.

.
marylin monroe
Showing posts with label caloric deficit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label caloric deficit. Show all posts

Adelfo Cerame - Road to Wheelchair Nationals '12: From Man Boobs to Striated Pecs - Looking Back at 2011

Image 1: Looks like Santa's sweet treats
just ricocheted off Adelfo ;-)
Although we are amidst the "holiday season" (you know the time of the year where the term off-season gets a whole new meaning ;-), there is one fellow who must obviously have read my blogpost about the not so amiable gifts Santa has in stock for some of us (cf. "Santa is Coming to Town")... judged by the pictures Adelfo has attached to the latest installment of his amazing "Road to Wheelchair Nationals 2012" series, Santa's sweet treats must have had a fat-burning, muscle-building effect on him. Well, at least this is what you could think, if you did not know how much hard work and dedication it cost him to get to where he is now. But, I guess I will let him tell you the whole story...

Without the "small" things the bigger one's "lose" all their meaning

It has been 12 months, now, hwen I got my medical release from the doctor... 12 months from the day I was finally able to leave the bed and go back to work... and eventually (!) go back to the gym and train! For almost all of 2010, I was confined to being bed-ridde. With the deep MRSA infected ulcer on my behind, I even had to lie on my belly - unable to sit, unable to move for almost a year.
Image 1-2: Looking back at December 2010 - All the abdominal fat and the man boobs that I accumulated after 12 months of being bed-ridden… I just hope that I will never have to go through that again.
That these memories are coming back now, is probably because New Years Eve is approaching. The last days of a year, where I have made a habit of reflecting on the little things that we usually take for granted. Looking back, none of this things, like being able to go to the grocery store, running errands or doing what I love the most, which obviously is going to the gym, was completely out of reach, back in 2010. Isn't it amazing how we always have to lose something until we appreciate its value?
Think about it, wouldn't  "Live life… cherish every moment of it… and be thankful for even the simplest things that this life has to offer!" be a much better new years resolution than the usual "I want to lose 5 pounds of fat!" or "I want to quit smoking"?
For me this (fortunately) temporary loss of mobility and, ultimately, freedom, marked another turning point in my live. I have ever since been trying my best to live life to the fullest, improve and better myself spiritually, mentally and physically. I have begun to cherish the simple things in life, constantly reminding myself that they could be taken away from me (and you!) at any moment. And for me, training, of all these little things, is the one I cherish the most: waking up in the morning, getting into the wheelchair and off the the gym to do the one thing I love the most is something I never want to lose again.

December 2010 to December 2011 = from man boobs to a striated chest

I don't know if you can empathize with the way I feel, when I look at the pictures from 2010, now. I mean, you know that about 8-6 weeks ago, I decided that I wanted to look "as stage ready as can be" at my 12-week mark (which actually is today) and today, after 12 weeks of intermittent fasting, eating whole "real foods", and training heavy and intense (plus minimal cardio and abdominal exercises) the result are eventually paying off:


Stats/Measurements
  • Weight: 141 lb.
  • Waist: 29 in
  • Arms (flexed): 17 ¼” in
  • Chest: 41 in
  • BF%: around 8% [at least that’s what my digital calipers read ;-)]
As you can see from the images from last year… I don’t have the best genetics in the world (I’m more on the endomorphic side of the body types), and I obviously let myself go (not of my choosing, but due to illness), but my point is: No matter what genetic barriers you think or feel you may have, or how far off you’ve let your body and health go, it’s not impossible to achieve the physique of your dreams, with just a little bit of hard work, consistency and balance.

I guess, I can say I’m pretty satisfied with what I have achieved so far and I’m definitely looking far better than I was at the my last show in April @ the INBF Natural Buckeye. Fortunately for me, I have 13 more weeks to improve on my physique and push myself even harder with my training and dieting.

3 things I want to try and improve on within the next 13 weeks…
    You think you could use some advice on your  training, diet and supplementation regimen from someone who knows what it takes to build muscle and lose fat? Reach out to Adelfo via Facebook.
  1. Vascularity… I want people to (figuratively ;-) throw up because they’re so disgusted with how many veins are popping out through my skin. Genetics aside, pushing my body-fat level to the lower limit will be the major factor in achieving that.
     
  2. Maintaining muscle mass and maybe even possibly gaining a little bit more… When you are dieting it is already difficult not to lose at least some of the fullness you have in the off-season. Putting on extra mass, on the other hand, is near impossible. Yet, although I have been dieting hard (and with visible results), I have been getting stronger throughout my prep and those strength gains are still coming... and though we all know that there is no 1:1 (or other quantifiable) relation between strength- and size-gains, I would expect to see at least increases in what people call "muscle density" or "maturity", if I can keep upping the weight on all my major lifts.
     
  3. Strength… I just don’t want to look the part, but I also want to be strong also. As I already mentioned, this is the first prep I’ve had, where I have not noticed any decline in strength. I partly ascribe this to the combination of intermittent fasting, raw and whole foods eating, and some of the training methods I have used from Rob Regish’s Blueprint, which have really taken the variety of my workout routines to the next level. And I hope that the latest addition of Anadraulic State, Creapure (creatine monohydrate), D-Pol (d-Aspartic acid) and Recycle (a herbal natural test booster) to my supplement regimen will help me with lifting (increasingly) heavy(-ier) lifts throughout the rest of my contest-prep.
For the time being, I am on my pre-planned last week of the year famine/detox. Those of you who have followed the whole series will remember that I have been quite skeptical about whether the theoretically sensible (cf. Famine/Detox Episode), yet for any bodybuilder totally counter-intuitive idea from Robb Regish's blueprint would work, but the results I had back in October were so convincing that I decided to make it a staple within every macro-cycle of my training. And now, after 12 weeks of intense training and dieting, the time seems to be right.
Image 4: Example of a "detox meal"
Recipe of the week: Spartan Detox Food (example meal) - Eat this (or a similar meal) 3x a day to benefit from a simulated "famine".
  • cucumbers, 
  • a handful of fruits, and 
  • a cup of vegetable juice from Trader Joe’s…
During my last detox, going extremely low on both calories as well as protein and fat worked quite well for me, but in general Rob's protocol allows for a  maximum of 1,200kcal (for you bigger guys out there) and <50g of protein, fill up the rest with veggies, fruit and a lot of water and you are good to go ;-)
During the 12 weeks, my body has eventually adapted to my diet and training, and is pretty much in an exhausted state, where gains in size and strength usually stall. In order for me to get my body back into a growth state, I have to shock the whole system by putting my body through a mild state of tissue breakdown with added stress (think of it as triggering the alarm). The mild tissue breakdown and added stress through training during the famine phase will accelerate the entire protein turnover cycle. So basically I want to get my body back into a phase where it feels like I just started lifting weights and training for the very first time in order to be in that growth state again, so that, even at an average calorie intake of roughly 1,400 calories per day, I can still maintain (or hopefully build on) the muscle

Final thoughts... at least for this year ;-)

Image 4:  No clue what "intermittent fasting is all about"? I suggest you start with reading the first installments of the Intermittent Thoughts, then (click here for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and more)
If there is one thing that I have really come to appreciate during the past weeks, it is yet neither the famine, nor the detox or the different training techniques I have learned. The one thing, I believe has made the biggest difference was intermittent fasting - all I can say is… I love it! The protocol is simple and easy to follow and I was able to tweak it to my liking by applying other methods that have worked for me in the course of the last 4 years of competing. And the results are mind-boggling. I mean, this has by far been the easiest prep I have ever had! Without being distracted with having to prepare meals, I got to focus more on training, school, and fun stuff like social events. Add to that the amazing results I have (and still am) seeing in the mirror and you know why I believe that “IF” is definitely something I can, and will do long-term.

I will leave it to that for today, and even the year 2011 and wish all of you a happy and safe New Year! And just in case you happen to be one of those people who like to make "New Year's Resolutions"… Good Luck! Let me know how that works out for ya in a week or two? Hahaha! Just kiddin'! But seriously… You shouldn’t have to wait till New Years to make resolutions and set goals ;-)

Losing Weight Is Easy. Staving It Off Ain't: A Lesson in High vs. Very High Energy Restrictions - What's More Effective?

If you tried to follow all the "good advice" you can find on the Internet and in the myriad of diet books and ebooks, I can guarantee that you are going to get fatter, not leaner. When it comes to dieting, there is after all nothing worse than doings things by halves... but is this also true for cutting your energy intake by half?
Ok, I freely admit that I have tricked you. Despite the fact that the study at hand is a randomized human study, it is possible that it is not 100% relevant for all of you. After all, the subjects in Lisa M. Nackers, Kathryn R. Middleton, Pamela J. Dubyak, Michael J. Daniels, Stephen D. Anton and Michael G. Perri's latest experiment were not exactly as lean as I would expect most of you are (this reminds me that I wanted to put up a questionnaire).

In other words, the subjects were obese. Whether the fact that they were also female is as grave a difference is something I cannot tell, but in view of the fact that this makes weight loss even harder, I would say it's probably not much of a problem if you are a man (and let's be honest, don't we all have a female friend who is constantly complaining about her weight, guys?)

Inspite of a mean BMI of 37.84kg/m², the relative results of this study will probably apply to a lean person, as well. In other words, if the women in the study at hand were randomized to consume either 1,000 or 1,500 kcal/day per day, I would suggest that a lean man / woman with much lower fat reserves to draw on should never go below 1,500 / 1,200 kcal/day.

So, this is not you, but the results are still intriguing

The important question was and still is now: What's more effective? A high, or a low caloric deficit? As a seasoned SuppVersity student, you will be aware that the "grazing approach to lose weight" in the course of which you reduce your calorie intake by only 5%, to make sure that (a) it's not getting to hard for you, or (b) you are not losing any muscle, will fail miserably and can result in serious deteriorations of your body composition (learn more). But what about the alternatives? Which of them, i.e. the -50% or the -25% diet, is appropriate for the obese ladies and which could be a model for yourself?
No exercise = not necessarily negligence: I know, for physical culturists like you and me, it sounds hilarious that the subjects were not encouraged to actually work out. If we are honest, we all know that this would have been the first thing the participants dropped in the unsupervised phase II of the study. I was thus not negligent to tell the subjects to simply follow the 10,000 steps per day approach as it is recommended by Donelly et al. in their often-cited 2009 ACSM Position Stand.
We know from previous research that lifestyle interventions are capable of inducing weight reduction of 7-10% and corresponding decreases in risk factors for heart disease and diabetes within weeks (DPPRG. 2002; Look AHEAD Research Group. 2010; Butryn. 2011).
"Get Your Protein, Veggies & Fruits and Get Them Regularly: High(er) Meal Frequency (6 à Day) + High(er) Protein Diet Support Weight & Fat Loss on a Diet " | learn more
"Nonetheless, behavioral changes initiated during lifestyle treatment often are poorly maintained and regaining of lost weight is common, thereby diminishing health benefits of weight loss. As a variety of biological and environmental influences make it difficult to maintain large dietary changes, a number of researchers and professional organizations have proposed a ‘‘small change’’ approach to weight management, arguing that small sustainable changes will produce better long-term weight control than larger changes that are unlikely to be sustained.

Alternatively, other researchers have observed that larger initial dietary changes, and the greater, more rapid weight losses they produce, are more likely to reinforce the weight-change process and lead to better long-term weight-loss outcomes." (Nackers. 2013)
In other words, as of now, it's mostly a question of faith, not one of scientific evidence, whether you answer my previous question in favor of the "small change" or the "massive reduction" approach.

Fast and hard, or slow and steady? How would you like it?

Ah, well... this is of course before you've taken a look at the results of this 12 months dietary intervention, of which the researchers speculated that it would demonstrate greater short- and long-term weight losses, and higher rates of weight loss in the metabolically relevant >5% body weight region in the 1,000kcal/day vs. 1,500kcal/day group.

If you do now finally take a peak at the actual results after 6 months with group-care (supervision) and the subsequent unsupervised 6 months "weight maintenance" (mind the inverted commas ;-) phase, what would you tell your chubby female friend she'd do? Cut back drastically or moderately?
Figure 1: Weight loss in the supervised (0-6m) and unsupervised (7-12m) of the study; the %-values indicate the relative difference between the 1,000kcal and the 1,500kcal diets (Nackers. 2013)
If we go by the results of the study at hand, the answer probably is: "Cut back drastically." Someone who is, unlike the ladies in the study at hand, not putting his health at risk if he maintains his current body weight, would yet probably be better off running a "moderate" caloric deficit of 25-30%. This could help him or her minimize the dreaded "fat rebound".

I mean, despite the fact that the post-diet weight gain in the study at hand was less pronounced than the average Internet craze about "yoyo"-dieting would suggest, any form of uncontrolled weight gain after weeks or months of serious dieting could potentially raise your body fat levels to previously unexpected new heights.
You can learn more about dieting at the SuppVersity

Chronic Dieting
➫ Fat Athletes

Diet Down to Below 5% BF

Overtraining & Undereating

Calculate your Energy Intake!

Half As Heavy, Twice As Fat!

5% Energy Deficit Makes You Fat!
For someone who was lean, when he or she started out dieting, the endless circuits of "cut back drastically" <> "gain fat rapidly" certainly entail the risk of making the highly undesirable transition from having a small gut, but enough muscle to make up for that (metabolically), to having the same or even a bigger gut, but no muscular metabolic currency to balance it. That this is very bad news for both your health and sex-appeal is something I shouldn't have to tell you, right (learn more about skinny fats).

 You cannot program weight loss for all!

Even in the study at hand, we can find evidence for one of the fundamental messages researchers who are dabbling with diet and nutrition appear to be too afraid to tell their financiers: There is no magic formula. It is thus not surprising that Nackers et al. observed that a "subset of participants may not benefit from this level [1,000kcal only] of, baseline caloric" (Nackers. 2013) intake.

When we look more closely at the underlying reasons, it becomes clear that the baseline energy intake, which is - even in the morbidly obese - a(n allegedly unreliable) gauge of the basal energy requirements of an individual determined, whether the high caloric deficit worked, or sucked: 
"Breakfast Keeps You Lean" Myth or Mystically True?" | find out
"Participants with 'high' baseline caloric intake ( 2,000 kcal/day) regained more weight during months 7-12 if assigned 1,000 kcal/day than those with 'low' baseline caloric intake (<2,000 kcal/day).

For individuals who consumed 'high' levels of baseline calories, the prescribed intake of 1,000 kcal/day required a reduction in energy consumption of 50% or more — a level that may be unsustainable long term." (Nackers. 2013)
In their discussion of the results, the authors rightly point out that "this findind holds important treatment-matching implications" - implications, every Suppversity reader has been aware of for years:
"At the start of lifestyle interventions, participants reporting 'high' baseline calorie levels may benefit from energy prescriptions based on either a percentage of their baseline intake (e.g., 25-50% reduction) or a projected amount of weight change per week (e.g., 0.50-0.75 kg) rather than a fixed energy intake, such as 1,000 kcal/day." (Nackers. 2013)
With their last suggestion, i.e. the formulation of a "less restrictive calorie goal" for a phase of "extended care treatment" that would be "gradually moving participants from 1,000 to 1,250 to
1,500 kcal/day" that would also allow for one or another "cheat" by providing "acceptable intake goals" instead of inflexible calorie values, Nackers, Middleton, Dubyak, Daniels, Anton, and Perry eventually formulate a bottom line to their study that should look vaguely familiar to all of you for whom this is not the first visit to the SuppVersity.
I am not sure, if you all remember that, but the energy deficit Adelfo Cerame Jr. ran during the contest preps he logged, here at the SuppVersity (read them), was always in the 15-30% range. His success would confirm my previous statement that the "radical approach" (-50%) is only appropriate for those of you who still have a very long way to go.
Bottom line: If you asked me if we can learn something new from the study at hand, I am reluctant to say "Yes, we can!". The notion that obesity requires rapid weight loss even if that implies a larger post-intervention weight (re)gain should after all not be news to any of you.

The experimental confirmation that the weight rebound does not (necessarily) ruin an obese individual's weight loss success, on the other hand, is news. It would argue in favor of an aggressive dietary intervention and - as the scientists point out in their discussion of the results - a staggered return to a lower caloric deficit in the months to come. I mean, despite the upheaval about  Abercrombie & Fitch not offering "plus size" clothes, one thing should be 100% clear: 90kg, which is the average weight of the ladies in the 1,000kcal group after 6 months, is not a normal body weight for a 145cm tall 52 year old woman, right?
References:
  • Butryn ML, Webb V, Wadden TA. Behavioral treatment of obesity.Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2011;34:841-859.
  • Donnelly JE, Blair SN, Jakicic JM, Manore MM, Rankin JW, Smith BK. Appropriate physical activity intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:459-471.
  • Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin.N Engl J Med. 2002;346:393-403.
  • Nackers LM, Middleton KR, Dubyak PJ, Daniels MJ, Anton SD, Perri MG. Effects of prescribing 1,000 versus 1,500 kilocalories per day in the behavioral treatment of obesity: A randomized trial. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 Dec;21(12):2481-7. 
  • The Look AHEAD Research Group. Long-term effects of a lifestyle intervention on weight and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1566-1575.

Protein Requirements of Dieting Strength Athletes: More is Better Only in the Presence of Adequate Carb & Fat Intake. Optimal Muscle Retention With 2-3g/kg Lean Body Mass

Believe it or not: Being lean, athletic and well-conditioned is a disqualifier, when it comes to "body recomposition" (=building muscle +  losing fat at the same time). Simply upping your protein intake indefinitely is not going to change that..
This is one of those article, where I thought twice whether or not it would be worth writing. If I knew that the majority of you had full-text access to the recent review by Helms, Zinn, Rowlands and Brown, I would probably stick to a couple of comments on my Facebook page and suggest you read the whole paper, yourself.

In view of the unfortunate fact that research is not really a public good, and full-text access is very limited unless you work / study at a University, this would leave most of you with nothing but a conclusion to an abstract that could could easily be misinterpreted in a simplistic: "More is better!" way; a conclusion you would obviously revise, if you had the change to read the whole paper which does have more to offer than two random numbers.

Apropos "random": In view of the fact that Helms et al. found only 6 studies that provided (in some cases limited) information about the influence the amount of dietary protein will have on lean mass retention and fat loss in strength trainees, neither the numbers in the headline nor ostensibly more accurate figures Helms et al. provide are more than a brought guideline. The "true" optimum and in my humble opinion even the question whether such a thing has yet to be found.

I: Energy-, not protein-intake is the main determinant of muscle loss

The 2011 study by Garthe is only one of many studies that confirms that a lower calorie deficit will yield better dieting results (i.e. greater fat and lower lean mass loss); results after 8.3 (19% deficit) and 5.3 (30% deficit) weeks (Garthe. 2011)
What is more or less indisputed and at the same time one of the most important, because often overlooked, or I should say "willingly ignored", determinants of lean mass loss is the fact that
"[...] the magnitude of the caloric deficit imposed is likely one of the most powerful variables that impacts FFM loss, potentially being more important than protein intake." (Helms. 2013)
In other words, the "harder you diet", i.e. the more severe your caloric deficit, the more lean muscle you're going to lose. This appears to be self-evident, I know, and yet the average and not so average dieter (e.g. the bodybuilder who comes in not just flat, but actually small) tend to forget about it.

II: Body recomposition is something for the "fat beginner"

Next to hitting it too hard, being in denial is probably the most common threat to your dieting success - in denial of the fact that such a thing as "body recomposition", i.e. concomitant loss of fat and increase in muscle mass is a prerogative of the chubby beginner.

Suggested Read: "Seven Meals/Day, More than 800g of Carbs & 1000kcal Over Maintenance and Still Lean Gains!" | read more
Based on studies by Peterson, Rhea, & Alvar (2005) and Garthe et al. (2011) Helms et al. rightly point out that gaining lean mass while being on a caloric deficit is not the norm, but rather the exception; an exception that will occur almost excursively in to novice lifters and among those most probably in the chubbier ones, who can draw on larger body fat reserves while they are dieting. In "leaner more experienced weight lifters", on the other hand, "it may be unrealistic to expect a lack of FFM loss or FFM gain in leaner" (Helms. 2013)

The common, though schizophrenic approach to fat loss that denies the inevitability of lean mass losses is thus more often than not going to fail you; and if you are still wondering why your abs don't shine in full glory, ask yourself if the reason may not be your own fear afraid of losing muscle that you never diet long or hard enough to attack the stubborn fat.

III: When you eat so much protein that there is no room for fat and carbs bad things happen

While it is correct that your body can use protein as an energy source, forcing it to do just that by consuming so much protein that the amino acid chains constitute the lion's share of your daily energy intake is going to have significant detrimental effects on your dieting success. As Helms et al. point out...
  • consuming a high protein diet with very little carbohydrate in it is going to hamper your exercise performance (Walberg. 1988), while
  • consuming a high protein diet with too little fat in it is going to have negative effects on your mood and emotional stability (Mettler. 2010).
Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the exact "minimal requirements" of these nutrients. Until now, these have not been explicitly studied and in view of the scarcity of existing research (remember: N=6!) it is almost impossible to extrapolate them from the data we have.
Ketogenic diets are not high in protein: Please note that the previously mentioned detrimental effects of low carbohydrate intakes will only arise in a high protein context- The latter is preventing you from transitioning into full ketosis and deriving the corresponding benefits. A ketogenic diet cannot be "high" in protein; and it is save to assume that the risk of being kicked out of ketosis is specifically high with fast digesting and highly gluconeogenic protein sources like whey (cf. Calbet. 2002).
If we take a look at the data we have it does yet appear that 20% is the absolute minimum for fat and ~30% could be the minimum for carbohydrate intake in a high protein diet scenario.

In this context Helms et al. do actually cite a study, every SuppVersity reader should be familiar with: The recently published metabolic ward study by Pasiokos et al. (read the previous SuppVersity article).
Figure 1: Change in body composition and protein synthesis (Pasiakos. 2013)
The results of this study would support the hypothesis that increasing your protein intake from 1.6g/kg body mass to 2.4g/kg body mass so that the carbohydrate intake drops to ~20% of the total energy intake, will accelerate the overall loss of body mass at the expense of lean muscle tissue.

Meanwhile it should not remain unmentioned that these effects were observed in a "low" intensity training scenario that did not provide for a maximal exercise-induced stimulus of protein synthesis. The hypothesis that a more hypertrophy specific training program would have yielded very different outcomes is however questionable and - as of now - just as the term "hypothesis" implies hypothetical.

IV: Athletes should use their lean lean body mass to determine their protein intake

Within the bodybuilding community it is actually common practice to prescribe (often hilariously high) protein intakes on a "per kg of lean mass" or "per lbs of fat free mass" level. Among recreational fitness enthusiasts and eve among scientists this is however still the exception; and that despite the fact that this practice has the advantage that it will (automatically) yield higher per kg total body mass protein intakes for leaner athletes. This "scaling" approach is in accordance with Helms et al.'s conclusion that
"[a]thletes with a lower body fat percentage, or a primary goal of maintaining maximal FFM should aim towards the higher end of [he protein intake range, while t]hose who are not as lean, or who are concerned primarily with strength and performance versus maintenance of FFM can safely aim for the lower end of this recommendation." (Helms. 2013)
I guess by now you are probably asking yourself what on earth the "exact" recommendation of the scientists are, right? Well, I guess it's time to let the cat out of the bag, then ;-)
How do dermine your "optimal" macronturient intake? The easiest way to go is to (1) use your regular daily energy intake (i.e. the amount of energy you consume when you are weight stable) subtract 20-30%. Then you take the result and (2) subtract the 450kcal energy equivalent of your 50g minimal fat intake and (3) 2.8 x 4kcal/kg x lean body mass, the energy equivalent of your protein intake. Lastly, you (4) divide the rest (baseline - fat - protein) by 4 kcal/g and have your daily carbohydrate allowance in grams.
Example? Easy! Baseline intake: 2500kcal, (1) 20% calorie reduction → 2000kcal, (2) subtract 50g fat * 9kcal/g → 1550, (3) subtract 2.8 x kcal/kg x 65kg lean mass → 822kcal (4) divide this value by 4 and get your carb intake, here 205.5g. Your overall macro ratio would thus be 182g of protein, 205g of carbs and 50g of fat.
This ratio would be adequate for athletic and active individuals, while sendentary and/or insulin resistant obese indivuals may in fact consider turning this into a low carb diet, by reversing the fat and carb intake.
What's the optimum, then? According to Helms et al. the "optimal" protein intake for strength athletes on a energy restricted diet amounts to 2.3-3.1g/kg of the athletes fat free mass. The latter includes both muscle, as well as organ mass and body water and will - as I have pointed out in IV. make sure that athletes with lower body fat mass will consume more protein than the chubby beginner who has just taken up weight lifting to prepare for spring break.

Let's just briefly check what this may mean for you, a young man / women with 12% or 19% body fat and a body weight of 80kg or 60kg, respectively. While his protein intake would be ~161-217g, her protein intake would be "only" 112g-150g per day. If we now assume that the daily energy intakes of the two are 2,000 and 2700kcal per day (for maintenance) and that both follow my suggestion to reduce their calorie intake by only 20%-30%, this would leave ~1,300kcal (male example) and 980kcal for carbs and fat (woman). If we further prescribe a minimum intake of 50g of fat (this would be more than the afore-cited 20%, but is imho a sane minimum intake) this would leave us with ~210g of carbs for him, and 130g of carbs for her - both not exactly bad macro-ratios for an active individual whose main intention is to shed some body fat. If you end up with way more than 200g of carbs and/or are insulin resistant consider cutting the carbs back to 200g or below (insulin sensitive, but not very active), or 150g or below (insulin resistant, but not obese).
References: 
  • Calbet JA, MacLean DA. Plasma glucagon and insulin responses depend on the rate of appearance of amino acids after ingestion of different protein solutions in humans. J Nutr. 2002 Aug;132(8):2174-82.
  • Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Koivisto A, Sundgot-Borgen J. Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2011 Apr;21(2):97-104.
  • Mettler S, Mitchell N, Tipton KD. Increased protein intake reduces lean body
    mass loss during weight loss in athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2010;
    42(2), 326-337.
  • Pasiakos SM, Cao JJ, Margolis LM, Sauter ER, Whigham LD, McClung JP, Rood JC, Carbone JW, Combs GF Jr, Young AJ. Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial. FASEB J. 2013 Jun 5. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):950-8. Review.
  • Walberg JL, Leidy MK, Sturgill DJ, Hinkle DE, Ritchey JS, Sebolt DR. Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet affects nitrogen retention and muscle function in weight lifters. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1988; 9(4), 261-266.

    The "20 / 30 Principle" Sheds 15% Body Fat in 6 Months, Boosts Testosterone & Sexual Performance in Overweight Men. Plus: Six Signs You're Doing Too Much, Already.

    One out of four men with newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction is under 40 (more)
    You will probably remember the post about the increasing prevalence of erectile dysfunction in young(er) men on Facebook, the other day (learn more)!? As of now, one out of four patients who are newly diagnosed with erectile dysfunction are 40 years or younger. That's an alarming trend that certainly cannot be reversed by the use of adulterated OTC libido boosters with high amounts of pharmacological PDE-5 inhibitors that are not listed on the label (read more on the SuppVersity Facebook Wall and listen live to today's installment of the Science Round Up starting at 12PM EST!). With  30-40% of the overweight men not being able to achieve an erection of maintain it long enough to engage in sexual intercourse, it stands out of question that the root cause for the exploding numbers of impotent young men is diabesity.

    Against that background it is only logical that Joan Khoo and his colleagues from the Department of Endocrinology at the Changi General Hospital, the Departments of Sports Medicine and Rehabilitative Services at the Changi General Hospital assumed that diet and exercise should be more than an alternative to drug interventions. The latter has in fact been established in numerous previous studies, already. In obese Australian men who lost an average of 10% of baseline weight from caloric restriction alone using meal replacements or a low-fat diet and in men after 2 years of weight loss using Mediterranean diet and exercise, for example, the test scores in the International Index of Erectile Function 5-item (IIEF-5) improved by ~20% (Khoo 2011; Esposito. 2004).

    Exercise works, but how much exercise does it take?

    What has been missing up to know is yet a study that would establish the amount of exercise that's necessary to boost the existing benefits of energy restriction. And guess what!? That's exactly what Khoo et al. set out to do - conduct a trial that would compare the effects of 24 weeks of ...
    • low volume medium intensity exercise training (<150 minutes/week) and
    • (relatively) high volume medium intensity exercise (>200m/w) training
    on the body weight, waist circumference (WC), body composition, International Index of Erectile
    Function 5-item (IIEF-5), International Prostate Symptom Scale (IPSS) (for LUTS), and 36-item Short Form Survey version 2 Instrument (SF-36) (for QoL) scores, plasma testosterone, sex-hormone binding globulin, glucose, insulin and lipids, and endothelial function (by Reactive Hyperaemia Index [RHI] using finger plethysmography) of 90 abdominally obese Asian men (BMI >27.5 kg/m²; WC>90 cm; mean age 43.6y), who ha not moved an inch all day long in the past years (average amount of "exercise" ~80 minutes/week).

    Freedom of choice: Exercise when and where you want

    The aerobic only *sigh* exercise program could be performed on whatever equipment / sportive activity the subject like - stationary cycling, treadmill, elliptical crosstraining, brisk walking, jogging, cycling, and swimming, all were eligible for 90–150 minutes/week - the subjects were free to chose and pick, but they had to record type and exercise duration and make sure that they would hit their target heart rates of 55–70% of their individual maximal heart rate (HRmax=220-age) on whatever they did.
    Figure 1: Absolute (body composition) and relative changes (lipids, sex hormones & erectile function); after 6 months on the diet + low vs. high volume exercise regiment;LUTS = lower urinary tract symptoms; IIEF-5 = International Index of Erectile Function 5-item questionnaire; IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Scale; SF-36 PCS and MCS = 36-item Short Form Survey version 2 Instrument Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores (Khoo. 2013)
    In combination with the obligatory reduction in energy intake (-400kcal/day; ~15-20% of their baseline intake) both groups made significant progress. In comparison to the -4.7kg of body fat the guys in the "high volume" group (I use the quationmarks to emphasize that I would not consider ~30min of exercise/day exorbitantly high, considering the fact that the this was cycling, walking or swimming at a relatively moderate intensity) lost in the course of the 6-months intervention, the -1.1kg of total fat mass the guys in the low volume group dropped do yet look pretty pathetic.


    "Doing more" for total & free testostosterone!?

    What are signs that you are already doing too much ?
    • constant fatigue that does not disappear, when you take a day off and get enough sleep (too much volume)
    • inability to fall asleep (too much high intensity work)
    • inability to sleep through (too much volume)
    • getting up to pee every 1-2h (too much volume, too few carbs vs. too much protein)
    • the 4am wake-up call = inability to sleep through (see above, fasting in the evening)
    • no fat loss despite caloric deficit (eating too little + high training volume)
    • losing muscle, not fat (too much volume, too much medium intensity cardio)
    • low sex hormones / drive, low thyroid function, high rT3 (too much volume, too much protein, too little fat & carbs, not eating enough)
    If you want more insights, you can find them in the Athletes Triad Series.
    If we take a look at a couple of other parameters the scientists evaluated, you will notice a clear dose-response relationship. Much contrary to the participants in the Rosenklide study, I wrote about in 2012, which had a much higher training volume and intensity, doing more did - within this narrow relatively low volume moderate intensity regimen - did thus really yield superior results. Even more, the dose-response relationship is almost linear: 2x more exercise, 2x more weight loss, 2x more fat loss, 2x greater reduction in insulin, 2x greater reduction in blood glucose.

    For testosterone (>2x more) and free testosterone (almost 5x more), the benefits were even more pronounced and the difference between the ratio of fat and lean mass lost 6.7 for the high vs. 5.5 for the low volume group are certainly not to be scoffed at, either.

    Still, we just have to go back to the counterproductive effects Rosenkilde et al. observed in their study (go back and learn more), to see that the 30 minutes of exercise per day are probably not the end of the flagpole, but a very happy medium beyond which previously untrained individuals, and experienced trainees who work out at a correspondingly higher intensity level, could hit a wall and spiral down into the abyss of chronic overtraining - especially when exercise habits like that are combined with a diet that does not only induce an energy deficit of 20% but does at the same time make it particularly hard for the body to use the energy it gets... yep, I am talking about the notorious high protein, low carb, low fat diets the scaremongerism on both sides of the low-carb vs. low-fat divide have made so popular (learn more).



    Bottom line: Diabesity, erectile dysfunction and hypogonadism? The solution to this triad is there! It's not complicated, but it requires commitment, it requires discipline and it will cut your daily screen time by 30 min... if you or your overweight friends don't feel that this is worth it, let them waste their money and risk their health by jumping from one "quick fix" solution and diet (e-)book to the other. If not, write the numbers "20/30 x 6" on a DinA4 sheet and pin that to your or your friends' fridge to remind yourself or them that it takes a caloric reduction of 20% + 30min of moderate intensity exercise and the stubbornness to adhere to that protocol for 6 months day in day out (I guess 90% compliance would even be enough) to take a huge step on your way towards normalizing your body composition, glucose and lipid metabolism and endocrine and erectile function... and on a last note: I bet this works for overweight women with PCOs, as well.

    References:
    • Esposito K, Giugliano F, Di Palo C, Giugliano G, Marfella R, D’Andrea F, D’Armiento M, Giugliano D. Effect of lifestyle changes on erectile dysfunction in obese men: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:2978–84.
    • Khoo J, Piantadosi C, Duncan R, Worthley SG, Jenkins A, Noakes M, Worthley MI, Lange K, Wittert GA. Comparing effects of a low-energy diet and a high-protein low-fat diet on sexual and endothelial function, urinary tract symptoms, and inflammation in obese diabetic men. J Sex Med 2011;8:2868– 75.

    High or Low Protein? Milk, Whey, Casein or Soy? In the End It Could Make Less of a Difference Than You Thought!

    Image 1: All macronutrient ratios aside, my gut tells me that I cannot go wrong with something as delicious as a piece of steak (img. picturesdepot.com) - I don't know if that is what scientists call the "gut brain axis", though *lol*
    At least those of you who make sure, they get their daily dose of SuppVersity news should actually remember the "Bray study" (cf. "A Tale of Macro- and Micronutrient Modifications"), i.e. the methodologically exemplary, yet with respect to the underlying research question "What happens if you add 40% of additional calories in form of protein, fat or carbs to a high carb diet?" somewhat questionable overfeeding study the results of which caused quite a stir within the blogosphere and even mainstream media.

    And contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, the fundamental message of the study, and I am not growing tired of repeating that, was a) "Consume more energy (not calories) than you need (not expend ;-) and you will get fat" and b) "Consume it from protein and you will get just as fat, but still gain some muscle."

    Now, if we take these results and try to predict the results of a complementary experiment, in which people would be fed -40% less than their regular diet with either high or normal protein content, we would expect that a) the fat loss would be identical (remember! we use the results of the Bray study, not common wisdom as the basis of our predictions) and b) the high protein group should be able to maintain more muscle mass - right?

    Caloric deficit determines weight loss in obese rodents, irrespective of protein intake

    Although a pertinent (similarly well-controlled!) human study is still not available, a study that has just been published in the International Journal of Obesity does suggest that - at least in obese rodents - the above prediction does not apply (Chevalier. 2012). Although the 56 male Wistar rats in Chevalier et al.'s trial did lose identical amounts of body weight on a 3-week dietary intervention with a -40% reduced energy intake, they did not retain more muscle mass, when the diet contained 33% instead of only 12% of protein (cf. figure 1)!
    Figure 1: Muscle and body fat mass of the rodents after 5 weeks on a obesogenic diet  and another three weeks on the same diet (obesity induction, ad libitum), or a diet with a -40% reduced energy content and identical macronutrient composition (OI-R) or a +20% greater protein content from either milk protein, whey protein, casein, casein + whey (50/50) or soy; the data is expressed relative to animals who were maintained on the ad libitum obesity induction = energy dense diet (blue bars = 100%; data calculated based on Chevalier. 2012)
    And, as you can infer from the legend in figure 1, the major source (milk, whey, whey + casein, casein or soy) of the dietary protein in the diets did not exert any statistically significant influence on the total or relative (subcutaneous vs. visceral) body fat loss and the mass of the gastrocnemius or soleus muscles of the rodents, either.

    When protein supply is low "protein recycling" kicks in

    If you take a closer look at the data in figure 1 you  may notice another unexpected result (figure 1, red arrow). Not only were the rodents on the calorie reduced 12% protein diet able to maintain just as much muscle mass as their peers on the obesogenic ad-libitum diet (dark blue, left reference bar in figure 1), it does even appear that they experienced the same statistically yet non-significant "muscle growth" in the soleus as the rodents in the high protein groups.
    Figure 2: Relative macronutrient (left) and absolute (in g/100g) main ingredient (right) composition of the experimental diets (data calculated based on Chevalier. 2012)
    While there are probably a whole host of explanations for this, from a statistical point of view, non-existent phenomenon, I personally would assume that it is a combined result of an increase in food-seeking behavior (and a subsequent "training" effect which would obviously be more pronounced in the soleus, an "endurance" muscle, than the gastrocnemius) and an increase in "protein recycling".
    Figure 3: Total protein content, fraction (FSR) and absolute (ASR) protein synthesis in liver, muscle and kidney tissue of the animals in the diet groups (data expressed relative to ad-libitum group, left) and ubqituitin mRNA expression in skeletal muscle of the rodents in all groups (right; data calculated / adapted from Chevalier. 2012)
    Both the (within statistical margins) identical total protein contents, fraction and absolute protein synthesis rates in liver, muscle and kidney of the rodents (cf. figure 3, left), as well as the profound upregulation of the ubiquitin protein mRNA expression which showed a similar pattern in liver, kidney and muscle tissue (figure 3, right shows the data from the muscle samples) are indicative of the existence of protein sparing mechanisms which are triggered in response to a low(ish) protein intake. Despite its overall proteolytic activity, the physiological function of ubiquitin is after all to degrade and recycle unnecessary protein in the cell and has consequently received some attention as a potential target for cancer therapy (and prevention) in the last couple of years (Hoeller. 2009).

    Bulking or dieting, lean or obese - different rules apply and generalizations are not advisable

    Aside from the fact that this obviously is another rodent study and whenever the results of these studies do not conform with someones current dietary paradigm, the main argument will be that "rodents are no little human beings" (I don't know if you did notice that the same people usually rely on rodent studies to support their own argumentation ;-), there are a few other things to consider, before you flush your protein shakes down the toilette.
    1. The rodents were obese: It does make a huge difference if you have more than enough body fat to get you through a 3-week phase of relative profound (-40%) caloric restriction, or if you are already lean and want to shed the last pounds of body fat that cover your perfectly sculpted six-pack. If the former is the case - and I have pointed that out in previous blogposts, e.g. "Goal Setting and Stock Taking on a Diet" - your energy intake will be the main determinant of your weight loss. Modulated, if anything by your carbohydrate intake, which can hinder weight loss as long as you are pathologically insulin resistant (when you have achieved a decent degree of leanness, on the other hand, the exact opposite will be the case!)
       
    2. Rodents are in fact no small human beings: While it is simply stupid to discard all rodent data (that is not to your liking) with the argument that "rodents are no small human beings", there still is the issue of compliance, which - as we have seen in "High Carb vs. High Fat for Obese Type II Diabetics and What Really Happens, When Science Meets Real Life" - still is one, if not the major obstacle to successful weight loss and maintenance, where the satiating effects of a high protein intake and milk proteins, in particular (Lorenzen. 2012), will certainly come handy - assuming that the dieters actually adhere to their high-protein diet and don't simply return to their regular dietary habits, as it was the case in the Krebs study. Whether soy is or is not an option to achieve this "high" protein intake, is yet probably a question of faith and the potential risks you want to take (no soy for me, though).
       
    3. The caloric reduction (-40%) was very pronounced: I have likewise pointed out in various previous posts related to successful long-term weight loss that both scientific evidence, as well as practical experience suggest that energy restrictions >30% are of no use, if the goal is sustainable long-term weight loss (they may yet very well be indicated in morbidly obese persons). And while sustainability is of little importance in the context of the study at hand, the -40% reduction in energy intake also masked the small, yet still beneficial effects a high(er = not >50%!) protein intake exerts on the resting energy expenditure of dieters (Keller. 2011)
       
    4. Update - Not enough protein in one sitting: A few lines further down I wrote that I would suspect that you, my dear (and smart) readers would probably be able to come up with at least three additional confounding factors - and what shall I say? Proud Daddy just came up with #4! In view of the fact that the protein synthetic effect of protein depends largely on the size of an individual meal (in humans >20g of quality protein, or 10g+ of EAAs; cf. "Never Sip Your Whey!"), confounding factor #4 is that rodents usually don't eat just  2-3 large meals and thusly probably consumed relatively low amounts of protein per meal, even in the high protein group.
    I guess, if you spent some more time thinking about possible confounding factors, you would come up with at least another three points that speak in favor of a reasonably high protein intake. One I personally would not measure in percentages, but rather in grams: Starting with a baseline protein intake of ~1.5g/kg body weight and building the rest of your diet around that, a 1,600kcal high protein diet for a 200lbs person could consist of ~150g protein, 50-100g fat and 50-150g carbs (the leaner, the more active and the less insulin resistant you are the more carbs). And please remember: This is just a sample calculation, so please deny yourself comments like "but is that not way too little protein?" - specifically, because this kind of "if high is good, higher must be even better" and "protein is the only save nutrient" logic could well be the reason why your weight loss is stalling.

    Adelfo Cerame - Road to The Wheelchair Nationals '12: Proper Nutrient Timing is Probably the #1 Key to Lose Fat and Still Build Muscle While Being in a Caloric Deficit

    Image 1: Progress and success can be mean bitches. Not only are you raising the bar constantly, a physical transformation like the one Adelfo is going through right now, will also require a constant revision of your dietary and training regimen... and, sometimes, this change may mean that you just keep rolling, instead of making a previously planned change - as awful as that may sound for the average OCD bodybuilder  ;-)
    I don't know about you, but I fell that, sometimes, it is much easier to identify mistakes and pitfalls in other people's dietary and training regimen than it is in your own. It is a very peculiar form of tunnel vision, or I should say, blindness that befalls us, whenever we are working toward a certain goal for weeks and months. When we have laid out our plan of attack and have celebrated our first victories. In these situations, where we tend to believe that everything is working out "as planned", the very plan we thought be "optimal" at time point T1 may now, at T2, when, with the progress we have made, the foundations on which we have based our plan have changed, strategies we previously considered "optimal" could actually hamper our progress. In situations like these, mentors and real friends who do not shy away from arguing with you are of paramount importance, they will help you in re-assessing where you stand, how you got there and, most importantly, how to proceed. Sometimes, however, all it really takes is an innocent question, a question that will make you pause to think, a question like the one of which Adelfo Cerame is now going to tell you...

    "How have you grown on a caloric deficit?! Your arms look bigger too!"

    This was one of the messages I got on my phone, from one of my old mentors (when I first started getting into bodybuilding). He had seen some of my progress pics on line and obviously must have liked what he saw. When I called him back, I told him that I could not really explain the underlying biophysical mechanism, but knew that it must have been a direct consequence of the combination of intermittent fasting and the new training techniques (EDT, static holds, 5x5…; lifting heavy, low volume…), I have incorporated into my routine over these first 12 weeks of my contest prep.
    Image 2: While it may be debatable whether Adelfo actually gained, significant amounts of muscle mass, the "muscle quality" certainly did not suffer from not eating 6 meals a day ;-)
    About a day later, when I discussed the topic with Dr. Andro, who did not seem to be very surprised about the astonishment of my former mentor, we agreed that the caloric content, the overall macronutrient composition of the diet and the food quality, aside, the way I was timing my meals within my feeding window, could be a, if not the decisive factor which allowed me to maintain or even put on a little bit of extra muscle, as Dr. Andro put it "against the misunderstood laws of thermodyndamics" - or, as a normal human being would probably say it: Although I was actually eating less food than I needed.

    The real key, this at least what I believe, to "growing on a caloric deficit" is the timing and macronutrient composition of the meal(s) immediately post workout. Ever since I began intermittent fasting, the meals right after my workouts were the biggest, or I should say, most nutrient dense ones: I am getting about 75-80% of my daily caloric intake is during my post-workout meal - and that does not include the 25g of whey protein I down immediately after my workouts.

    When lean is not ripped enough, calories begin to count again

    Image 3: Branch Warren is one of those guys where ripped is not shredded enough. We will see if he can make a comeback from his quadriceps injury in 2012 (img musculardevelopment.com)
    A pros pos calories, for someone in my position whose body fat percentage is already below the 10% mark and for whom being ripped, is only the prestage of being totally shredded, calorie counting, or I should say, a high degree of awareness of the amount of nutrients I am eating becomes is a must. Over the last two months I have continously been cutting back on my daily energy intake: 1600 kcal on December, and now 1400 kcal.

    Interestingly, the reduction in calories has not hampered my strength, my energy levels or overall well-being, yet. I did not feel sleepy, lethargic, or irritability. My sex drive did not drop and the extreme cravings and the never-ending battle with hunger, I am used to from previous preps, did not occur.. much of this is probably related to the fact that even on 1,400kcal /day I can still eat to satiety within my feeding window. I am nevertheless suspicious, especially because this is the first contest prep, where I am using and intermittent fasting protocol and who knows, maybe the hunger pangs will come...

    No hunger, no lethargy, no cravings, but still: Better save than sorry ;-)

    The call I received from my former mentor, on the other hand, reminded me that my progress on the "high" 1,600kcal regimen has actually been quite amazing, so that I decided that, even in the absence of hunger pangs, cravings and lethargy, it would probably be wise to smoothly increase my caloric intake again, in order to have more "caloric reserves" (not in terms of body fat, but in terms of being able to cut back on caloric intake without the risk of losing too much muscle mass), when, later in my prep, my progress begins to stall.

    Image 4: If you want to know more about the working principles of intermittent fasting and why eating more frequently does not automatically translate into better weight loss read the Intermittent Thoughts on Intermittent Fasting.
    As I have mentioned before, the timing of the meals, i.e. the characteristic fasting-feeding interval and the nutrient density and macronutrient composition of the individual points, are the constituent factors of my success. I mean, if you were simply dividing those 1,600kcal by 6 and eating your "healthy and weight loss promoting" (watch out for the irony, here!) 6 bodybuilder-standard-contest-prep-meals a day that would be only 266kcal per meal... what? Yeah! That sucks! And to be honest, I don't even want to do the math for the 1,400kcal I have been eating the past weeks. Now, if you allocate the same meager 1,600kcal to 3 meals, eating 20% (320 kcal) of your daily allowance pre-workout, 60% (960 kcal) post-workout and 20% (320 kcal) with your last meal - all within a 6-8h time frame - that does not only sound much more satiating, it also is ;-)

    An exemplary nutrition plan on a 1,600kcal intermittent fast could look like this:
    • pre-workout: 50g protein/ 1 cup coconut milk/ 1 tbs. of coconut oil = 400 kcal
       
    • post-workout meal: 100g protein/ and as much veggies as you want, and you can even throw in a 12 oz potato if you want! And you’d still be at 640 kcal with 320 more to go!
       
    • last meal before the fast: Protein shake (25g protein/ 1 raw egg/ 1 cup of coconut milk) = 210 kcal
    Obviously the numbers aren't 100% accurate, but that this does not matter as long as you are not tricking yourself by adding 50kcal in here, and another 50kcal there, it won't make a difference if your pre-workout meal is 400kcal or 320kcal...the take home message here is that by timing your foods appropriately and exploiting the beauty of intermittent fasting you can still eat to satiety while dieting really hard... and I guess the images I posted last week should proof that not feeling hungry won't hamper your progress, at all. In fact, and this is maybe one of the most important lessons I have learned during the past weeks, the exact opposite is true.

    Increasing caloric intake on a diet, but how?

    Image 5: Grumpy regular or lovely sweet potato, which one is better? Which will make you fat? Or is it possible that there actually is no difference? Learn more in the Potato Manifesto Part 1 & Part 2
    As I mentioned earlier, the success I have had, made me reconsider my earlier plans as far as the overall calorie intake is concerned. Now, while it is one thing not to cut back on calories, it is another to re-introduce them, when the goal is fat loss, not mass gain. In view of the fact that the 1,400kcal would at best make me peak too early, in the worst case leave me flat and catabolic, when I am rolling onto the stage in 11 weeks, it would be whacky not to take the "risk"... especially because the reinstallment of some starchy post-workout carbs to get back into the ~1,600kcal/day zone, coincides with my return to escalating density training. During those high-intensity EDT workouts, I am certainly going to benefit from some readily available glucose to replenish the glyocgen stores of my muscles. I will still make sure to keep my starchy carb and fruit intake <100 and will time them so that they will fall right into the 2h window after my workouts, so that the end result (post workout) is probably going to look somewhat like this...
    • 50g of lean meat as the main nutritional protein source, plus ...
       
    • 6-8 oz white potato (30-40g carbohydrates) for the starchy carbs, plus ...
       
    • the rest of my 50g of carbohydrates from veggies & fruit, of which I don't really count the veggies, I just load up on them, plus ...
       
    • no more than 10g of fat mostly from the meat
       
    A usual, I'll stick to this for now and monitor my physique week to week, in order to make adjustments whenever I feel they become necessary.

    "Get as lean as you can with as much carbs as you can"

    At first I was a little hesitant to add carbs back in. I did not want that water retention (cf. "Three Basic Tweaks to Get Rid of Excess Water") in my lower abs to reappear, but at the same time, I don’t want to be running too flat for 11 weeks. Plus, adding some starchy carbs back into my diet post-workout meal might even help with putting on some more strength and, concomitantly, lean mass while still cutting down.The whole situation reminds me of something I heard a while back from one of the "diet gurus", who may not get everything right, but whose success with clients is something you can hardly deny: "You want to get as lean as you can with as much carbs as you can get away with" ... well, something along the line ;-) The main massage, was though that you should try and keep your muscle as "full" as possible without compromising your fat loss... and while I was still musing about staying full while losing fat, I realized that within the past weeks, where I still had my post-workout share of carbs, exactly that had worked out pretty well.
    Recipe of the week: Almond Butter Chocolate Blueberry Low-Carb Flap Jack

    Whenever I'm craving a high glycemic index,, processed, pro-inflammatory pancake, but I canÄt have one, I improvise with these...

    Ingredients:
    • 8 egg whites (you can also use all whites)
    • 1 whole egg
    • a couple poofs of cinnamon powder
    • 1 tsp. vanilla extract
    • 1-2 packets of truvia (stevia)
    Blend ingredients in blender till’ it starts to fluff and pour in a hot pan with a little bit of coconut oil.

    Tip: Just add 2 tbs. of almond butter, ½ cup of blueberries and waldens calorie-free chocolate syrup. And here’s your finished product!
    The flipside to this insight is yet that I will have to lie aside my "water retention phobia"... I thusly keep telling myself that when I am taking in my carbs within the 2-hour post-workout window, where, as Dr. Andro pointed out in one of our nightly discussions on facebook, the "exercise-dependent increase in GLUT-4 receptor expression on your muscle will make them suck up the glucose without the need for large amounts of insulin that would be necessary at other time points, i.e. in a non-exercised state, to initially trigger the GLUT-4 expression", the glucose from the potatoes and fruit is not only most likely go into my muscle glycogen stores, but this is also going to happen in the presence of a minimal (compared to other time-points) amounts of insulin. Moreover, he reminded me - as long as my overall physique keeps improving - I will still have more than enough time to get rid of any excess water within the last 4 weeks of my prep...

    So, I guess I will just have to deal with the little inevitable bloat that comes with each and every gram of carbohydrate for a few more weeks... and who knows, maybe the water is not even coming back again? If you are interested in that and whether my assumption that I could still make progress on the 1,600kcal regimen will turn out to be correct, you will have to come back next Thursday to read the the latest installment of my weekly contest prep blog right here, at the SuppVersity.

    Adelfo Cerame - Road to Wheelchair Nationals '12: Dismiss Calorie Cutting, Pancakes & English Muffins, Embrace Intermittent Fasting, Fruits and Each Step on the Way!

    Image 1: Don't get stressed with doing everything right, just do it ;-)
    Sometimes its strange how things get together unplanned. With me being on Carl Lanore's Super Human Radio, today at 1pm EST (click here to listen live!), talking about what happens when science and the real world "collide" and how both scientific paradigms and conventional wisdom are probably the most common causes of questionable conclusions (science) and lack of results (real world) and Adelfo sending me his weekly update on how the "wanna lose fat, got to cut calories"-paradigm is still bothering him...

    Five weeks out and putting bees into my own bonnet!

    I am counting the days, ... mainly because I don’t know what else to do with myself *lol* - It just feels like I need to do something to manipulate my training and my diet even further, but I really can’t do much at this point, but stay the course… I’m trying not to cut any more calories, because I want to avoid either losing muscle or at least running so flat that another "mini-bulk" would be necessary to get stage ready... I must admit, though: It is tough!

    Image 2: That would not have happened if she had been eating to satiety before... when your diet turns into a "hunger diet", you are already lost.
    I guess it’s just a habit that I have gotten so used to in the past, that the program in my head keeps telling me: "Hey, contest prep. Another week, another cut in calories" It's always been like that in the past. Wanna get leaner? Drop calories! Well, ... at least that's at least what common wisdom tells you and told me. In reality, however, it can - and at some point will - easily backfire. While it is obviously true, that, in order to get lean, and drop body fat, you must manipulate your macros, and gradually reduce calories, but at one point (calorie, or I should say energy-wise) the returns you get (=fat loss) are no longer worth the investments, which is muscle mass, when your cortisol skyrockets and your testosterone and thyroid levels plummet. The further you are pushing from that point, the less fat and the more muscle you lose.

    Where this "point of diminishing returns" actually is, differs from person to person and may even change in the course of your lifetime. From what I gather it has a lot to do with what people like to call your "body-fat set point", something I guess, at least some of you may have heard Dr. Andro talk about on Carl Lanore's Super Human Radio back in the day. The basic assumption is that your body has a certain amount of body fat it does (for whatever stupid reason ;-) defend "with its life", or rather your muscle and organ mass. So, if you are hovering towards the "disgustingly ripped zone", like I am, you are already way past the comfort zone, where your body does not really care about the 1-2% more or less of fat on your ribcage.

    Don't fix things that aren't broken, just 'cause you like the "tweaking" ...

    The fact, that the usual side-effects like constant cravings, lack of energy & libido still have not hit me yet, must - at least in my humble opinion - have something to do with the satiety effect of intermittent fasting. The fasting-feeding-fasting-feeding... I guess Dr. Andro would say "seesaw" *lol* has really allowed me to eat to satiety over the whole 20+ weeks of this otherwise probably unbearably long contest prep.

    I mean, there is a reason that the typical bodybuilding prep (at least the hot phase) lasts no more than 2 months. The constant cravings, the insane amounts of cardio the "chicken and rice"-only menus... nothing of that in my diet, which - I know I've said that before, but it is just so f**** amazing - is by far the easiest and most enjoyable prep in my whole bodybuilding career... with a further reduction in calories, however, things could change very easily and thus, I feel that it is better to check my desire to "just try for a few days" (which would be what I would be telling myself, although I knew that it would be a one-way street), if leaving out another 10g of carbs less here and the coconut oil, there...

    ...STOP! When you are getting to points like that, it is often best to revisit your plan and, more importantly, the reasonings on which it is based and mostly, you will realize that those streaks of "what if's" are largely irrational. For me this means that I will stick (just as planned till ~2 weeks out) to my caloric zigzagging regimen with 1400-1500kcal on training and 1200kcal on rest days and the planned re-feeds on Sunday. After all, I am still making forward progress in terms of the way I look, although I must admit that my objectivity is hugely compromised by the little voice of common wisdom in my ear that says: "Dr. Andro must be mistaken, when he said he saw improvements in my delts and lats... I mean, I did not cut calories and you do...", you know this antics, don't you?

    ... don't forget to revisit the effect of the tweaks you have made ...

    The well-thought changes I made to the exercise side of the equation last week (you may remember that I felt like being at the verge of overtraining), on the other hands, are really paying off. I feel that my regimen is on point! My body responds great to the weekly alternations between EDT, 5x5 and reverse pyramids. As the video on the right goes to show, I did yet incorporate another "body weight" exercise after realizing how well the weighted chins worked for me: Weighted dips!

    Video 1 (click to watch): Weighted wheelchair version of the Gironda Dips... I usually do these at the end of my chest & triceps training; instead of doing 5x5’s I just do 5 sets till absolute failure.
    Moreover, I did expand my outside of the last weeks of a prep non-existant ab-training to a few minutes after every training session. As I have mentioned previously I am a firm non-believer in the power of isolated ab-work, but in order to make sure I did not miss the slightest opportunity to improve my physique, I better invest the additional few minutes, now, to avoid asking myself later, whether it was the missing ab-work due to which I missed my pro-card.

    A much more important factor, in view of achieving optimal conditioning, which is also a recent addition to my routine, is the HIIT "cardio" training I have been doing on my off-days, last week. That has been working fine and I am going to try doing the same protocol fasted, next week... if you wanna know how that went, I'd suggest you mark Thursday, 23, 2012 in your schedule ;-)

    ... and never forget to get rid of the junk (-food ;-)!
       
    If you take a closer look at the usual choices of carbohydrate sources I am consuming on my re-feeds every Sunday (image 3), I suppose that at least some of you will be shocked... a lot of processed (partly also junk-)food. And no, nothing I would ever recommend you should eat on a daily basis, if your goal is to stay healthy, let alone if you are trying to lose weight and/or improve your body composition.

    Image 3: With this being my previous choices for Sunday carb-re-feeds, I suspect that even the "fructophobics" out there would concede that my novel combination of fresh and dried fruit, is a major improvement ;-)
    As you can see from the pictures on the right and from other previous blogs where I talk about re-feeds; that I’m obviously a Fat Boy at heart!  But now I’m actually having a change of heart with my carb sources. This past Sunday I was really craving fruits for some reason. Whether it was fresh or dried fruit, I knew that I wanted to gorge on fruit. So after church, I past by my local Trader Joe’s and bought all the fresh and dried fruits I could possibly get my hands on… from bananas, dried bananas and banana chips to mangoes, strawberries and dates, you name it, I bought it!

    With the majority of my carb source coming from fresh and dried fruit while keeping the highly processed junk food such as the pancakes and English muffins to a minimum, I felt a lot more refreshed than after the my previous junk-bindges... 2 cans of coconut water later, and I felt in heaven ;-)

    In view of the fact that it common wisdom tells you that "feeling in heaven" is not seemly for someone preparing for a bodybuilding contest, I should not forget to add that the one thing that felt even better than the food, was the way my physique responded to the combination of fresh and dried fruit. I have made a habit of practicing my poses about 1 hour after my 1st re-feed meal of the day to see how my physique looks and judge the progress I have made over the last 7 days... and I’d have to say, I was very pleased with what I saw this past Sunday in the mirror... not to mention the awesome pumps and the tight contractions upon flexing the muscles.
    Recipe of the week:  
    Tropical Papaya Chicken Salad

    Ingredients:
    • 12 oz chicken breast - chopped and marinated in fresh pineapple juices, sea salt, pepper & curry powder
    • 1 cup of sliced papayas  - sliced in squares
    • 1 whole cucumber - sliced in circles
    • ¼ cup of real coconut milk  -the one in the can
    • 1 packet of TruviaMacros: 72g protein/ 14g carbs/ 16g fat
    How to prepare it: Mix, and toss, then eat and enjoy!
    Dr. Andro and I have been talking about reloading glycogen stores before and I remember he mentioned that a 2:1 ratio of glucose to fructose has been shown to do the job just about as well, if not better than your usually overkill of dextrose and/or maltodextrin... I guess, my body must have remembered that and thusly sent me those "fruit cravings" - and what should I say, it certainly felt like it worked. For the future I will thusly be ditching the pancakes and English muffins, to make room for more fresh, ripe and dried fruits and home-made baked potatoes and yams for a more sustained influx of non-fructose carbohydrates to really top those glycogen stores off once in a week.

    So, if you want to know more about the short term-effects of fasted HIIT, fruits, potatoes and yams, you better make sure to come back next Thursday, when I will officially reveal not the paleo, but at least one of  the "Adelfo Cerame whole foods re-feed solutions" in the recipe of the week ;-)