Blog

Introduction

Most people interested in fitness are interested in how their body composition stacks up against others.

Essentially, body composition is divided into “fat mass” and “lean mass”. Fat mass is pretty self explanatory, and lean mass is everything else (for example muscles/organs). Body composition is often correlated with the risk of developing certain diseases, and obviously shapes our appearance. Lower body fat levels are favourable for most endurance sports simply because carrying less weight is more efficient. In physique sports, body composition is also important due to the impact body fat and muscle mass have on appearance.

There are multitude ways to measure body composition, each with varying degrees of accuracy. Here’s my take on the two most popular options for at-home measurement of body composition: bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold measurements.

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA)

In a nutshell, these devices (often similar looking to scales) measure the electrical impedance of the body to an electrical current. Fat is less conductive than lean tissue. This will result in a higher level of impedance, corresponding to a higher result for body fat percentage.

Unfortunately, many variables affect the accuracy of a BIA measure…

Differences in hydration status can have a large impact on the variability and accuracy of the measurement and predicted body composition. As can the length of fast leading to the measurement, recent food choices, and recent exercise/activity (2). Also, prediction equations used in BIA devices to predict body composition are based off select populations (eg overweight, young and active, elderly), which can introduce error if you do not fit within the exact framework of the population used in the study validating the piece of equipment. There is also a large difference between required predictive equations for different ethnicities (3).

There is a large amount of variation between how accurate different brands/models of BIA equipment are (2), sometimes errors can be as large as 8-9%. As such (if you care to buy a BIA device) I’d recommend doing your research as to which current models have been scientifically validated with different equations available for different populations (age / ethnicity / activity etc).

A huge difference in appearance exists between 6% and 15% body-fat (relative to comparing 30% and 40%), reducing the worth of a lot of BIA measures when getting extremely lean – they aren’t accurate enough.

If you are using a BIA device to measure your body fat percentage for bodybuilding reasons, the error between measures can really throw things out. Coming into competition, a male will usually want to be between 3-6% body fat. Measuring body fat to the accuracy of 1% is probably not a task for most standard household BIA devices, so picture analysis is likely more useful at detecting when body-fat levels are reaching the “ideals” rather than relying on BIA measures. For an in-season bodybuilder, differences in 1-3% in body-fat look a whole lot more obvious than a difference of 1-3% when at a higher percent; for example comparing 37 % to 40%.

Due to the large error margin, BIA is better to be used over a long period of time to look at trends in predicted bodyfat, rather than one-off bodyfat measurements.

Due to the large variation in quality of BIA products with many not having been scientifically validated, combined with the variation in measurements caused by differences explained above, I do not usually recommend the use of BIA to analyse body composition for at home use, unless you reach all the criteria:

1. The device you use has been scientifically validated and you are using predictive equations relevant to you (age / ethnicity / activity etc).
2. You are carefully controlling hydration status at each measure (to be the same each time).
3. You fast for the same length of time leading into the measure.
4. Recent exercise / activity levels are same between measures.

Skin-folds

Bodyfat conversion tables or formulas based on skinfold measurements turn raw data from skinfold measures (decent information) into confounded data influenced by a predictive error (3). 

Even though I don’t recommend taking skin folds and converting the values into a body-fat % value, I think there is some merit in taking skin folds and using the raw data, as discussed in the following section.

What I recommend to track changes in body composition at low cost:

Does putting a number on body fat percentage really matter? If your goal is to lose fat and you’re losing fat, is putting a % to it really that meaningful? Sure, if you’re a competitive bodybuilder, you’re going to want to get within a certain range of body-fat (eg 3-6%), but measuring to that degree of accuracy is usually out of the picture.

Here are some of my recommendations for measuring changes in body composition. The key to all of these methods of measurements is that it is the trends over time that you should be worried about, not a singular measurement.

Raw data from skinfold measures

One recommendation (if you want some numerical data) is to take skinfold measurements. Just record the raw measures, don’t try and convert it into a percentage. To make comparisons between time points more accurate, ensure:

1. The skinfolds are taken at the same time of day (preferably morning prior to eating).
2. Each skinfold is measured 3+ times and either the mean (average of all the numbers) or median (middle number) is chosen.
3. The same person takes the measures (preferably someone who knows what they are doing!).
4. Ideally having eaten the same thing in the preceding meal (dinner the night before).

Pictures taken in similar conditions

Those being:

1. At the same time of day (preferably morning prior to eating) this reduces the influence that the prior meal can have on bloating & hydration status.
2. In the same room with the same lighting (curtains closed, lights on to reduce light variability).
3. Ideally having eaten something in the preceding meal (dinner the night before).

Trends in body-weight combined with performance measurements

A downward trend of body-weight over a decent period of time (1 month+) will almost always indicate fat loss. If gym performance is maintaining or improving, you can be pretty sure that muscle loss has been minimised therefore it would have been reductions in fat mass that would have contributed mostly to the bodyweight change.

Summary

As interest in the fitness industry grows, so do the number of fitness-related products. A lot of these make products make false claims to entice a sale.

Body fat and body composition analysers, for at-home use, are also often overpriced for how useful they actually are. Many people have the desire to know their own body fat percentage however many popular “at-home” methods are truly inaccurate and unvalidated. Do your research before purchasing any of these products!

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

Please contact me here if you are interested in the nutrition and training coaching services I provide!

References

(1) Heyward VH, Wagner DR: Body composition and ethnicity. Applied body composition assessment. Human Kinetics. 2004, 135-172.

(2) Pietiläinen, K. H., Kaye, S., Karmi, A., Suojanen, L., Rissanen, A., & Virtanen, K. A. (2013). Agreement of bioelectrical impedance with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and MRI to estimate changes in body fat, skeletal muscle and visceral fat during a 12-month weight loss intervention. British Journal of Nutrition, 109(10), 1910-1916.

(3) Wells, J. C. K., & Fewtrell, M. S. (2006). Measuring body composition. Archives of disease in childhood, 91(7), 612-617.

Banner image: By JKSJks111 (http://www.bodybuildingacademy.org/Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Soreness the day after training is often perceived as a sign of a good, productive training session. This can last up to 7 days (1) but usually lasts between 1 and 3 days. This soreness is labelled delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS).

What Causes DOMS?

It was once thought that the buildup of lactic acid caused DOMS, however this is not the case. Lactic acid is cleared relatively quickly following exercise, usually within 30 minutes. Instead, exercise one is unaccustomed to results in disruption of the sarcolemma, extracellular matrix, and intracellular muscle structure (5) resulting in DOMS. This means that DOMS usually occurs the most at the beginning of a training cycle, when training volume (sets x reps x weight) is higher, or when different exercises have been implemented. Simply, when you start out a training programme, your muscles will damage to a greater extent and this will result in more DOMS.

Blausen.com staff. “Blausen gallery 2014“. Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 20018762.

Adaptation to Exercise & Muscle Damage

Early neural adaptations are responsible for most of the strength gain at the beginning of a training cycle (8). Morphological (size) adaptations of the muscle tissue typically occurs a bit later. As DOMS is higher at the beginning of a training cycle, those in favour of DOMS as an indicator of muscle growth would expect muscle growth to be higher at the start of the training cycle when more DOMS is present. However this is simply not the case. The contribution of muscular hypertrophy to strength gain relative to neural adaptation increases further on in the training cycle (where muscle damage & DOMS is actually less present).

The study by Brentano & Martins (4) opposed the idea that muscle damage (and hence DOMS) was required for muscle growth. They stated that it may not be a useful indicator of long term muscle growth as low mechanical overloads over a long period of time can result in muscle growth, with little to no muscle damage occuring. Although not of resistance exercise nature, a study (7) was conducted on training programming on cyclists with regards to muscle damage and muscle gain. Training volume (main driver of muscle gain) was matched between groups. One group was exposed to a higher initial damaging bout of exercise, resulting in more muscle damage. The other group was eased into the training protocol, and reported lower exertion (ease of exercise) and less DOMS. Over the course of the study, both grouped gained equal muscular cross sectional area, despite one of the groups experiencing far more muscle damage and DOMS. Thus muscle gain still occurs without significant muscle damage, and so the associated DOMS should not be used as a sole indicator of a successful training session.

DOMS to this extent should not be the goal of your training!

Anecdotally, DOMS occurs more-so when training a bodypart less frequently. One day per week per bodypart more often than not results in more DOMS than when you start training more frequently, like 2 to 3 days per bodypart per week. Additionally, training each muscle group 2x per week compared to 1x results in greater muscle size improvements (9). DOMS has been demonstrated to reduce joint range of motion (2) and strength (3), as well as increasing risk of injury (10) in the short term. In my opinion, these are the main reasons why protocols resulting in excessive DOMS should be avoided; they prevent you from training as frequently, which could prevent you from gaining as much muscle and strength.

So what should I focus on instead?

Training progress measured by lifting more weight, doing a few more reps with the same weight, increasing number of total sets, or improving technique to make it more suited to the particular goal, should be the goal of most training sessions or training cycles.

Summary

Training, especially if unaccustomed to it, damages the muscle and you perceive it as soreness (6).

DOMS will occasionally be a byproduct of training, but it should never be the goal of a training session or used as an indicator that you are improving in muscle size. Focus on adding weight to the bar, adding reps, doing more sets, or improving technique, rather than chasing DOMS. That will lead to better long term gains.

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

References

1. Armstrong RB. Mechanisms of exercise-induced delayed onset muscular soreness: a brief review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1984;16(6):529–538.
2. Behm DG, Chaouachi A. A review of the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(11):2633–2651. [CrossRef]
3. Brown SJ, Child RB, Day SH, Donnelly AE. Indices of skeletal muscle damage and connective tissue breakdown following eccentric muscle contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1997;75(4):369–374. [CrossRef]
4. Brentano, M. A., & Martins, K. L. (2011). A review on strength exercise-induced muscle damage: applications, adaptation mechanisms and limitations. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 51(1), 1-10.
5. Byrne C, Twist C, Eston R. Neuromuscular function after exercise-induced muscle damage: theoretical and applied implications. Sports Med. 2004;34(1):49–69. [CrossRef]
6. Cheung K, Hume P, Maxwell L. Delayed onset muscle soreness: treatment strategies and performance factors. Sports Med. 2003;33(2):145–164. [CrossRef]
7. Flann, K. L., LaStayo, P. C., McClain, D. A., Hazel, M., & Lindstedt, S. L. (2011). Muscle damage and muscle remodeling: no pain, no gain?. The Journal of experimental biology, 214(4), 674-679.
8. Jones, D. A., & Rutherford, O. M. (1987). Human muscle strength training: the effects of three different regimens and the nature of the resultant changes. The Journal of Physiology, 391, 1-11.
9. Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1689-1697.
10. Smith LL. Causes of delayed onset muscle soreness and the impact on athletic performance: a review. J Appl Sport Sci Res. 1992;6(3):135–141.

My Progress from 79kg to 67kg.

Thought some might find it interesting as to how I approached the nutrition side of dropping a weight class!

February last year (2015) I suffered a lumbar facet joint injury (or something with similar symptoms) that only started to come right about a year later. By January of this year, I had become tired of dealing with the many woes of having an injury, and so decided to drop some body fat to get my mind off the fact that I was going to be unable to squat or deadlift heavy very soon. By late February/March 2016 my back started to feel OK under relatively heavy loads (100kg squats and 130kg deadlifts which was heavy for that time). I had dropped to around 74kg which is my usual competition weight and thought it would be worth a crack dropping to around 68kg to water cut down to compete in the U66kg class in my last year as a junior (23 and under).

Flexible Dieting: I ate whatever food I liked, just (sometimes) not as much as I would like.

How did I achieve this fat loss? Through the forever slandered, calorie-counting. Love it or hate it, energy balance is the most important thing when it comes to long term weight loss or weight gain. It is not the ONLY important factor, but it is definitely the most important. I counted calories, reducing the amount I was eating compared to when I was gaining weight. When weight stalled, I reduced calories further, or added in some light cardio. That’s the most important factor – controlling energy balance (energy in versus energy out).

I also ate more protein. More protein during a weight loss phase is crucial. Protein requirements go up when losing weight to spare muscle tissue. Protein, in general, is also is very filling compared to other macronutrients such as fats or carbs (read more about this here). I made sure to have 2-3 servings of veges per day and 1-2 servings of fruit. I also made sure to eat a good amount of fibre (generally over 25 grams, usually around 35). Having a consistently high intake of fibre helped keep me full during the weight loss phase. Fibre also acts somewhat as a proxy for the micronutrient content of the diet as well. IE if someone has a diet high in protein and fibre with fruits, vegetables, and dairy incorporated, you can be pretty sure that their diet is also sufficient in micronutrients.

Protein, fibre, calories, and cardio exercise, all controlled. Those factors, as well as reasonable variation in food selection and fruit and vegetable consumption, meant that I didn’t have to worry about the recent devil in nutrition: sugar. In fact, looking back at previous Myfitnesspal entries, I probably consumed around ~100g/day (25 teaspoons?). Whether or not a sugar intake is acceptable or not is dependent on context – in a weight-trained individual with a decent amount of muscle mass, and with a diet that contains adequate fibre, protein, calories controlled, sugar intake means moot. 

Due to restricted calories, my intake of sugary/processed foods dropped as I continued (as less processed/sugary foods tend to make you more full on average per calorie), but I did not make a point of avoiding certain foods. Sugar is only a small part of one’s diet. Don’t major in the minors.

Focus on the important factors…: Calories. Protein. Fibre. Fruits/Vegetables (micros)..and water 🙂 You don’t have to track calories forever, but when you have a bodyweight or body-composition focused goal, it sure does help. It keeps you accountable. 

Where to from here? My plan is to hover around 67-69kg for the remainder of this year and continue to compete in the 66kg junior class.

Contact me if you would like help structuring your diet &/or training towards bodybuilding or powerlifting comp prep.

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

The most recent craze within the nutrition and health industry is undoubtedly the “low carb high fat” (LCHF) craze. No longer is fat the bad guy, but now it’s carbohydrate: particularly sugar. Self-proclaimed nutrition experts are promoting this extremist diet, in the hope to gain followers, and often have products linked in with the success of their campaign such as books, supplements, or nutritional services.

(Before I start, do you really think it’s a good idea to trust someone’s nutritional advice when they have an entire book promoting an extremist diet? Realise that they have pinned themselves down to some extent. They have a reduced capacity to change their opinion despite what the science says, as they have financial ties to integrity in their position….)

Firstly, a look at the food pyramid:

From reading my previous articles/posts, you should be able to assume that I’m not in favour of labeling foods good or bad and so dislike any form of food pyramid. HOWEVER, I simply can not stand when people bash the current food pyramid, which if you didn’t know, pretty much promotes high carb low fat, and say that it needs to be refurbished as the recommendations are wrong, and use the current obesity epidemic as proof that it doesn’t work. Let me ask you, do you actually believe that the current overweight/obese population ate high carb low fat diets to end up where they are? Or did they eat high carb, high fat, low fibre, (hence) high calorie and not exercise enough? It is strikingly obvious to me that it is the latter.

The food pyramid doesn’t work because people don’t follow it, not because the recommendations themselves are terrible. I agree that the pyramid’s recommendations are not perfect (and doubt any pyramid could be “perfect” for the entire population), but they’re definitely NOT the cause of the obesity epidemic! In fact, the “blue zone” populations (oldest living people in the world) eat a diet which is abundant in carbohydrates without containing excessive calories. This type of diet is similar to what the pyramid recommends.

While this style of pyramid is certainly not perfect (I’m not sure a perfect food pyramid could exist), I don’t believe it deserves the hatred it receives.

So, are LCHF diets ultimately superior for weight loss, health, and longevity, as some claim?

Rather than cherry-picking journal articles, I will provide a few recent reviews on the topic. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of the research are usually the best, unbiased sources of up-to-date information around nutrition (and other topics in science). They analyse and summarise the trends in the research. The review by Johnston et al. (2014), examined the research on weight loss in overweight and obese adults following different style diets. Their was no difference in weight loss between low fat and low carbohydrate diets. Another review by Naude et al. (2014), revealed that in obese subjects either following a low carbohydrate diet or a balanced diet, weight loss was the same between groups, as well as improvements in health markers such as blood pressure, LDL, HDL, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and fasting blood glucose. And another huge review by Hu et al. (2012) comparing low carb to low fat  concluded “Reductions in body weight, waist circumference and other metabolic risk factors were not significantly different between the 2 diets. These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets at reducing weight and improving metabolic risk factors.” 

Johnston et al. (2014) recommends practitioners to prescribe a style of diet which their clients prefer & as such have a higher chance of adhering to long term. Whether it be low fat, low carbohydrate, or moderate intakes of both macronutrients, the key for long term weight loss is a caloric deficit over a long period of time.

If the research doesn’t show a supremacy of LCHF, why are there so many great anecdotes by people using LCHF?

This great chart by Antonis Damianou of Smart Training and Flexible Dieting illustrates it quite nicely.

Simply put, an initial drop in water weight caused by low carbohydrate intake, results in a positive feed back loop whereby the person believes fat loss is occurring rapidly, meaning that short term adherence to the diet is increased.  There is also a big confounding variable: protein. Foods that are often promoted in LCHF diets such as fatty meats, whole fat milks, nuts, cheeses, eggs, etc, are high in protein. This elevation in protein intake has multiple positive effects for weight loss and body composition: higher thermic effect of food (protein requires more energy to digest/absorb than most carbs or fats), increased muscle gain (or at least increased muscle retention during weight loss). Higher satiety (feeling of fullness) also occurs, resulting in reduction in total calorie consumption, resulting in a caloric deficit and fat loss. The high satiety per calorie induced by LCHF diets due to the inherently high protein and low sugar content is the main upside of this style of dieting in my opinion.

Ok, so this chart shows LCHF diets can work for fat loss?

They absolutely can and do work for fat loss. At least for the short term. The general push for the population to consume less “refined” foods and more “natural/whole” foods is good in general. It will improve protein intake and reduce overall caloric intake, which would improve population health. However, the recommendations often made by LCHF gurus to the general public are extremely misleading. Copious amounts of coconut cream, butter, or lard, or anything high in fat and low in protein for that matter, are not going to be extremely helpful for fat loss. Foods high in fat and low in protein and fibre can lead to over-consumption of calories more easily than foods high in carbohydrates and low in protein, as discussed in Chambers et al., 2015. Feelings of satiety and weight loss can be achieved in other styles of dieting by eating a diet high in fibre and protein (Chambers et al., 2015) without excluding any food groups. Read my article about this here.

In my opinion, the main downside of LCHF diets is how unsustainable they are. If you can see yourself eating low/next to no carbohydrates for the rest of your life, then go ahead – try it. But why would you? For no additional benefit to the LCHF approach compared to a moderate approach, I for one (and I’m sure most of you), would rather still incorporate higher carbohydrate, tasty foods into my diet while achieving optimum results. With appropriate calorie, fibre, and protein control, you don’t have to exclude any of your favourite foods. Read this to learn more.

Side note: An aspect the LCHF approach I’m a bit confused about is, what happens when weight loss stalls? Do you eat more fat? With flexible dieting it’s pretty simple, increase activity or reduce caloric intake slightly. But considering a lot of LCHF advocates don’t even track calories or recommend it, I wonder what adjustments are made to “keep the ball rolling”? Hmm…

Summary

Why must their be “good foods” and “bad foods” and why do we have to demonize either fat or carbohydrate? Why does it either have to be high carb, low fat, or low carb, high fat? Where’s the middle ground?

What about a moderated approach to include all macronutrients in reasonable quantities according to preference, without having to shy away from any foods/food groups in particular? In my opinion that is more sustainable. I think extremist style diets are promoted simply because the public will listen, and so there is money to be made. The average Joe doesn’t want to hear “everything in moderation” or “calories are of number one importance when it comes to weight loss”. That’s boring. They want to hear about the most recent/trendy diet, no matter how sustainable.

If you are interested in inquiring about my online nutritional services whether it be for general fat loss and health, or sport-specific, please contact me here.

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

The following articles are great reads and I highly recommend them:

Eric Helms “The Myth of Good and Bad Foods”

Layne Norton “The Science of Sugar and Fat Loss” 

Joy Victoria “Your Problem with Sugar is the Problem with Sugar” 

James Krieger “Good Calories, Bad Calories: The Mythology of Obesity, or The Mythology of Gary Taubes?“

JC Deen “If You Want To Lose Fat, and Keep It Off, Don’t Fall For The Low-Carb Trap”

If you are a client and/or have read my previous articles, you’ll know that I’m against labelling a single food as “good” or “bad” and that the whole diet and context of the situation needs to be considered.

…However, there are certainly foods which are more favourable within a diet than others, when trying to lose weight. For a simple reason: satiety per calorie. Satiety per calorie means how much of a feeling of “fullness” a food gives you per calorie of the food. It is of utmost importance to focus dieting around foods which give you a good amount of satiety per calorie, to reduce hunger and improve adherence to the diet.

What makes a food filling?

Foods high in fibre,  protein, fat, or a combination of these, tend to be filling. Foods high in fibre and/or protein while being low in fat and carbs tend to be more filling per calorie. As such, we should focus on eating and drinking a large amount of protein and fibre during our weight loss phases; protein has more benefits than simply synthesising into muscle tissue! Foods high in water content, or other calorie-free liquid, also make us more full for a low amount of calories. This is why I recommend low calorie-soups or large amounts of liquids during meal time, when dieting.

The image on the left was obtained from http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor. This website is a great resource for checking out nutritional data of foods and seeing which foods will be more satiating per calorie. As you can see, many fruits and vegetables are high on the list of satiety per calorie and so should be eaten in abundance if we are having hunger issues. Some fruits are more filling than others though: for example watermelon has a fullness factor (FF) of 4.5 (due to the huge liquid content) whereas bananas only has that of 2.5. Lean meats also have a high FF. As we have higher protein requirements when we are in a weight loss phase, AND we are more likely to be hungry which can reduce diet adherence, we should increase lean meat consumption.

Within the table, all of the foods at the top of the chart are those typically considered “healthy” foods whereas those at the bottom are often labelled “unhealthy”. This supports why we should focus the majority of our diet around lean meats and fruits/vegetables, to hit protein, fibre, and micronutrient targets, AND stay full, and then work in tastier foods around these.  Inevitably, you will get hungry when you have been dieting long enough and have reached low body fat levels, but having an understanding of satiety per calorie will make your weight loss journey a whole lot easier to bear.

Key point:

• Focus the majority of your diet around foods with a high fullness factor if you suffer from hunger during weight loss phases.

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

Before I start, this article is not to debate the evidence surrounding the safety of various artificial sweeteners. For that I suggest you go to the website examine.com. If you are worried about any specific ingredients in anything you consume, search it up in their to receive and objective, scientific view point (nutrition is a science, remember).

The Appeal to Nature

Artificial sweeteners get an unfounded bad reputation among many who assume that “unnatural” foods are the devil, and as such, any food with a long name must be bad for your body. This is called the naturalistic fallacy/appeal to nature. A bit about that..

“An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’, or bad because it is ‘unnatural'”. It is usually an invalid argument, because the implicit (unstated) primary premise “What is natural is good” typically is irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact” – Wiki

It is possible to become obese and unhealthy through consuming only “natural” foods. I will admit that a diet aimed at weight loss will probably contain more “natural” foods like lean meats and vegetables, simply because they are usually more filling per calorie and contain great amounts of  micronutrients (& protein & fibre, respectively). However, there is still room for heavily processed, refined, man made, whatever-you-want-to-call-it, food products within our diet, and they may actually help us reach our goals in some cases.

Foods High in Sugar can be Positive or Negative within a Diet

From personal and coaching experience, I have learnt that when transitioning from a bulk (weight gain phase) to a cut (weight loss phase), the first foods to be emitted from the diet are usually those high sugar, low fibre, low protein: eg soft drinks, donuts, ice cream, lollies, etc. These foods can be useful for some individuals who need a lot of calories to put on weight (3000+), as these foods make it easier to reach desired carbohydrate and calorie intake without making you full. When the cut begins, calories/carbs need to be dropped, and so it makes sense that these foods are dropped. They also don’t offer much protein, which requirements increase as you lose weight (in order to spare muscle tissue).Whether foods high in sugar are positive or negative to a diet is dependent on context.

Consumption of these can be useful for SOME individuals struggling to consume enough calories to gain weight.

Easing the Transition into Dieting 

I recommend slow weight loss phases, whether you are prepping for a bodybuilding show or simply trying to drop some unwanted fat, a rough guideline is no more than 1% of body weight, weight loss per week. Taking it slow will help to conserve gym performance, and therefore muscle mass. It will also make the diet more sustainable, with less cravings & bad moods. Artificial sweeteners ease the transition from the weight gain phase to the weight loss phase. Replacing higher calorie deserts with options like sugar-free jellies, and soft drinks with diet drinks, our dieting attempts may actually feel less like dieting. We still get to taste the sugary taste which our instincts are wired to crave. This easy transition should increase dietary success through sustainability, so long as we still track our food intake to some extent as suggested in previous articles.

Key points:

• Just because a food does not appear in nature does not make it unhealthy.
• Keep dietary changes small to improve sustainability & long term adherence.
• Replace sugary foods with calorie-free substitutes when transitioning into a weight-loss phase.

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

In the first part (here) I gave an introduction of flexible dieting. In this article I will show you an example of how flexible dieting is implemented in the offseason of a drug free bodybuilder, and compare it to a few weeks before competition. A bit of background: Tehezib (T) started contest prep (weight loss-get lean phase) for the 2015 season in March. He competed in five competitions between early August and late November.

Late January 2015 (80kg)

Mid September 2015 (72-75kg)

The lighting is different, but that’s besides the point. He obviously got shredded and contest-lean. He did this with no restriction on any foods. He ate whatever food he wanted, it just wasn’t always as much as he wanted. He tracked his calories, macros, and fibre and this along with appropriate cardio and training planning facilitated him to get this lean while retaining his muscle mass. For interest’s sake, I’ll give you some examples of his Myfitnesspal dietary entries from the off-season and from deep in prep:

This example MFP entry was from in the off-season prior to the weight loss phase (prep). Calorie intake was around 1000kcal higher/day than in the depths of prep. During this time, there was far more flexibility in quantity of foods eaten. This calorie intake was around 200-300 above maintenance, and enabled a weight gain of roughly 250g/week. Controlling calories around this amount (±200) ensured that T did not gain excessive amounts of fat, while also maximising rates of muscle gain. As you can see, he was eating all types of “unclean” “bad” foods yet still remaining at his calorie target, hitting ample protein to maximise protein synthesis, and eating enough fibre to maintain digestive health. More dairy products could have been incorporated as it looks like calcium was a bit low for this day, but this is only a small snapshot of his overall diet. His health, body weight/muscle gain, mental health, was all good following a diet like this without any crazy restrictions on particular food groups or foods. Note that his sugar intake on this day was 94 grams. This is above typical recommended daily intakes and far above guidelines of radical sugar restriction diets, but his health was completely fine. He is an athlete with improved blood glucose regulation, due mainly to an abundant of insulin-sensitive muscle tissue which can quickly soak up excess glucose from the blood stream. CONTEXT is important with diet, you simply can’t say sugar is bad for everyone.

This next snapshot of T’s diet was in the depths of contest prep where we were aiming to get him to stage-ready leanness while maintaining as much muscle as possible, and doing as much as we could do make him mentally sane and remain as healthy as possible (although it is unlikely to remain hormonally/mentally healthy during an extended period of leanness/calorie restriction.. simply what natural bodybuilding entails). His calories had dropped quite a lot since the bulking period. Note these dietary changes were not all made in one go, rather it was a gradual drop from ~3250 to ~2350. He was still consuming foods that he enjoys (just in lower quantities), while getting shredded. As you can see, sugar intake has dropped. This is because high sugar foods are often micronutrient, fibre void foods that don’t keep you full for the amount of calories that they have in them, which can lead to overeating calories (this is the main reason why excess sugar is associated with weight gain, and context is important). As T was restricting calories and getting extremely lean, his hunger was elevating. Thus, inherently he opted to eat more filling foods with his allocated calories and macros, which typically means less sugar.

Hopefully this gave you a good insight as to how a diet of a competitive natural bodybuilder changes from the offseason to contest prep. This particular diet is not intended to be copied and followed by anyone, as each individual often requires different calorie and macronutrient targets to get to their desired goal.

If you are interested in bodybuilding prep while still eating your favourite foods, or simply want to lose weight, please check out the services  page and get in contact with me.

-Jeremy

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

  Most diets fail because of unsustainability. This is often because of particular food restriction or restrictions on entire food groups. In an instance where an individual doesn’t follow every rule laid out by a fad diet, they have no idea how to adjust the rest of their diet to accommodate the earlier muck up, and this can lead to a chain of binge/purge cycles. For example: worrying that the small bowl of ice cream you ate will completely stop your chances of weight loss for the day so you might as well go all out and eat the whole tub. This type of black and white thinking about nutrition can impede people’s ability to maintain a healthy weight once achieved (1). 

To give you a bit of background, flexible dieting AKA IIFYM (if it fits your macros) is a dietary strategy which has a main focus on reaching target macronutrient and calorie numbers by the end of the day. It does not directly discriminate between “good” and “bad” foods or “clean” and “unclean”. To do so is missing the bigger picture. These macronutrient and calorie targets are often set through trial and error as to how training performance and body weight/composition responds. If planned with health in mind, a dietary fibre target will also be present. Reaching a daily fibre target of around 25-40g/day (depending on caloric intake) will aid in gastrointestinal system health and help blood sugar levels stay relatively stable. It will also indirectly ensure that you are consuming a large amount of some of the micronutrients.. as most foods that are high in fibre are also high in micronutrients.

Flexible dieting means you don’t have to eat this for meal #2,3,4, and 5.

One huge misconception that people have about flexible dieting is that it gives you permission to eat junk food all day so long as it “fits the macros”. There is something inherently wrong with that idea. Suitable macros ESPECIALLY when someone is trying to lose a great deal of body fat, like during bodybuilding contest prep, will not allow a large intake of calorie dense, unfilling, “unhealthy” foods. For example, if you are eating 2000 calories per day of about 150g protein, 250g carbs, 50 fat, and 30 fibre, you simply won’t have enough room in your macro quota to fill it with pure junk. You would end up not reaching the protein or fibre target.

Thus, flexible dieting often involves eating a decent amount of typical “bodybuilder” foods like chicken and broccoli, just because these foods are of low caloric density and make you full for the amount of calories that they have in them. When you are on 3000-4000 calories however, there becomes a lot of room to fit in a wider range and quantities of foods you desire, just be sure to still hit the calorie, protein, and fibre quota for the day, eat some fruits and vegetables, and your health will be just fine. Remember, look at your diet and lifestyle as a whole to determine whether it is healthy or not, rather than nit-picking at smaller details in your diet like if you should put a teaspoon of sugar in your coffee or not. 

Big Mac(ros). Still possible to fit this into a diet of 2000 calories, but not recommended as it will use up a large chunk of your fat and calories for the day.

It IS possible to eat this and still lose weight and be healthy, just be smart and calculated with your dietary strategy.

Where it trumps other styles of diets is the flexibility that it has. It means you don’t have to be a social outcast and bring tupperware out to lunch with your friends. Not to hate against anyone who does that, just saying that it is unnecessary suffering. You can eat what you like when you go out, as long as you have a decent estimate of the macronutrient profile of the meal. Once you have used flexible dieting for an extended period of time, you will have a greater understanding for the nutrient profile of select foods, and will be able to eat intuitively without having to track calories/macros. That is the end goal.

In the next article I will provide a case study on a bodybuilder transitioning from deep in the off season, to late in contest prep, as an example of how a flexible diet changes when calorie and macronutrient targets change. Stay tuned!

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

Nutrition for fat loss and muscle retention

Basic nutrition for bodybuilding/powerlifting

References

• (1) Palascha, A., van Kleef, E., & van Trijp, H. C. (2015). How does thinking in Black and White terms relate to eating behavior and weight regain?. Journal of health psychology, 20(5), 638-648.

A hot topic in the strength training world and the topic of my thesis is autoregulated training. We all have days in the gym where we feel like we could break PRs, and days where we’d rather not be in the gym. The essence of autoregulation is customising your training to how your body performs on a given day. If you are having a bad day, training load (weight on the bar) and/or volume (sets x reps x load) will be adjusted downwards, and vice versa for if you are having a good day.

Why autoregulation could be a way of optimising progression

Typical structured programmes involve plugging in a one-rep-max value into a formula and having it spit out training weights for you to follow for 2-3 months before re-testing. While this is a better way to train than programmes with no structure, there may be a more efficient, fine-tuned way of doing things long term.

Day to day fluctuations in strength due to fatigue and improving strength levels may affect the accuracy of prescribing training based on a one-off maximal value. Within a single day, strength can vary 10-20%, resulting in a variable amount of repetitions when using a fixed percentage of 1RM (3). Some training days may not provide enough stimuli for optimal adaptation, whereas others may provide too much stimulus resulting in fatigue that is not desirable for a particular stage of the training phase. The potential for strength gain in some individuals may be greater than a traditional programme can facilitate, as such a method of incorporating some form of autoregulation may allow rapid gains. These reasons justify autoregulation as a tool within programming as it allows an individual to increase strength at their own pace (4). Also, autoregulated programmes often result in a constant adjustment of repetitions which may prevent training plateaus (1).

Most studies on autoregulated strength training have been carried out on participants under rehabilitation therapy. There are a couple (1,2) that used a form of autoregulation on strength gain and found it to be superior than non-autoregulation within a periodised routine. More research needs to be done on autoregulation and maximal strength gain, as theoretically and anecdotally it appears effective. Another important aspect to mention is enjoyment. Long term progress is largely dictated by adherence, which is affected by enjoyment. If you find autoregulated programming more enjoyable, you may find it easier to stick to the structure of the plan long term and make better gains.

How to structure autoregulation into your training

There are multiple ways to do this. The most common method is that described by Michael Tuchscherer (right) on http://www.reactivetrainingsystems.com/. Basically, you rate the difficulty of each set on a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale of ~5-10 as illustrated below.

Maybe you are in a scenario where you’ve been on a programme, progressing well, and you’re doing 5 sets of 5 with some weight which you could do 10 reps with if you really tried. Obviously it’s good that you’re progressing, but you may be able to progress faster AND have more fun with your training. This is how you could autoregulate things for a 5×5:

Aim for the first working set to be around RPE 7 (ie could have done 8 reps with that weight to failure). If you are having a great day, you might be able to do 5-10kg more than last week. Based on how difficult the set was, you adjust the weight up, down, or keep it the same for the next set. More often than not, with the main lifts (squat/bench/dead/row etc) you want to have one or two more reps left in the bank before you cease the set, due to the fatigue they can cause & the volume impeding properties of training to failure (refer back to previous articles). Keeping the RPE slightly shy from failure allows you to perform more volume, and the reps that you do perform will be with better form – essential for powerlifting and for injury prevention. So a suitable aim would be training to 5 sets of 5 at an RPE that averages around 8 across the sets.

The week after that you could do 5×5 at RPE 8 again. Perhaps this week you were getting sick or had elevated stress levels from every day life, affecting performance. Instead of attempting to progress from last weeks session and attempting a weight which you knew you would fail, it may be a time to tone things back a bit and still perform clean, effective reps. This is the usefulness of autoregulation: it individualises each day of training by day to day performance shifts.

There are so many ways of autoregulating training, this was just an example. It can take a bit of time to get used to accurately predicting how many reps you could do with a given weight, but it may be worth it long term. Ultimately, find whatever training structure you enjoy, and stick with it. Remember whatever allows you to increase volume over time most efficiently is what will give you the most gains.

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

References

• (1) Mann, J. B., Thyfault, J. P., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2010). The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1718-1723.
• (2) McNamara, J. M., & Stearne, D. J. (2010). Flexible nonlinear periodization in a beginner college weight training class. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(8), 2012-2017.
• (3) Poliquin, C. (1988). Football: Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training program. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 10(3), 34-39.
• (4) Siff, M. C. (2000). Supertraining. Denver, CO; Supertaining Institute.

Read this before the following article if you haven’t already 🙂

Drop-sets and super-sets are a mainstay in the routine of many gym-goers. However, the usefulness of these techniques in inducing muscle growth have been overrated.

This article will cover:

• an explanation of drop-sets and super-sets
• why they are overrated
• when they should be used

Drop sets often involve taking a set to failure (usually at around 70-90% of a one rep max (1RM)), followed by 1-3 more sets at descending weights which are taken to failure. The amount of weight being moved during the final drop set is often at an intensity (weight) of around ~30% of 1RM. Super-sets are when sets of two separate exercises are performed back to back with minimal rest in between. This is often done with exercises that utilise antagonistic musculature (for example bicep curls and tricep extensions) or with exercises which use similar musculature (for example squats and leg extensions). While these techniques have their merits and can be fit into a well structured routine, I feel they are often overrated in relation to other training variables.

Over-utilisation of drop sets results in huge amounts of fatigue and hinders performance on subsequent sets, making it difficult to do much work with heavier weights, frequently throughout the week. Sure, reps completed at a low percentage of 1RM while fatigued make you feel “the burn” and a pump (metabolic fatigue), and fast twitch fibre recruitment (both stimuli for hypertrophy), BUT this can greatly hinder your performance on a following set and thus hinder volume accumulation.  Large amounts of metabolic fatigue is a stimuli for muscle growth however inducing this should not be your main priority at the expense of volume performed at a higher % of 1RM. Sure, it makes you feel good afterwards and makes you feel like you’ve worked hard, but aimlessly performing drop sets is  simply not the best for long term progress. Your effort is better spent prioritising performing multiple sets at a higher percentage of your 1RM, slightly shy of failure. This will cause more mechanical tension, likely the main factor in driving long term hypertrophy (1).

When should drop-sets be used?

-If you are short on time in the gym, drop sets could be used effectively.

Two exercises that could be supersetted if you were short on time.

-For the final set of a training session where it doesn’t matter if performance is hindered after that. Thus metabolic fatigue can be achieved without total training session volume being hindered (the best of both worlds).

However, they are certainly not required for muscle growth, and should be used sparingly. The fatigue and muscle damage resulting from drop sets also needs to be managed so it does not influence the next training session in a negative way.

Super-sets which utilise different muscles (curls and tricep extensions) are fine to implement so long as you can maintain performance on both of the exercises when performing them back to back. However, super-setting exercises like squats and leg extensions, or lunges and leg curls, is counter-intuitive. The fatigue accumulated in the quads during leg extensions will greatly hinder your performance on squats, limit the amount of weight you can use and volume you can perform, and thus the stimuli from each lift may not be as great as you want. Form may also be affected, increasing injury risk. Therefore the positives of increased metabolic fatigue would probably not outweigh the negatives. For these reasons I would almost never recommend supersetting exercises which utilise the same musculature, when your goal is muscle gain.

The Take Home Message

Increasing volume over time in the main exercises (squats, bench, deads, overhead press, rows etc) is the most potent stimuli for whole-body muscle growth, and so should be prioritised, over fancy ways of fatiguing your muscles through drop sets and super-sets.

-Plan your training so that you can increase volume over time in the exercises that use the musculature that you want to improve.

-Utilisation of drop sets can be effective in aiding a little additional hypertrophy, when placed at the end of the training session so as to not hinder volume accumulation.

-Avoid super setting exercises which utilise similar musculature when your goal is muscle gain.

Share this article on Facebook & join in the conversation

Reference

• (1) Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013). Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training. Sports medicine, 43(3), 179-194.