribe one amount of carbs for everyone – it acknowledges individual body types and allows a customized approach.
    3. Carb amounts are the most you can get away with (and still lose fat), not the least you can tolerate.
    4. The diet usually uses “carb cycling”, a method of non-linear dieting .
    5. The diet is high in protein.

    I fully acknowledge that some people succeed on ketogenic diets, which are extremely low in carbs and higher in fat (with less protein). A handful of people may even thrive on them and get better health outcomes (contrary to conventional wisdom).

    However, after experimenting with keto diets years ago, I found they didn’t suit me or support my intensive weight training. I found the near-complete removal of carbs distasteful and difficult to live with – physically AND mentally. I prefer the cyclical low or medium carb bodybuilding diet and after I discovered how to do it, I never turned back.

    For active, metabolically healthy people who want BODY COMPOSITION and PHYSIQUE DEVELOPMENT, the bodybuilder’s way is the best way.

    The bodybuilder’s way supports intense training and is designed for improving body composition, not just losing weight. When you talk about low carb diet weight loss, you really have to discuss the type of weight, since water and glycogen weight can make up so much of the early poundage lost and lean tissue loss may be a concern.

    Remember, there’s weight loss, and then there’s a HOT, HARD BODY! – big difference!

    Phase I: Baseline nutrition

    In my fat loss system, BurnTheFat, Feed The Muscle, there are three phases, from basic to advanced. The first phase is the baseline nutrition plan. This is designed to be very balanced and maintainable. Carbs are usually not restricted, but they are carefully chosen healthy and nutrient-dense carbs.

    There are 3 parts to a fat-burning or muscle-building meal in Phase I: 
    1. Lean protein
    2. Fibrous carb
    3. Starchy carb

    Here’s an example of a typical lunch or dinner using this baseline (Phase I) template:
    1. Baked tilapia (lean protein)
    2. Broccoli (fibrous carb)
    3. Brown rice (starchy carb)

    Here’s an example of a typical breakfast – Phase I:
    1. 1 whole egg, 5 egg whites scrambled (lean protein)
    2. Omelet veggies – mushrooms, bell peppers, tomato, etc (fibrous carb)
    3. Oatmeal (starchy carb)
    * a fruit could easily be substituted for the veggies – example, berries or an apple

    Phase II: Maximized Fat Loss

    When your goal shifts from muscle gain or maintenance into fat loss, what you need to focus on first is CALORIES, NOT CARBS. Even if this is just semantics or a technicality (because carbs have calories), please let this point sink in or you will end up like those (well-meaning, but wrong) low carb zealots who think “carbs are bad” and calories don’t matter.

    To lose fat, you need a calorie deficit, so that means you have to reduce calories below maintenance level. What I’m asking you to think about, is where do you pull out the calories?  You could cut calories across the board – just eat less of everything in the Phase I meal plan – and yes, that absolutely will work.

    But the ideal way to create your calorie deficit is to drop down the starchy carbs.

    Why? Because keeping protein high on a hypocaloric fat loss diet is important for retaining lean body mass, protein controls appetite, starches are calorie dense, starches are easy to overeat, extreme carb restriction may have negative hormonal consequences, you need to keep the fiber up, and you also need healthy fats for reasons too numerous to list.

    So the no-brainer place to create a calorie deficit is by cutting back on starchy carbs and grains. If you were taking in a lot of refined grains or sugars, they are actually the first to go, but I’m assuming you’re not eating a ton of sugar and refined carbs to begin with – we don’t do that even on phase I baseline plan.

    Lunch or dinner example – Phase II: 
    1. Baked tilapia (lean protein)
    2. Broccoli (fibrous carb)
    3. Brown rice (starchy carb) – Reduced portion

    Breakfast example – Phase II: 
    1. 1 whole egg, 5 egg whites scrambled (lean protein)
    2. Omelet veggies – mushrooms, peppers, tomato, etc (fibrous carb)
    3. Oatmeal (starchy carb) – Reduced portion
    * a fruit could easily be substituted for the veggies – example, berries

    Phase III: The “Contest Diet”

    As a diet progresses, fat loss typically slows down as your body adapts in various ways to the weight loss and calorie restriction. Almost everyone can relate to how the last bit of fat can seem like the most stubborn or difficult to lose.

    To get past this plateau, and reach your peak condition or final goal, you can take another calorie reduction. Again, you want to leave those vital lean proteins and fibrous carbs alone, so you reduce the starchy carbs even more.

    For some people, almost all the starchy carbs are removed. For others, especially those who are large and training very hard, they remain, but in small quantities and only after training sessions (and also most commonly, for breakfast to get a good start on the day).

    Lunch or dinner example – Phase III: :
    1. Salmon (lean protein with healthy fat)
    2. Broccoli (fibrous carb)
    * no starchy carb except in post-workout meal and or breakfast

    Breakfast example – Phase III:
    1. 1 whole egg, 5 egg whites scrambled (lean protein)
    2. Omelet veggies – mushrooms, peppers, tomato, etc (fibrous carb)
    * no starchy carb except in post-workout meal and or breakfast

    And there you have it! The contest diet is mostly lean proteins, fibrous carbs (green veggies, salad veggies and other non-starchy vegetables). Healthy fats are always included somewhere in the daily meal plan – or provided by supplements – and if the calories get too low (in the absence of concentrated carbs), the percentage of fats can be increased further.

    Did you catch the 1 simple food tweak?

    At this point, most people have a million  questions about specifics: what foods to eat or how many grams of each macro or what time to eat or when do do the carb cycling and so on, some of which are relevant or even important. But this is where we end today’s lesson because the purpose of this article has been to simplify and make one major point.  More details would only serve to complicate.

    Bottom line: Don’t look at those starchy carbs as bad, dirty, forbidden or… “evil!” Instead, let’s call them “optional.” Better still, let’s call them a “variable” – an “X factor.”  You eat more of them during maintenance or muscle gain programs. As your goal shifts to fat loss and as your fat loss phase progresses, speeding up fat loss or getting past sticking points is a simple matter of adjusting your calories by tweaking the X factor.

    You’re basically manipulating 1 thing: starchy carbs. Everything else stays mostly the same!  Keep your lean protein high and eat a lot of fibrous carbs and green veggies (think “LEAN AND GREEN!”)  Be sure to keep some healthy fats in the plan too.

    Keep it Simple!

    I am a “structure and details” guy and I DO make my meal plans by the numbers on spreadsheets.  But this low carb technique is so simple, so easy, if you did NOTHING but drop some starchy carbs (and of course sugar) – and if all else remained equal, you would start losing more fat – without counting anything.

    That’s the short and sweet “cheat sheet” summary, but if you want ALL the details of the “cyclical low carb diet”, then review chapter 12 inBurnTheFat, Feed The Muscleif you already have it.
    OR, if you are new to our community and you want to see the complete system for yourself (now in the completely updated 2nd edition), visit the home page here (it’s an e-book, so it’s an instant download) ====>  Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle Fat-Burning System.

    Train hard and expect success,

    Tom Venuto, Fat Loss Coach, Author of Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle,
    www.BurnTheFat.com!

    PS. We’ve seen people transform their bodies in as little as 49 days with Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. Busy father of four James used it to cut his body fat below 5% and get ripped abs! Shannon melted her belly fat and added lean muscle even though she struggled with hypothyroidism and major fat gain after her second child was born.

    burn the fat challenge

    Success Story! MEN CLICK HERE to discover how to burn belly fat and transform your body from fat to muscle in 49 days or less with secrets from the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models!
    womens fat loss diet presentation! WOMEN CLICK HERE to learn the simple tricks to shedding fat from your most stubborn areas – in 49 days – without ever going hungry, and with the right amount of carbs for YOUR body type
  • How Liquid Calories May Be Making You Fat…!

    How Liquid Calories May Be Making You Fat…!

    Title:How Liquid Calories May Be Making You Fat..Even Your Favorite Protein Drinks!

    By :Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
    www.BurnTheFat.com!
    Word count: 994 words

    At least 7 scientific studies have provided strong evidence that energy containing beverages (i.e., “liquid calories”) do not properly activate the satiety mechanisms in the body and brain and do not satisfy the appetite as well as food in solid form.

    Epidemiological research also supports a positive association between calorie-containing beverage consumption and increased body weight or body mass index. New research now suggests that soda may not be the only culprit…
    The primary source of liquid calories in the United States Diet is carbohydrate, namely soda. Now running a close second are specialty and dessert coffees. Did you know that a 16 ounce Frappucino can contain 500 calories or even more! That’s one-third of a typical female’s daily calorie intake while on a fat loss program.
    A recent study at Purdue University published in the International Journal of Obesity set out to learn even more about this bodyfat – liquid calories relationship.
    Researchers compared solid and beverage forms of foods composed primarily of carbohydrate, fat or protein in order to document the independent effect of food form in foods with different dominant macronutrient sources.
    Based on previous research, some experts have recommended targeting specific beverages as being “worse” than others. High fructose corn syrup and soda has been singled out the most and you’ve probably seen that yourself in the news.
    There’s no question that soda has been on top of the “hit list” for some time now, by virtue of the amounts and frequency of consumption alone.
    However, this recent study says that from a pure energy balance perspective, we should be cautious about ALL liquid calories, not just soda and not just carbohydrates!
    Fruit juice for example, appears to be an obvious improvement over soda, so many people have swapped out their soda for fruit juice. However, when fruit juice is compared to an equal amount of calories from whole fruit, the whole fruit satisfies appetite better (largely due to the bulk and fiber content), and so you tend to eat fewer calories for the day.
    [On an interesting side note, soup does not seem to apply; soup has higher satiety value than calorie containing beverages, possibly for mere cognitive reasons.]
    If you were to meticulously track your calories from beverages and you made sure that your calories remained the same for the day, whether liquid or solid, there would probably be little or no difference in your body composition.
    But that’s not what usually happens in free-living humans. Most people do not accurately track or report their caloric intake. Our mistake is that we tend to drink calories IN ADDITION TO our usual food intake, not instead of it.
    Men are especially guilty of this when they drink alcohol – Men tend to drink AND eat, while women tend to drink INSTEAD OF eating.
    This new research found that with all three macronutrients – protein, carbs or fat – daily calorie intake was significantly greater when the beverage form was consumed as compared to the solid.
    Yes, it’s true! Even protein drinks did not satisfy the appetite the way that protein foods did!
    While you would think that protein drinks are purely a good thing, because protein foods have been proven to reduce appetite and increase satiety, if you turn a solid protein food into a protein drink, it loses it’s appetite suppressive properties in the same way that happens when you turn fruit into fruit juice.

    [NOTE: After weight training workouts, liquid nutrition may have benefits that outweigh any downside, especially on muscle-gaining programs]

    Why do liquid calories fail to elicit the same response as whole foods? reasons include:

    high calorie density lower satiety value more calories ingested in short period of time lower demand for oral processing shorter gastrointestinal transit times energy in beverages has greater bioaccessibility and bioavailability mechanisms may include cognitive, orosensory, digestive, metabolic, endocrine and neural influences (human appetite is a complex thing!!!)
    last but not least, nowhere in our history have our ancestors had access to large amounts of liquid calories. Alcohol may have been around as far back as several thousand years BC, but even that is a blip on the evolutionary calendar of humanity.
    As a result, our genetic code has never developed the physiological mechanisms to properly register the caloric content in liquids the way it does when you eat, chew and swallow whole foods.

    Bottom line: This study suggests that we shouldn’t just target one type of liquid calories such as soda. If you’re trying to beat body fat, it’s wise to limit all types of liquid calories and eat whole foods as much as possible.
    Start by ditching the soda. Then ditch the high calorie dessert coffees. Then cut back on the alcohol. From there, be cautious even about milk, juice and protein drinks.
    Drink water or tea instead, or limited amounts of black coffee – without all the high calorie extras.
    If you do consume any beverages that contain calories, such as protein shakes, be sure to account for those calories meticulously and be sure you don’t drink them in addition to your usual food intake, but in place of an equal amount of food calories.
    Remember, those protein shakes you might be drinking are called “meal replacements” not “free calories!”
    For many years I have suggested focusing primarily on whole foods rather than liquids, even protein shakes. Unlike so many other fat reduction programs, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle does not require any kind of liquid meal replacement or protein drinks and our company does not exist to sell supplements; we are here to educate you and millions of others about the realities of body fat loss.
    We now have even more scientific data that confirms what Burn The Fat has been teaching all along.

    I hope you found this helpful. You can learn more about “Burn The Fat” at www.BurnTheFat.com!

    Train hard and expect success,

    Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
    Fat Loss Coach
    www.BurnTheFat.com

    Reference: Effects of food form on appetite and energy intake in lean and obese young adults. International Journal of Obesity. 2007 Nov (11):1688-95. Mourao DM, Bressan J, Campbell WW, Mattes RD. Department of Foods and Nutrition, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2059, USA.

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com!

Dictionary
  • dictionary
  • diccionario

  • English Spanish Dictionary

Double click on any word on the page or type a word:

Powered by dictionarist.com