If you’re interested in living healthier, or losing fat, you’ve likely shopped for items that are have a Calorie count of 0–  Whether it be cooking sprays, flavored beverages, or any number of other items. You’re not alone–  I am a huge fan of items that are 0 Calorie, but there’s something that everyone should be aware of when it comes to these options. They rarely contain 0 Calories.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

Yes.  It’s true.  To demonstrate, we’ll take this sparkling flavored water as an example.

Notice how it says there are  0 Calories.  Notice how it says there are 0g carbohydrates.  Notice how it also says that it contains 3% fruit juice.  If fruit juice is sugar, and sugar is Calories, then how can this drink have 0 Calories?

Simple.  The regulations regarding labeling state that a product may be “Calorie free” if it contains less than 5 calories per “Reference Amount Customarily Consumed” (RACC).

Well, that’s just 5 Calories!  So what?

Now let’s throw out a hypothetical situation–  Let’s say this whole bottle contains 9.8 Calories, right?  That would mean that they have to list the Calories, right? Not so fast. . .

“About 2 Servings.” Or 2.06 to be exact.

The RACC for drinks is typically 8 fl. oz., which means there are just over 2 servings in this 17 fl. oz. bottle, which means this drink could contain up to 10 Calories.

Well that’s just 10 Calories!  So what!?

Do you use cooking spray?

Oil contains 0 Calories?

Do you make sure that your spray lasts less than 1/3 of a second so that you’re getting less than 5 calories of oil?  Let’s say you spray pretty liberally, and use it during two meals–  You could be consuming anywhere from 20 – 40 calories from fat.

Well that’s just a few extra Calories!  So what!?

Let’s put this all together–  Let’s say you drink two of those flavored waters, use cooking spray liberally, chew non sugar free gum, etc.  All of these things, under the guise of 0 Calorie, contribute Calories–  Maybe even as much as 100 per day if consumed in sufficient volumes. Let’s say your deficit is -500 Kcal / day.  Now your deficit is only -400 Kcal / day–  That means instead of losing a pound per week, you’ll be losing 4/5 lb. per week.  It all adds up.

So what should I do?

My recommendation is to be mindful of these foods in your diet–  There’s nothing wrong with consuming them, and if you use them (very) sparingly, don’t worry about it. However, if you consume multiple items that could contain hidden calories, I would do my best to try and come in just below your Calorie goals to account for it.

As an example, if the only hidden Calories in my day are from my cooking spray, I don’t bother with it.  If, however, I also drank some of those 0 Calorie drinks, and used cooking spray, I will choose to end my day 20 Calories below my target; this is done, of course, because I’m preparing for a contest and need to be as accurate as possible. . .

This may be a little extreme for you, but for best results, you must be as accurate as possible.

Sources and Links

Filed under: Health, Nutrition by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

I would argue the most important part of any positive lifestyle change (Which includes physique goals, weight loss goals, health goals, etc.) is nutrition–  I know I’m not alone in that.

The question is, though, how do you plan your meals?  Well, it’s really not that difficult once you get the hang of it–  The key is to plan, while simultaneously tracking, rather than simply tracking.

Planning / Tracking vs. Tracking – What’s the difference?

If you only track your food, that means you track is while you eat, and at the end of the day, your macronutrients (Protein, Carbs, Fats) may be way off, and you may overshoot (or undershoot) your Calorie goals

I’m going to share with you how I plan (and track) my meals daily, and hopefully this will help shed some light on how to plan your own day so you can achieve your goals!

Let’s get started!

Typically, I plan my day the night before–  Though there are times where that’s not practical, so I plan them the next morning as soon as I wake up.  Here’s an important note:  I always have my day planned out before I start eating anything.  This way I can make sure I hit my macros for the day and haven’t sabotaged myself.

When I start planning, I start with my high protein meals first (Which for me is every meal), so that I ensure my goal for the most important macronutrient is met.

(There’s a lot more that goes into my planning, of course, like getting a variety of foods so I get a broad range of phytochemicals, and other such things, but this is just a basic idea.)

So now, I’ve been awake for about 15 minutes, and here’s what my tracker looks like:

Now, for those who have some level of experience tracking their food, you may say: “How do you know that the banana you have is going to weigh 150g?”  “How do you know that your pancakes at Denny’s will weigh 200g?”

The answer to that:  I don’t.  I put in placeholder values for all of these items, and then I update them throughout the day–  In a lot of cases it will be close to the mark, but there are times where there are drastic differences.  This is also why I tend to keep some calories open for the end of my day.

As I go throughout my day, I update the values as they’re measured.  At Denny’s, a serving of pancakes is 170g, and contains 310 Kcal.  Of course, their pancakes are never made to a serving size, and always go over, which is why I not only anticipate that in my tracker:

. . .  But I also bring a food scale to Denny’s with me to measure.

Why would you do that!?

The largest variance in serving size I’ve experienced at Denny’s was 62g–  That means that someone who looks at the nutrition facts but doesn’t measure them thinks they’re consuming 310 Calories, but really, they’re eating 423 Calories.  (Even on the day I’m showing you the pancakes were 32g more than a serving, which is an extra 58 Calories over a serving.)  As an example: If you get nutritional counseling from me, I typically set up a 400 Kcal daily deficit, which is slightly less than 1 pound per week of fat loss;  if you went to Denny’s and had those pancakes one day, your deficit would only be 287 Kcal–  And that’s only from one food having a massive variance.  Just imagine if other foods had such variances.  Would you even be eating in a deficit?  This is why you track.

The rest of the day should be tracked similarly–  Update the foods you consume with the accurate measurements as you’re prepare and consume them.  As an example, my Massive Fruit & Veggie Smoothie™ has a lot of placeholder values added at the start of the day–  When I prepare it, I just leave the blender on the food scale while I measure every ingredient.

By the end of the day, I’ve updated everything, made revisions, and my day looks like this:

And this is why I see results at the rate I should see them.  While you can never track your calories with 100% certainty, you can get as close as possible, which I feel I do on a daily basis.  The more accurate you are with your tracking, the quicker you will achieve your goals!

Filed under: Body Building, Health, Nutrition by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

I constantly see memes, pins on Pinterest, and countless “articles” that spout off nonsense regarding health, nutrition, and exercise.  More often than not, there is no source cited, and they can give information that is not only completely wrong, but sometimes dangerous.

So, how do you protect yourself from these sorts of articles?  Well, luckily there is an organization known as The Food and Nutrition Science Alliance (FANSA) that is a coalition of 6 organizations:  The American College of Nutrition (ACN), the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the American Society for Nutrition (ASN), the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), and the Society for Nutrition Education (SNE).

Why are you telling me this?

FANSA has put out a fantastic guide for consumers looking for information on the Internet and in the media titled “The 10 Red Flags of Junk Science.”  Anyone interested in health, fitness, or nutrition should keep this list handy and compare it to what they read.

1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen.
3. Claims that sound too good to be true.
4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a single study.
5. Recommendations based on a single study.
6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations.
7. Lists of “good” and “bad” foods.
8. Recommendations made to help sell a product.
9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer review.
10. Recommendations from studies that ignore differences among individuals or groups.

I personally have one more guideline that I follow:

1. If there are no sources, and / or the author is underqualified, the article should be treated as nonsense until corroborated with a legitimate source.

Example of this:  An article I read made a really interesting claim, citing a study that supported the claim.  There were no sources, no links, and the author had no related credentials.  I then searched for the study the article referenced and found it.

Think about these guidelines, and think about articles you’ve read, or what sort of infographics you’ve shared over social media– Would it be safe to say that the vast majority of the information out there is “junk science” based on these guidelines?

I would say so, and it’s only further contributing to the sort of scientific illiteracy / ignorance that pervades society.  It’s so easy to find the right answer, you just have to find the source and not go out of your way to “believe” in something else.

Truth.

That’s great and all, but why should I care?

I spent the better part of a few years spinning my wheels as far as achieving my goals because I followed advice and programs that were nearly completely devoid science–  I’m very thankful that I’ve learned all that I have, because now I’m on track to achieve what I originally set out to do.

Sources and More Reading

Filed under: Fitness, Health, Nutrition by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

The Internet has done a lot of good for all of us, and has also done a lot of bad.  There’s also the occasional great thing on the Internet, and today, we’re going to talk about one of those.

I’m talking about the fantastic “No Bake Peanut Butter Protein Bars” that I found on the Bodybuilding Recipes Facebook page.

Snack Perfection.

Now the recipe calls for the following ingredients, however, longtime readers know that I only advocate using the metric system when measuring out ingredients / foods, and whenever possible, I use the mass measurement.

The Original Recipe

1-3/4 cup creamy natural peanut butter
1 cup organic honey
2 scoops Whey protein
1/2 cup old-fashioned oats
50 grams raisins

Now here’s how I made it–  It’s worth noting that I’m listing the ingredient list based on my second time making these–  The first time around, they were a little sweeter than I’d like, so I reduced the honey slightly and also left out the raisins.

My Version of the Recipe

422g Natural Peanut Butter
305g Honey
41g Oatmeal
70g NutraBio Unflavored Whey Protein Concentrate

So how do you make it?  Get a big (and I mean big) microwave safe bowl and put the honey and peanut butter in it.  Put the bowl in the microwave for 90 seconds.  Fresh from the microwave, quickly put in the remaining ingredients, and mix it up thoroughly.  When it is adequately mixed, pour it into a Pyrex, or some other container and allow it to cool in the refrigerator.  At this point, I also add a light dusting of sea salt to them.  When they’re cooled, enjoy!

Nutrition Facts, Serving Size, etc.

When cooking, I treat my kitchen like my chemistry lab;  I carefully measure everything at every step of the way to make sure that I have a precise measure of my yield, which I can then use to accurately calculate the nutrition facts. So, how do these stack up?

Yield: 838g, which leads us to a basic breakdown of 3941.8 Kcal, 218.4g Fat, 360.1g Carbohydrates, and 164.3g Protein.

Of course, I’m not going to eat the entire thing in one go, so let’s split these up into 45g servings.  What are the nutrition facts for a 45g piece?

• 211.7 Kcal
• 11.7g Fat
• 19.3g Carbohydrates
• 1.6g Fiber
• 8.8g Protein

The next time around, I may experiment with slightly less honey, and slightly more protein.  Either way, these are incredible!

Update 5/25/2014

As I mentioned before, I experimented with the recipe, and I got something that I like a lot more.  I reduced the amount of honey, which made them identical in texture and taste to peanut butter fudge–  They’re even more incredible!  Here’s the new recipe:

• 280g Honey
• 422g Natural Peanut Butter
• 38g Oatmeal
• 70g Nutrabio Whey Protein Concentrate (Unflavored)

They gave a very similar nutrient breakdown:

• 203.4 Kcal
• 12.1g Fat
• 19.5g Carbohydrates
• 2.4g Fiber
• 9.1g Protein

I highly recommend this new recipe, especially if you tried the other and found them too sweet–  You can’t go wrong with either, though!

Filed under: Nutrition by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

Having a noggin full of knowledge has it’s pluses and minuses–  On one hand, I have a wealth of knowledge that I can use to help others achieve their goals;  it also helps that this knowledge helps me reach my goals.

On the other hand, though, I have to deal with a lot of strange questions, and people that don’t actually want to hear the answer.

The Basics

When it comes down to it, you can think of everything relating to health, fitness, and nutrition in terms of Occam’s Razor:  The simplest explanation is often the correct explanation.

How does that apply?

Here’s the topic I field the most questions about: weight loss.  Everyone wants to complicate the matter into what foods to eat, when to eat, how to eat, why to eat, where to eat, and so on–  There are countless diet books, detox diets, and other strange things that serve as methods to glean money from your pockets and give you false hope.

I can’t tell you how many people ask me for advice on fat loss;  if a particular supplement “works;”  if a certain diet “works;” and so on and so forth.  Here’s one of my favorites:  Someone asked me what the best workout for a “six pack” is–  My response:  To reveal your abdominal muscles, you must reduce your body fat through proper nutrition.

They never talked to me on the subject again.

So what’s your point?

Before asking someone for help, ask yourself a question:  Are you ready to hear the correct answer, or are you looking for someone to give you a “sexy” answer?  If you want a sexy answer, you’re really not ready to ask the question. . .

Filed under: Health by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

There is so much misinformation on the Internet, and it is truly the reason why everyone over complicates everything related to health, nutrition, and exercise.  It’s not isolated to just that, though.  I would venture to say that 80% of the info-graphics on varying topics don’t cite sources, and are usually wildly inaccurate.  I digress. . .

Case in point, this little gem I found recently.  Now, I don’t want to make any implications about where this may have come from, or who may have made it, but first, let’s look at some of the information they claim:

This is so incorrect.

So, obviously, they have an agenda. They’re trying to make the case that you could derive more protein from plant based sources than animal based sources.  While I agree that there are plenty of fantastic plant based sources for protein, they don’t compare to animal based sources as a percent of calories–  Furthermore, the information presented here is completely false, and you can easily look up the information yourself.

There are databases where you can look up the complete breakdown of virtually all foods–  These break downs include macronutrients, micronutrients, amino acid profiles, energy content, calorie percentages, and even more than all of that.  The one I use is Nutrition Data.

Now, let’s make some comparisons based on this false chart:

• Claim: Kale is 45% Protein.  Truth: Kale is 16% Protein.
• Claim: Broccoli is 45% Protein.  Truth: Broccoli is 20% Protein.
• Claim: Chicken is 23% Protein.  Truth: Chicken (Breast) is 90% Protein.
• Claim: Eggs are 12% Protein.  Truth: Eggs are 35% Protein.

I could go on more, but I think you can see where this is headed.  Most people would (hopefully) look at their claims about chicken and eggs and see right through the nonsense, but there are plenty of people out there who won’t make that connection, and could be listening to a shoddy info-graphic for information.

. . .  And really, if you have to spread misinformation to advance your agenda, I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’re doing it wrong.  The truth is much more powerful than lies–  It may not be as sexy, and it may take more time to get people to listen to you, but in the end, it’s better than creating a castle built upon a foundation of lies.  I believe that, at least.

It’s so easy to share a photo without thinking about the content, but before you blindly share a photo, maybe look for a reliable source, or do some research on it first!  Remember:  You can’t trust everything you read on the Internet. . .

It has to be true!

Filed under: Fitness Myths, Nutrition, Nutrition Myth by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

There’s a style of dieting that has gotten a mild amount of press, and I have heard of many people attempting it–

In this article, they often refer to it as the “two day diet,” and in it’s strictest sense, the dieter is to eat very low calorie (and low carb) for two days, and then stick to a moderate Mediterranean diet for the other five days of the week.  The rationale behind it?  It’s easier to diet for two days a week than it is to diet for seven.  I would agree with that statement when we’re discussing people starting to change their lifestyle; however, I still maintain it comes down to changing your whole lifestyle.

This diet is also based on the principles of Intermittent Fasting, which can lead to a more favorable body composition.  A study in rats even proved this, however, rats don’t tend to complain about being hungry and raid cupboards, so it’s important to keep that in mind.  I digress.

Does this diet work?

This diet can work, as evidenced by a study out England examining the results of 100 participants.

Does this diet really work?

Again, if you’re totally compliant and aware of what you’re eating, of course this diet can work.  The problem?  Most people don’t actually stick to this diet at all.  The idea behind it is to eat moderately and sensibly for five days while being very strict with yourself for two.  This creates a deficit in calories, which is required for weight loss.  I want to show you how easy it could be for this diet to become derailed on a weekly basis; it’s worth noting that this example applies to basically any diet, as these are the sorts of problems most people encounter.

To better illustrate this, let’s talk about a hypothetical person represented by this stock photo:

Meet Jane.  She’s 30 years young, 5’10”, 170 lbs., and she enjoys going out to eat with her boyfriend.  She works a desk job, but manages to get in two hour long runs a week in an effort to try and lose weight–  Her goal is to lose 25 lbs.  Her resting metabolic rate (RMR) is 1573 calories, and her total energy expenditure (TEE) is 2163.  In order to lose weight, she has to eat less than 2163 calories per day.  For our example, let’s look at it as a week:  In order to lose weight, she has to eat less than 15141 calories a week.  Easy enough, right?

Jane does this 2 day fast and 5 days moderate diet, and here’s how she goes about it:

For the 2 day fasts, she sticks to the diet by the book.  She eats low carb, and maintains at around 1000 calories both days.  Well done Jane!  By Wednesday morning, she has created a deficit of 2326 calories; roughly two thirds of a pound.

On Wednesday, she goes back to eating normally.  She does her best to eat moderately, and let’s just say she’s done a great job and is going into dinner at only 1,500 calories.  She also decides she needs to reward herself for her good work by going out to dinner with her boyfriend.  They choose The Cheesecake Factory.  She tries to eat sensibly (since seafood can often be lower calorie), and orders the Jamaican Black Pepper Shrimp with a glass of wine.  In the dinner and wine, there are 1260 calories, not counting any appetizers or bites of anything else.  Jane decides against dessert since the wine was her little extra.  Where does she end today at?  2760 calories, which means her deficit is down to 1729.  Not too bad– She’s still on track to lose half a pound at the end of the week.

She does great on Thursday, and would have eaten at maintenance (2163 calories), if it weren’t for meeting a friend at Starbucks.  She’s not a big coffee drinker, but loves a Grande Mocha.  Today, she went over her calories by 260 (She opted for 2% milk).  Her deficit for the week is now at 1469–  She can lose almost half of a pound this week if she doesn’t go over on the weekend.

Friday.  She eats well throughout the day, and is going out for a night of bar hopping / clubbing with her friends!  She feels she’s doing well on her diet, but will try and keep things under control since drinks have calories; of course, she wants to “live a little!”  Throughout the night, she orders two 10 fl. oz. Long Island Iced Teas.  This equates to 552 calories, which brings her deficit down to 1117 calories–  She can lose almost one third of a pound at the end of the week.

On Saturday she does great most of the day, and then goes out to dinner with her boyfriend.  They enjoy watching hockey, so they go to a Buffalo Wild Wings for the Sharks game.  At this point in the day, she has consumed 1900 calories, and opts for a healthier food option: Naked Tenders and Fries, since it’s on the healthy menu (Still 700 calories).  Now she’s at 2600 calories for the day (luckily, she opted just for water), which brings her deficit down to 437 for the week–  She can lost almost one fifth of a pound at the end of the week.

On Sunday she eats reasonably well, until the evening.  She realizes that her fast begins again tomorrow, and with that comes the restriction of carbohydrates.  She feels like she ate moderately enough to allow herself some frozen yogurt at night.  Little does she know that she’s already eaten 2000 calories today.  She goes to Yogurtland and gets a fair amount of yogurt, but no toppings.  Smart move.  However, her trip also added 400 calories to her day since this is her “last hurrah for the week,” as she says  (A psychological byproduct of restricting foods).  Now she’s at 2400 calories for the day, which brings her deficit down to 200 calories for the week.

In this hypothetical week, Jane could have lost .66 lbs.  Instead, she ended up only losing .06 lbs.–  Barely more than 1/20th of a pound.  Over the course of a year, that equates to only 3 lbs. lost if she never binges.  (For comparison, if she stayed on track, she could have lost 34.5 lbs.)  Most dieters fall out of compliance because they don’t see results fast enough–  Jane would likely fall into this group.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but I wanted to demonstrate how easy it could be to derail a diet, and how it happens.  The key to weight loss is calories in, vs. calories out.  If you opt to not pay attention to your calories at all, you could end up like Jane.

(On the flip side, you could count your calories every day like Jane’s friend Janet; maintain a small deficit, not starve yourself, have a completely unrestricted diet, and get the results you want.  Janet will also have an easier time transitioning to a healthy lifestyle post “diet.”  Remember: whatever you do, it all comes down to calories.)

Filed under: Fitness, Health, Nutrition by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

Last month, a study was reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine that reported on the efficacy of multivitamins, and it proved to be quite controversial.  To quote the physicians: “The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified and they should be avoided.”

Multivitamins don’t save me from death!?  Why do I take them?

Here’s an interesting tidbit that I think most people are aware of:  All of our “stories” end the same way.  A multivitamin is not the key to immortality.

That’s great, but they’re saying it doesn’t prevent chronic disease.

Jokes aside, I have an issue with the study, and I know there are many people who agree with my argument (since they’ve brought it up themselves):  A multivitamin is a type of dietary supplement.  A dietary supplement is meant to supplement a healthy diet with nutrients or compounds that are either deficient in the diet, or the dietary supplement is meant to bring about a specific result.  Before we get too far in my editorial, let’s look at some parts of the study:

“. . . the researchers examined whether high doses of multivitamins and minerals could prevent heart attacks, strokes and death in 1,700 people who have already had a heart attack. After an average follow-up of five years, the results didn’t show a difference between participants who took dietary supplements and those who didn’t.”

I can’t argue with the data, but in the same vein, I never knew that multivitamins were supposed to have any effect on mortality rates–  I thought it was supposed to add nutrients to my diet that I may be missing.

“The new review study looked at clinical trials that included a total of 450,000 older adults. All together, the researchers didn’t find clear evidence of a beneficial effect of supplements on cancer and heart diseases.”

Interesting.  So taking a multivitamin did not help treat cancer or heart disease.  How can people be so misinformed!?  Better yet–  Why are we allowing the vitamin companies to make these outrageous claims that their product will help fight cancer!?

Let’s look at a multivitamin label:

Where are the claims about fighting cancer?

“Kirkland Signature Daily Multivitamin helps maintain and support:”

• Bones & Teeth* – Makes sense since there is a small amount of calcium; and if you’re not getting 100% of your RDI (Recommended Daily Intake), this extra 20% could help you get an adequate amount.  (Not to mention other minerals that help.)
• Eye Health* – Makes sense since there is Vitamin A, which is important for eye health and development according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
• Heart Health* – Makes sense since there are B Vitamins in the product; B Vitamin deficiencies can lead to irregular heartbeat, heart failure, high blood pressure, and more.
• [There are a few more, but you get the picture.]

“* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.  This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Wait a second.  So they say it could support eye health, heart health, and other aspects of your life by preventing nutrient deficiencies, but at the same time has a mandatory label informing it can’t treat or prevent a disease.

What were these physicians thinking about!?

It’s a [Big Pharma / Illuminati / Political / Alien] Conspiracy!

It all makes sense!

While I find the “Big Pharma” conspiracy theories entertaining, this is obviously a form of reactionary extremism.

There are those out there that eat absolute garbage and claim they’ll be okay by taking a multivitamin–  In the case of those people, this new study is absolutely correct, and this news should be a sort of wake up call for anyone who lives their life with that sort of mindset.

However, I would argue that the physicians that took part in the study failed to acknowledge that the majority of multivitamin users do so as a way to make sure their bodies aren’t deficient–  Not to make up for a garbage diet.  To altogether claim that multivitamins are useless and / or “harmful” and not acknowledge that they could prevent nutrient deficiencies is absurd.

It’s also worth noting that there are studies that have shown positive effects from multivitamin supplementation in certain subgroups; for example:

• The Vitamin D and Calcium can help prevent fractures in older users.
• Zinc and Antioxidants helped with age related macular degeneration.

To close this out, here’s why I still take a multivitamin:  Look at your body like a car.  A car needs many different fluids, lubricants, and fuel to work properly.  If you drain the coolant from your radiator, your car may run for a few minutes, but you it will overheat, and you will likely run into a catastrophic problem.  If you don’t give your body all of the micro-nutrients (vitamins and minerals) it needs, how can you expect it to work properly?  I strive to eat healthy, but rather than track my micro-nutrients (on top of my macros and calories), I prefer taking a multivitamin.

(Full disclosure:  If you suffer from any chronic diseases, or you’re pregnant, you should consult your physician about vitamin choices as these states of being can be harmed by supplementation.  It’s also worth noting that there is an upper limit of intake for most micro-nutrients that can lead to toxicity, but this hasn’t been observed in multivitamin supplementation in apparently healthy adults.)

Sources and More Reading

Filed under: Health, Nutrition by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

I was recently reading the comment section of an article, when I came across a particular gem that just. . .  It actually gave me a headache.  I won’t attribute this to the author, nor will I link the article, but I wanted to take a moment to dissect this comment  (The rant about the government was deleted because it’s not necessary):

“Your understanding is flawed. Obese Americans are not obese due to their caloric intake, it is the vast amounts of processed carbs and simple sugars. They spike our blood sugar and cause our natural metabolic mechanisms to adjust and begin storing the sugars as fat. You could eat the exact same “amount” (calories) of low carb diet and be much healthier.

[…]

Well, if you really want the people to have freedom of choice, you need to be honest about the choices available. You can not support one above all others; ignoring science and logic; and force feed those ideals to children at a young age through the public school system.”

Oy.

“Your understanding is flawed. Obese Americans are not obese due to their caloric intake, it is the vast amounts of processed carbs and simple sugars.”

So, to start, the author states that the person they’re responding to doesn’t understand metabolism.  By the end of this, you’ll understand why the author should have started their comment with: “My understanding is flawed!”

Simply put, Americans that are obese to the degree it shows are, in fact, obese because of excess calories.  In apparently healthy individuals, you have to eat an excess of calories to gain weight.  (There is an exception for metabolic depression and hypothyroidism, which aren’t the epidemic most people make them out to be; especially since metabolic depression mostly affects physique competitors.)

Here is an exception:  Obese Americans that don’t show it (Excessively “skinny-fat” individuals that, based on their body fat percentage, can be classified as obese) could become obese because of excessive carbohydrate intake while eating less than their TEE (Total Energy Expenditure), and not eating enough protein to maintain nitrogen balance.

However, I’m willing to bet that these aren’t the people that the author was referring to.

“They spike our blood sugar and cause our natural metabolic mechanisms to adjust and begin storing the sugars as fat. You could eat the exact same “amount” (calories) of low carb diet and be much healthier.”

This is true that carbohydrates can spike your blood sugar–  This is a natural response to the carbs being broken down into glucose which then enters our bloodstream.  That rise in blood glucose releases insulin which attaches to cells and opens up the door for nutrients to be shuttled in.  Insulin binds to muscle cells so that circulating glucose will get stored in the muscle as glycogen;  insulin also binds to fat cells so that circulating fat (broken down into triglycerides from dietary fat that was consumed with the meal) is stored in fat cells.  Any glucose left over is then converted into fat, which may be stored in fat cells.  (Important note:  Glucose can NOT be stored in a fat cell. It must be converted to fat first.)

Something a lot of people love to point out about insulin is that it shuts off lipolysis (“Fat Burning”) and turns on lipogenesis (“Fat Storage”).  Well, they’re partially right–  In this state, your body no longer has to burn fat for energy, because it has the most efficient energy source circulating already: Glucose.  And they’re partially right that insulin starts lipogenesis, but they fail to point out that the glucose has to be converted to fat before it can be stored as fat–  Until that happens, it’s used for glycogen repletion in the muscles, and as an energy source.

I would also like to take a moment to point out that basically all metabolic systems are running at all times–  Our metabolism is viewed as a light switch, when really it should be viewed as a series of faucets that are always flowing, some more than others.

And one last thing:  A lot of people say, “Insulin is the enemy, so if we don’t eat carbs, we don’t have to deal with the fat storage that goes along with insulin!”  Well, are you also not eating protein, because protein causes an insulin response as well.

To his final point about being healthier by switching the type of calories, I may be inclined to agree–  If you’re eating whole foods instead of processed sugars, then yes, you may be “healthier.”  At the same time, someone switching to low carb with the same amount of calories could also make themselves less healthy by making poor food choices, thus becoming deficient in certain micronutrients.

Note that the author doesn’t state that someone would lose weight by switching the types of calories, just that they would be “healthier.”

“Well, if you really want the people to have freedom of choice, you need to be honest about the choices available. You can not support one above all others; ignoring science and logic; and force feed those ideals to children at a young age through the public school system.”

I appreciate this statement, but in all of their comments on the article, they were proselytizing the paleo diet above all else.  I don’t mean to take a jab at their character, but it’s worth noting.  I digress.

Here, I just want to point out that his assumptions about metabolism are all based on flawed science, and in most cases, “broscience.”  Trying to say that we should not ignore “science and logic” while simultaneously ignoring science and logic is kind of absurd.

Real science can tell you what am optimal diet is;  I can assure you there is no book to sell it, and it will likely never be marketed properly.

It’s worth noting that I don’t advocate eating unhealthy, nor do I advocate eating severely low carbohydrate, nor do I advocate eating too many processed sugars–  I advocate, and follow, a nonrestrictive, science based nutrition approach that is based on an individual and their goals.  For me, that means I derive 25 – 30% of my calories from protein, 20 – 25% of my calories from fat, and 40 – 55% of my calories from carbohydrates.

Sources and More Reading

Filed under: Body Building, Health, Nutrition, Nutrition Myth by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

If you do a full body workout, this post isn’t really for you.  Of course, it’s always worth reading for the knowledge, but we’re going to discuss where shoulders go when you’re doing a split routine.  So, where to begin?

I’m doing full body workouts–  Should I split it up?

Split routines are great for trained individuals, but not for those starting out–  In your first year or two of training, you will see tremendous results from a full body workout, and there’s no reason to stunt this growth by prematurely switching to a split routine–  Of course, once your progress begins to slow, or stagnate, then it is time to switch over to a split.

Popular Splits

There are many ways to split your workout–  You have a 2 day split where you train your upper body on one day, and your lower the next–  This method can be used to train 2 or 4 days per week.  In a similar vein, you can do a 2 day split where you train back, biceps and legs one day; and chest, shoulders and triceps the next.  When I do a two day split, that’s how I do it.  The next would be a 3 day split, where you do legs one day, and then do a “push / pull” split the next two days where you train shoulders, chest and triceps on one day; back and biceps the next.  This method can be used to train 3 to 6 days per week.  (It’s worth noting that I employ this style of split and am currently training 6 days per week.  I like it because it employs a very important tenant behind training:  Think about muscles in terms of movements, rather than groups.)

There are other splits, too, like a 3 day where you day legs one day, torso the next (Back / Chest), and shoulders and arms the final day.   A four day, where you do legs one day; back and biceps the next; chest and triceps the next; and shoulders the final day. Then you have a five day split where you do legs, then back, then chest, then shoulders, then arms.

There are a lot of ways to do it, and it’s ultimately up to you (and your trainer, if you have one) to determine what would be best for your goals.

So why do you have “Shoulders” in the title of this post?

Shoulders are a tricky muscle group.  There are three heads to your “Deltoid:”  The anterior (front), medial (middle), and posterior (rear) heads; each one has it’s own function.

Meet the deltoids!

Usually, the medial deltoid is a synergist (“Helper”) to the anterior deltoid; the anterior deltoid is also often a synergist to movements involving the pecs.  By this logic, I would make the case for not having a “shoulder day,” and instead, training shoulders with your chest–  Otherwise, your shoulders may not have enough time to recover, and you may not see the gains you want.  This can be seen on a “Legs / Torso / Shoulders & Arms” split, where your shoulders would end up seeing action two of those days, and if you train 6 days a week, then they would be used 4 days–  Not enough time to recover = losing gains = no bueno.

You forgot to mention the “Posterior Deltoid.”

I didn’t forget.  The posterior deltoid is involved in different movements than the medial and anterior deltoids, and thus, I would not include it in a “shoulder day.”  In most rowing movements, and / or back exercises, your posterior deltoid acts as a synergist.  Also, in movements where the posterior deltoid is the agonist (“Prime Mover” or “Target”), many different back muscles act as the synergist–  Which is why your posterior deltoid, when doing a training split, should actually be trained with your back muscles.

Think about it–  If you train all three heads of your deltoid on your chest day (Where shoulders belong on a three day split), that means you’re also working your back on your chest day–  And if you do each body part twice a week, that would make four days that you’re training your back; not enough time for recovery if you want to see gains!

That makes sense.

Training splits can be valuable, but understand that part of the reason for doing a split is to give your muscles enough time to recover–  That’s why it’s often important to think of your muscles in terms of movements, rather than groups.  Putting all shoulder movements together is not ideal, since you’re then combining movements, which defeats the purpose of doing a training split.

Filed under: Body Building, Fitness by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »