Blog

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”

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

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.