The Mind Over Body Matter Letter

A news media feeding frenzy erupted recently when a new diet study broke in the New England Journal of Medicine…

… and almost all the reporters got it wrong, wrong ‘WRONG!’

(So did most of the gloating low carb forumites and bloggers.)

Come to think of, almost everyone interpreted this study wrong.

Some valuable insights came out of this study, but almost everyone missed them because they were too busy believing what the news said or defending their own cherished belief systems …

My buddy Tom Venuto reviewed this study hardcore style… you might not believe the golden nuggets of info that lay underneath what everyone THOUGHT was a big deal

Go check it out… this is good stuff… VERY well thought out…

==> Tom’s “Low Carb” Revelation

(Here’s a great post by Tom Venuto… the author of Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle…

Tom always has a great outlook on things.)

Fat burner supplements are advertised everywhere these days - on the internet, in magazines and even on TV. The ads almost always feature a very lean fitness model or bodybuilder and claim that these products, usually pills, are the secret to their six pack abs and very low body fat levels. Some of these ads suggest that the only way to get as lean as the “hot bodies” you see pictured is by taking their “miracle pills” and that proper nutrition and exercise alone is not enough.

While I won’t dismiss the fact that there are ingredients in some fat “burner” products that might help a little bit, I take great displeasure in seeing misleading advertising claims as well as the misleading use of models who are often paid to endorse the product even though they may never have even used it (they’re just models!)

Many “fat burner” companies have been sued by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising, false claims and falsifying before and after photos.

The best you get is a slight thermogenic effect and possibly some slight appetite suppression. A few products might work through other mechanisms like improving thyroid, but if you forgive me the generalization, I consider the effects of all these “fat burner” products to be minutia.

In one of my previous newsletters, I said that in my opinion, 97% of your results come from nutrition and training and maybe you get an extra 3% advantage from supplements. Just so you know those numbers aren’t something I pulled out of thin air, here’s an example:

I have reviewed scientific data that EGCG, the active ingredient in green tea extract, if consumed in enough quantity, could increase thermogenesis / metabolic rate by an average of about 75 calories in 24 hours. Since ephedrine was taken off the market, green tea extract appears in many ephedra-free formulas these days. What is a typical calorie expenditure for an active male in 24 hours? lets say 2700 calories per day. 75/2700 = 2.7%.

That little extra doesnt hurt, especially when it’s delivered in a healthful package such as green tea (rather than central nervous system stimulants), but it’s minutia in the bigger picture. Another way to put this into perspective is to make a list of what other things would burn 75 calories (for 150 lb person:)

* walk your dog for 15 minutes * walk for 5 minutes at normal casual pace three times a day * 30 minutes of ironing * bagging leaves and grass clippings for 14 minutes * re arrange your furniture for 10 minutes * wash your car, 15 minutes * vacuuming for 15 minutes *7.2 minutes of walking up stairs (could be spread throughout the day)

Of course, some people are probably wondering, “Why exert yourself if you could take a pill and your metabolism increases while you sit and watch TV?”

Here’s what any good personal trainer will always tell you: No amount of calorie restriction or pill-popping will ever give you FITNESS. It will never give you STRENGTH. It will never get you MUSCULARITY. It will never give you FUNCTIONALITY. At best it will help you reduce your body mass.

(Oh… and as a little note… fitness and exercise REALLY help prevent the injuries that just “happen” to happen as you get older. You know, the twisting your ankle by stepping on it wrong… knee problems… etc)

And how about for your health?

A body that’s not moved rots away. Unlike a car which only has so many miles on it and wears out from over-use, people are the only “machines” on earth that fall apart from under-use.

On one hand, I’m tempted to say that everything counts and that yes, 75 calories here and 75 calories there, it ALL adds up, because it does. After you’re exercising regularly and all your fundamentals are in place, details and little things do matter.

I’m simply asking you to put the benefits of any fat burners in proper perspective and realize that (1) there is no “need” for taking them and (2) the claims made in the ads are often erroneous or exaggerated.

My advice on fat burners:

1. NEVER buy a fat burner unless you get independent verification of the claims made for the product.

How do you know they really work? Are you seriously going to take the advertisers word for it? Are you going to take someone else’s testimonial as fact? Get verification for yourself by going to the pub med data base and looking for the primary research.

2. Put it in perspective

With those products that work, such as those providing a small thermogenic effect, put that in perspective as compared to how easily you could burn that many calories with even light exercise like walking or housework. Keep in mind the additional fitness and strength benefits you will obtain from exercise as opposed to doing nothing and popping a pill.

3. See if there are any side effects or health warnings.

With all supplements and especially with prohormones or stronger thermogenics like the ephedrine and caffeine stack, (if you still have access to them), understand the risk to benefit ratio, and be certain you know the dangers and contraindications.

4. Read the label and see if the product contains enough active ingredient to even work.

A classic scam is when a “fat burner” advertisement quotes research that a certain ingredient boosts metabolism, which might be true. What they may not tell you is that all the research with positive results used a large dosage of the ingredient, which might not be cheap. So the supplement company includes a “pinch” or “light dusting” of that ingredient just so they can say it’s in the bottle, even though it’s nothing more than “label decoration.” Then they have the audacity to invoke the research studies in their advertisements when the amount of the ingredient in their product is no where near what was used in the research!

5. Beware of the proprietary blend scam.

Some companies don’t let you see how much ingredient is in the product formula, because it contains multiple ingredients and they say their formula is a “trade secret” aka “proprietary”, so they list what is in the product but not how much. Well, if you don’t know how much is in there then how are you supposed to know whether it contains the proper dosage? (answer: you don’t!)

6. Make sure there is human research, not just rodent research.

In many cases, advertisements cite studies on rats and mice as “proof” under the assumption that the product will produce the same results in humans. Animal research is an important part of the scientific method, as it is often used to help find areas of research where human study should be pursued, or in the other direction, to trace back the mechanism that makes something work. However, for obesity research in particular, a positive finding in rats does not mean the same thing will happen in humans.

7. Look for more than one human study.

Consider trying a supplement after it has human research that has been replicated by different research groups which are not industry-sponsored. My policy is that I will usually only give a “buy” rating to a supplement when a product has an initial well-designed human controlled trial published and then similar research has been replicated by another research group that is not supplement-industry funded. Actually, I think it’s a good thing that nutrition and supplement companies fund and sponsor some of the research. They should. They should not only back up their claims with published clinical trials, they should share some of the cost of this expensive research.

However, a basic principle of the scientific method is replication. Other researchers should be able to duplicate the findings. Therefore, while the funding source does not necessarily prove bias, if there is only one study available on a supplement and it is company or industry sponsored, I usually take it with a grain of salt and put an asterisk next to it while I wait for confirmation from another study. (You might be surprised at how infrequently this type of confirmation occurs).

Do you really need “more” than nutrition and exercise?

Now, when you weigh the fact that even the products with research backing them only help a little, with the fact that many of the ads lie to you about research, exaggerate claims and hide vital information about ingredients, and with the fact that you can do a few more minutes of exercise per day and get the same results for free, how enthusiastic are you about fat burners? Yeah, that’s why I’m not real excited about them either and based on the fact that I use no drugs and no “fat burner” supplements and I compete in bodybuilding - very successfully - I’d say that the assertion, “it takes more than nutrition and exercise to get six pack abs” is patently false.

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer, certified strength & conditioning specialist and author of the best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle. Tom teaches you how to lose fat without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models so you too can learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism.

Tom Venuto’s been around the block… for lack of a better term.

His Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program is based on bodybuilder style nutrition program that flat out gets results from most people that embark on his journey.

Granted, there may be “sleeker” and “more hip” programs out there… but this one has a monster track record behind it.

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

… oh, and then there’s “water weight”… lol. Sorry, had to interject.

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

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

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

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

* 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).

* But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.

* The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calorie deficit

* Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.

* Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate aggressive low calorie diets better than already lean people)

* Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.

* whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss

* The metabolized energy in fat is different than the metabolized energy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories. If you lose lean body mass, then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.

* If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound.

* But if you create a 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you manage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter’s Dunce cap)

* If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you may need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person

* Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight

* Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the “plateau”). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can’t hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)

* Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat versus lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)

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

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

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

15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit

20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit

25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

Tom Venuto is a lifetime natural bodybuilder, an NSCA-certified personal trainer, certified strength & conditioning specialist (CSCS), and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle. Tom teaches you how to lose fat without drugs or supplements using the little-known secrets of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and turbo-charge your metabolism by visiting Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle and The Burn The Fat Inner Circle, the Internet’s premier members-only fat loss support community.

One thing to note in particular that I don’t feel like is getting enough press:

Weight training is a MUST in ALL fat loss programs.

In fact, the addition of weight training dramatically slows the amount of muscle loss during any type of caloric restriction.

This is a GOOD thing.

Unfortunately, most people hop up on the treadmill and do boring ass steady state cardio and lose almost all of their fat burning advantages over time… as this activity sucks away muscle like a vacuum.

So, I don’t care who you are.

Hit the weights first… then get some cardio in.

Here’s a great article by Tom Venuto… of Burn The Fat fame.

Are you making these mistakes?

2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

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

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

REASON #1: NOT ENOUGH FOCUS ON TOTAL CALORIES BURNED

Most people aren’t burning enough darn calories.

Why? Well, I guess they are too busy worrying about the “proper” type of exercise (which machine or activity), the mode (steady state or intervals), the “optimal” ratio of intervals, or the “best” duration.

Some people coast along on the treadmill at 2.3 miles per hour or some similar sloth-like pace and they think that just by hitting a TIME goal, such as 45 or 60 minutes, that with “X” duration completed, they are assured to get the results they want.

[I see this ALL the time, especially with people that tend to ride the recumbant bike]

On the other extreme, we have folks who have found or created some mega-intense, super-duper short training protocol like the “4-minute wonder workout from Japan.” Just because the workout is high in intensity and it is performed in intervals, they too think they are assured to get the results they want.

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

AND…

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

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

[Hmmm… now there’s a thought that you don’t here about too much. I can’t argue too much with Tom because he’s ripped!]

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

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

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

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

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

[Which is stupid…]

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

(A) A 30 minute leisurely stroll through the park
(B) A 30 minute, sweat-pouring, heart-pounding, lung-burning run?

Like, DUH!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERE’S THE FAT-BURNING SOLUTION!

In both cases, the solution to burning more fat is drop dead simple: Focus your attention on how you can burn more TOTAL calories during your workout and all day long.

If you want to burn more fat, burn more calories and you can do that by manipulating ANY of the variables : intensity, duration and also frequency.

If you build your training program around this concept, you will be on the right track almost every time.

BUT WAIT - THERE IS MORE TO IT…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com

About the Author:

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

—-

Like I said earlier, it’s hard to argue with Tom… especially since he’s completely ripped. This is sound advice and I’m glad he got into the intensity debate here.

Good stuff.