Go to Biography
Go to Articles
Go to Web Site Objective
Go to Photo Gallery
Go to Contest History
Go to FAQ
Go to Contact Fred
Go to Home
|
MY THOUGHTS ON NATURAL BODYBUILDING As we enter the new millennium, it's an exciting time for drug-free bodybuilding. When I began competing in bodybuilding contests in 1984, you had two choices: You could use performance-enhancing drugs to compete on a level playing field with the athletes in the major shows, or enter drug-tested shows that offered little opportunity for earning money or notoriety. Highly competitive individuals who aspired to reach the top were in a position where drug use was a necessary component - even if they were not comfortable with such use. In essence, there was no choice. The natural athletes of that era were pioneers who worked extremely hard and got little in return. The '90s have seen the popularity of drug-free bodybuilding soar thanks, in large part, to the efforts of Manhattan-based publisher Cheh Low. Mr. Low distributes a magazine dedicated exclusively to drug-free bodybuilding contests, competitors and training principles (Natural Bodybuilding and Fitness). In addition, realizing the need for a professional organization to run high-level natural shows that would give competitors a legitimate alternative, he founded the World Natural Bodybuilding Federation in 1990. While a number of other organizations have tried to follow suit, the W.N.B.F. continues to be the front-runner, having staged 30 competitions throughout the nineties, distributing $437,000 of prize money in the process. All W.N.B.F. bodybuilders undergo strict polygraph and urinalysis testing to ensure a minimum period of seven years free from any performance-enhancing drug use. The efforts of W.N.B.F. President and Founder Cheh Low, along with Chairman Steve Downs and Vice-Chairman Charlie Carollo, have made it possible to be what was once unheard of, a drug-free professional bodybuilder. Since income-earning potential and much needed exposure now exist for the natural competitor, athletes can make the choice as to which direction they will pursue. " During its first 10 years, the W.N.B.F. had affiliations with a variety of amateur organizations. This provided a feeder system, with the winners of these organizations' events that were dictated as pro-qualifiers moving on to professional status in the W.N.B.F. Beginning in 2000, the W.N.B.F. has created its own amateur wing, the International Natural Bodybuilding Federation. Athletes who aspire to reach the pinnacle of drug-free bodybuilding enter I.N.B.F. shows and attempt to work their way up the ladder, eventually reaching the "big league." With reverence to those who have made the aforementioned opportunities possible, I dedicate my time to the I.N.B.F. as a head judge, as well as in any other ways that I may be of help. By being involved in this way, I hope to further the cause of natural bodybuilding by providing opportunities for drug-free competitors, as well as serving as a role model for what can be achieved without performance-enhancing drug use. MAXIMIZING NEUROLOGIC ADAPTATIONS FOR OPTIMAL RESISTANCE TRAINING GAINS by Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. It never ceases to amaze me what an incredible piece of equipment the human body is. Think about it: The body functions continuously for, on average, 70-80 years. Replacement of parts is the exception, rather than the norm. Imagine starting your car when it was brand new, never turning it off, even when parked or refueling, and driving around for at least half the day, every day for 75 years. Talk about high performance! Much of the survival capabilities of living organisms can be attributed to the remarkable system of checks and balances that maintains homeostasis within the body. Consider the following: You awaken on a frigid morning, wind-chill 20 below. You bundle up and begin your trek to the first destination on your busy agenda, the health club. Without your thinking about it, myriad functions are taking place in the body to increase and conserve internal heat and stave off hypothermia. You shiver, your muscles unconsciously contracting and relaxing rapidly to produce heat. Pretty soon, you're on the treadmill at the gym and beads of sweat cascade down your face to decrease the internal heat being generated due to the increased energy your body is producing. Incredibly, through it all, your core temperature remained within a very narrow range - the range necessary for survival. No adjustments, no settings - The body took care of everything on its own. The preceding scenario is a common example of a feedback loop. The body detects a disruption (stimulus) that threatens its internal constancy and affects a change in its intrinsic environment to maintain equilibrium. Such adaptive changes can be as rapid as a reflexive action (pulling your hand from a hot object) or as gradual as the changes that occur from generation to generation as we evolve. All of them are meant to guarantee survival. The two systems that maintain equilibrium in the body are the endocrine and nervous systems. Ask a number of exercisers what they are looking to accomplish and you will likely get a diverse list of specific objectives. In spite of the vast array of motivating factors that drive people to work out, a general statement could have been made that would have applied to everyone: "I want to bring about a specific positive adaptation in my body." That covers all of the bases. Consider resistance exercise as an example. Everyone knows that weight training promotes health, but why? What adaptive changes occur in the body as a result of the stimulus being applied? Most people would say that the muscles get bigger, but that is an over-simplification and probably not the major change that occurs, at least not at the very beginning. When the beginner initiates a resistance-training program, initial gains in strength are usually dramatic. It's not unusual to see significant gains in as short as one week. These adaptations are exclusively neurological, the nervous system realizing that the body has to demonstrate more force on a regular basis and putting more muscle fibers to work. The long-term changes induced by the endocrine system, making each fiber able to work harder (by increasing their cross-sectional area since cross-sectional area and force generating capability are proportionate), will take much longer. Muscular hypertrophy (growth) will occur much more gradually and its effects will be less transient. Anyone who has been injured and unable to work out with the weights for a while will see this exemplified. Strength levels will plummet and muscle tonicity (the partially contracted state that the muscle is always in) will decrease rapidly while actual muscle mass will be, for the most part, unaffected. Upon re-starting the program, it's like magic: Everything is back before you know it. Imagine two railroad stations with ten sets of tracks between them, all in use. All of a sudden, a decreased demand for transportation results in five of the lines being decommissioned temporarily. Grass grows over the tracks and they are as good as gone. But they are still there. Start sending some trains down and, they may be a little rusty at first, but eventually they will be up and running as good as ever. Just like the maximum amount of people could never arrive at the second station unless all lines were functional, muscular hypertrophy and adequate tonicity is impossible unless significant adaptations are forced that result in more nerve pathways being available to recruit more fibers for force-generating demonstration. This is a key component of any resistance-training program, especially when sports-performance enhancement is the objective. It is also the foundation of the adaptations sought in the rehab setting, when muscular re-education after injury is stressed. To maximize neuromuscular recruitment adaptations, develop the mind-muscle link by consciously attempting to contract the muscle as forcefully as possible during resistance training. Utilizing loads that challenge the muscle's current force generating capabilities, by bringing fatigue and inability to continue the set within a short period of time (60-90 seconds), is also necessary. By promoting neurological adaptations, you'll be well on your way to tuning up your high performance machine. PREPARING YOURSELF FOR SAFE, EFFECTIVE WORKOUTS By Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. One of the areas in fitness where confusion exists involves the preparatory activity that should be performed prior to a workout or athletic endeavor. Casual exercisers and competitive athletes alike speak of "the warm-up," then proceed with actions that do very little to serve that particular function. The body is in the ideal condition to move with maximal effectiveness and minimal injury risk when the temperature inside of the muscles and joints is elevated. The difference in temperature between a muscle that's at rest and one that's moving vigorously is approximately two degrees. Once this increase has taken place, circulation and range of motion are increased, fluid viscosity in the joints is lessened and oxygen delivery to working tissues is facilitated. As a result, before any exercise or sports activity is undertaken, it's advisable to elevate muscle temperature to prepare the body for the task at hand. Internal temperature is increased when the body moves. The motion should be continuous and utilize many body parts. Since all that's possible is a two-degree rise in temperature, five minutes of activity is adequate to achieve this objective - warm-ups of greater duration will do nothing to further elevate temperature. Many people mistakenly believe that stretching is an appropriate warm-up. Static stretching, moving a joint slowly to its end range of motion and holding it there in an attempt to increase flexibility, involves very little actual motion and will not elevate temperature sufficiently. Ballistic stretching, using an active muscular effort to repeatedly bring the joint rapidly to end-range, involves more movement, but to do so before temperature is elevated would increase injury risk significantly. While not suitable as a warm-up, stretching is appropriate as a training modality to elicit adaptations that will result in increased range of motion potential in the future. Regular static stretching sessions will enhance flexibility; an improvement that can be tapped into once the muscle is warmed up adequately. Think about how resistance training makes muscles stronger. Let's assume we want to move a box, but it's too heavy - we can't lift it. We would gradually force positive adaptations in our muscles by lifting poundage that we were capable of moving for repeated efforts, increasing the weight gradually from week to week as strength improvements occurred and, eventually, we'd be able to demonstrate our increased strength potential by lifting the box. On the other hand, it's obvious that we couldn't just lift some weights for a few minutes before our attempt and expect to be able to meet the challenge. It's the same with stretching - it's a training activity that will bring gradual changes if done on a regular basis. A little stretching before an event won't help. In addition to the general warm-up, preparation for challenging physical events should also include a specific activity similar to the movement that will be performed, but done at a less demanding level. Such an exercise will bring neuromuscular preparation by acclimating the nervous system to the particular movement pattern that will be required during the actual performance. The key to maximizing performance is enough specific preparation to bring readiness, without inducing fatigue that will hinder performance. Let's consider how a football punter might use a general warm-up, a specific warm-up and range of motion enhancement training to prepare for game performance. Punting requires an explosive kicking action of the hip flexors and knee extensors. As a result, the antagonists to those muscles (the hamstrings, gluteus maximus and gastrocnemius) must possess sufficient flexibility and be warmed up adequately in order to maximize performance and minimize injury risk. To achieve such flexibility, the punter should engage in regular static stretching sessions (5-7 days per week). Each session should be preceded by a five-minute warm-up - for example, fast walking, jogging in place or stair climbing - to elevate internal temperature. With the increased range of motion potential from these sessions, the punter is now more suited to kick the football, however, pre-event preparation is also important. Prior to the game, the first thing the athlete should do is elevate muscle temperature, just as he did prior to the stretching sessions. Next, a specific warm-up should be performed. For the punter, this could involve kicking the leg into the air repeatedly (an example of a ballistic stretch). Once these preparatory activities are completed, he's ready to perform under game conditions. Just as an athlete like the punter prepares for his challenge, those who exercise should also go through a similar series of preparatory activities. Regular stretching sessions, general warm-ups before all workouts and a specific warm-up, where the individual begins below what will be their maximum challenge and increases the intensity progressively (pyramiding during resistance training, for example) are key elements of safe, effective exercise. SETTING REALISTIC BODY FAT GOALS By Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. See if you recognize this scenario: Last year, you decided it was time to take the bull by the horns and get into the condition you'd always dreamed about. You started weight training to add some muscle, hit the cardio to reduce body fat and changed your eating habits in accordance with those goals. This time, you stuck with it and it actually worked: Muscle now makes its home where fat used to flop, your bodyweight is fight where you want it and you feel great. There's just one problem: You just can't seem to get rid of that last bit of fat on your... (fill in the blank). One of the questions I'm asked frequently concerns how to get rid of those final fat deposits. Usually, these exercise enthusiasts are content with most of their body - it's just that one last stubborn area that is creating difficulty. More often than not, men complain about their "love handles," women of the excess adipose on their hips and thighs. I compare those unwanted deposits to freeloading relatives at the family picnic - they're the first to come and the last to leave. Unless you have a genetic proclivity for a very lean appearance, you'll have a first-to-come-last-to-leave fat area. And you've probably tried everything under the sun to get rid of it, but to no avail. " Take a look at a successful competitive bodybuilder and one thing will be certain: In contest condition, they'll be "ripped to the bone," no excess fat to be found. It's important to realize, however, that this is a transient state for this individual. Ideally, the athlete has "hit their peak" for the show and will retain that appearance long enough to bring home the trophy. In between shows, during what is known as the off-season, bodybuilders will strategically gain fat - not excessive amounts, but just enough to be healthy and allow for adequate nutrient intake. The shredded appearance may look to be the epitome of health and fitness but, in reality, it is quite the opposite. There are two general categories of fat on the body - essential fat and storage fat. Essential fat is required for normal physiologic functioning - it is contained in the body's organs, muscles and is an important component of the cell membrane. Storage fat exists in adipose tissue and is available as a reserve fuel store, as well as providing insulation and protective cushioning for the internal organs. General recommendations for body fat, stated as a percentage of total bodyweight, are in the 15% range for males. Guidelines for females suggest more (low to mid 20's), since women have more essential fat. At any rate, for optimal health, minimal body fat levels would not be recommended. Spot reduction is impossible - you can't work a specific area and bring about a spot-specific fat loss. All you can do to reduce that last stubborn area is to continue to reduce your overall body fat percentage. In most cases, in order to get your first-to-come-last-to-leave fat area lean, you'll have to trick your body into losing fat to a level that would not be conducive to health. To attempt to maintain this as your everyday condition wouldn't be wise. What's more, the means that would need to be employed to achieve this state would be rather drastic: Contest bodybuilders routinely go on low-carb diets for this purpose. The alternative, that I favor, is a higher carbohydrate intake, combined with high-energy expenditure via aerobic exercise - a healthier approach, but one that's still impossible to maintain on an indefinite basis. Pursuit of the fat-free physique can create many problems. Eating disorders are prevalent when unrealistic objectives are sought. Inadequate nutrient intake, coupled with overtraining, can bring amenorrhoea, with a corresponding increased incidence of osteoporosis, for females. Caloric restriction can have adverse effects on the body's metabolism as a result of the lost muscle associated with such restriction. In addition, metabolic requirements decrease when the body attempts to conserve energy when intake is inadequate. There are also decreased energy demands associated with less digestive activity. After all this, if you still want to achieve that ultimate condition, I have a suggestion. Since the extreme measures and deleterious effects on the body are tolerable over the short-term, choose a specific event to "peak" for. Obviously, if you want to compete as a bodybuilder, aim for a show. If not, target a vacation trip. How about scheduling a photo shoot: This way, you'll have a goal, in addition to permanent reminders of your accomplishments. " As a competitive bodybuilder, I am acutely aware of what it's like to bring your body to its ultimate condition - a state that few experience. I'm also painstakingly familiar with what it takes to get to that level. In summary, it's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. SPECIFIC MEANS TO SPECIFIC ENDS By Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. Imagine a sick person entering the drug store and grabbing the first pharmaceutical product they saw to cure their malady. Obviously, in order for the drug to work, it must be designed specifically to affect the causes of their problem; specific means to a specific end. Everyone is aware of this, but many do not realize that similar rules apply when we exercise. Each of the many conditioning activities employed by exercisers is a pathway to the realization of certain objectives. In keeping with this idea, exercise programs should be developed in accordance with the prospective goals of the individual embarking on the program. It's not rocket science but, by the same token, a general philosophy like, "I'm exercising because it's good for me," is far too vague to allow for appropriate program design. It's now an established fact that exercise is a major component of health. Studies continue to show the dramatic effect it has on one's well being, life expectancy and, maybe most important, quality of life. The long list of the benefits of exercise is encouraging to all that spend a portion of their busy day in the gym. But how many are unaware that the means they are employing are not specific to the ends they are seeking? Next time you're in the gym, look around and notice the wide variety of people you see exercising. You'll notice people pursuing many different goals. In addition, that indeterminable balance of nature and nurture has given each of these individuals a different set of circumstances to "bring to the table." Different people with different goals and different backgrounds: Needless to say, different methods will need to be employed if each is to realize their objectives. Okay, enough generalities, let's get specific. We'll start with a person who is overweight and would like to reduce their body-fat. They know there is no way to spot-reduce, but they're lifting weights because they heard added muscle uses calories. Are they following the course of action that is specific to their goals? It is true that basal metabolic rate is dependent on lean mass - more muscle on the body equates to more calories expended just to exist. But the notion that one could put on the quantity of muscle needed to create enough of a shift in the intake/expenditure balance to necessitate tapping into fat stores to the extent where considerable amounts would be accessed is misconceived. Weight training in this situation is not wrong, but it's certainly not the specific exercise method to maximize expenditure and fat loss. Cardiovascular exercise, on the other hand, allows for considerable calorie usage due to the potential for long duration, continuous efforts. In addition, forcing positive adaptations in the oxygen-delivery system will allow for higher aerobic intensities, and a correspondingly higher calorie burn per minute, to be maintained in the future. Sounds good, so let's focus on the cardio. Not so fast! Let's assume the person also has a genetic proclivity for osteoporosis and recent bone scans indicate an increased demineralization. Will cardio help? Bone becomes denser when forced to adapt to the regular application of a strain. Supporting the body's weight (as is the case during many aerobic activities) presents limited such strain and challenges the bones minimally. In addition, as body-fat is reduced, the strain on the bones is also lessened, since less weight is being supported. In this case, bone density could actually reduce due to a negative adaptation to the reduced stimulus. To maximize bone strength, resistance training is the key. Apply the stress in line with the long axis of the bone, and choose exercises where the resistive force passes through vulnerable areas like the spine and hips, and you'll be training specifically for healthy bones. Resistance training also builds stronger muscles that are capable of augmenting the integrity of the joints. But it's essential to maintain the right equilibrium between the strength levels of opposing muscle groups, as well as a proper range of motion/strength balance, to insure that ideal postural conditions exist. Muscles that are too strong for their degree of flexibility, or vice versa, create imbalances that increase injury potential. As a result, stretching and spot-specific resistance training must be applied in the proper balance for orthopedic stability. Now add all the other objectives often cited when people begin exercise programs (to decrease blood pressure, decrease serum cholesterol, improve balance, enhance athletic performance, increase energy, look better; the list goes on and on). Each different set of goals, combined with the variety of backgrounds of the aspirants, presents a unique set of circumstances that must be considered if an appropriate program is to be implemented. If you need guidance in determining the correct approach specific to your situation, elicit the assistance of a qualified, certified personal trainer. But also become informed consumers. Understand the different types of exercise and the adaptations specific to each. Be involved in designing the specific program that will bring you toward the realization of all of your goals. STRUCTURING AN EATING PROGRAM: DETERMINING APPROPRIATE INTAKE LEVEL by Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. The first step in structuring an eating program is to determine how much energy (measured in calories) one should ingest daily. Over the years, I have come across numerous formulas that purportedly estimate an individuals caloric requirements. Due to the extreme degree of variability from person to person, I have found such general estimations to be, for the most part, inaccurate. I prefer using a trial-and-error method to determine the current caloric maintenance level (intake required to maintain current body-fat level) and making appropriate adjustments to that amount in accordance with your objectives. To employ this method, one must first understand the components of energy intake and expenditure. The intake portion of this equation is simple: It's the energy contained in all of the foods ingested throughout the day. Expenditure, on the other hand, is a function of three variables. The first, basal metabolic rate (BMR), is the energy required for the maintenance of one's existence. If one were to lay in bed and do nothing all day, there would still be a certain amount of energy required to sustain life. The BMR is predominantly genetically determined, however, it is alterable since it depends on how much muscle one has: The more muscle, the greater the basal energy requirements. The second component of expenditure is the thermic effect of activity - the energy required to perform all of the tasks, above and beyond the BMR, that one does throughout the day. The final factor in energy usage is the thermic effect of food - the energy required to digest the foods one ingests. The more often the body is in the process of digesting (more frequent feedings), the greater the energy needed to satisfy this component. To use the trial-and-error method to determine your current caloric maintenance level, you must find the point where a constant intake level, maintained for a couple of weeks, will result in the maintenance of current bodyweight - assuming the three variables of expenditure are kept constant. To find your maintenance amount, follow these guidelines: 1) 0n day-one, weigh yourself at a specific time of the day - ideally upon awakening. 2) Ingest the same number of calories each day for two weeks. Choose an amount that you believe would be close to what would be required to sustain your current weight. 3) Keep expenditure constant for the two-week period by: a) not adding any muscle to your body (if only it were that easy). b) not increasing or decreasing your activity level (includes keeping frequency, duration and intensity of cardiovascular training constant). c) not increasing or decreasing the amount of times per day that you eat. 4) 0n day-15, weigh yourself under the same conditions that you did on the first day. When you have found the intake level that results in your bodyweight staying the same for the two weeks with expenditure constant, that's your caloric maintenance level - the amount of energy required to maintain your current amount of body-fat, given that degree of expenditure. Now, you can make adjustments accordingly. If you are looking to add body-fat (as a bodybuilder would in the off-season, or a football player when switching from linebacker to defensive tackle), intake should be set above the maintenance level amount. If your current body-fat level is where you want it, continue ingesting that same amount of calories. For fat loss, a deficit must be set up between intake and expenditure so that reserve fuel stores (fat deposits) are accessed to make up the difference. Since drastically reduced or dramatically low intake levels can result in a slowing of the metabolic rate, this deficit should be mostly a result of expenditure increases, accompanied by only moderate intake reductions. Maximizing expenditure involves using the most energy for each of the components mentioned previously. Adding muscle will increase the BMR requirement, thereby increasing expenditure. This is, however, a limited avenue for change - especially for those who are close to their genetic potential in regards to muscular development. Eating the given amount of calories in smaller, more frequent meals also helps, but this too doesn't add up to enough to make the difference that significant. The majority of expenditure increases should come from maximizing the thermic effect of activity. While any activity undertaken uses energy, cardiovascular exercise done close to or at the lactate threshold (highest intensity before lack of oxygen and lactic acid accumulation prevent long-duration continuance) is the most effective. Exercise done at this intensity level requires the highest possible energy expenditure per minute at a level that can still be maintained for a sufficient duration and results in high overall energy usage. Higher intensity aerobic workouts also cause positive adaptations in the body's oxygen delivery network, increasing one's functional capacity, as well as their lactate threshold. The end result is an increased calorie-burn potential in the future. By using the trial-and-error method to determine caloric maintenance level, one can determine the energy intake required, in conjunction with appropriate expenditure, to allow them to meet their body composition goals. STRUCTURING AN EATING PROGRAM: DETERMINING THE PROPER BALANCE by Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. Structuring an eating program requires determining the appropriate energy intake level, then balancing the macronutrients at that particular quantity of intake. The following outline should be followed to balance an eating program once you've determined the appropriate energy intake level: 1) Write down all of the foods you eat throughout the day. Measure quantities and enter those values in the column next to the names of the foods. I like to use grams as the unit of measurement to increase precision. 2) Determine the amount of energy (measured in calories) and the macronutrients, protein, carbohydrates and fat (measured in grams), in the given amount you are ingesting. Due to recent legislation regarding the information provided on labels, most products have these values posted on their packages. If the product has the values on the package, use those numbers, since they are the most accurate. For items that do not have this information on the label (fruit, for example), consult a reference journal. I use The Complete Book of Food Counts by Corinne Netzer, published by Dell. Calculate calories, protein, carbohydrates and fat by multiplying the amount in the serving size by the number of servings you are ingesting. Enter these values in the appropriate columns. 3) At the end of the day, total up each column. 4) Calculate how much of the total of the protein column is from complete sources (those that contain all of the nine essential amino acids, for example - meat, fish, poultry and dairy). Designate these in the protein column with an asterisk and calculate the total grams of complete protein ingested for the day. 5) 0n average, a gram of protein or carbohydrate contains 4 calories of energy and a gram of fat 9. To convert grams to calories, therefore, multiply the totals of the protein, carbohydrate and fat columns by 4,4 and 9 respectively. 6) Add up these three products (the sum should be approximately equal to the total calories for the day) and note the total. 7) Divide the total calories of protein, carbohydrates and fat (the values obtained in step 5) by the total from step 6 to arrive at the percentage of the total amount of energy that is being supplied by each macronutrient. There are differing opinions as to what these percentages should be. I believe fat storage, usage and maintenance depends on energy balance exclusively, not on macronutrient proportions. As a result, I believe macronutrient proportions should be appropriate for maximizing both physical and mental performance, not specifically for increased fat usage. In my opinion, a ratio of 25-30% protein, 55-60% carbohydrate and 15% fat will accomplish this. Simply relying on macronutrient percentages, however, can be misleading - especially for people at extreme ends of the spectrum when it comes to metabolic rate. If the appropriate energy intake level is low, protein requirements may not be met with the given percentage. On the other hand, extremely high intake levels may allow for adequate protein intake with a lesser percentage, thereby sparing calories and allowing greater carbohydrate ingestion. As a result, absolute quantity per bodyweight must be determined and these calculations follow. 7) Establish a goal bodyweight in pounds; then convert that amount to kilograms by dividing by 2.2. 8) Divide the complete protein total by the goal weight in pounds. While a value of .5 is probably sufficient, as a bodybuilder concerned with insuring adequate protein intake for muscle growth and repair, I take in at least one gram of complete protein per pound of goal bodyweight. 9) Divide total protein by goal weight in kilograms. Guidelines dictate appropriate levels are 1.2-1.4 grams/kg. for endurance athletes and 1.8-2.0 grams/kg. for those involved in resistance exercise. As a bodybuilder with a faster metabolism, I take in at least 3 grams of total protein per kilogram of goal bodyweight. 10) Divide total carbohydrates by goal weight in kilograms. Guidelines dictate appropriate levels are 8-10 grams/kg. for endurance athletes, although average people probably don't use enough energy per day to be able to take in more than 4-6. As a bodybuilder with a faster metabolism, I try to keep this value at or above six, although when my caloric intake is low, I sometimes have to drop it into the mid-fives. 11) Finally, if you are increasing or decreasing intake vs. a consistent eating program you have been on, calculate caloric alteration (the difference between the previous energy intake level and the current) and divide that difference by the previous intake level to determine the percentage alteration. When reducing intake, as would be the case when I'm preparing for a contest, I don't reduce more than 10% at a time, since drastic reductions can result in a slowing of the metabolic rate. There are many different theories regarding appropriate caloric intake level, macronutrient percentages and absolute value per bodyweight amounts. By studying the subject matter and through trial and error, you will learn the ideal values for your particular situation. Once determined, use the above methods to calculate whether your intake reflects the desired amounts. DISPROVING THE MISCONCEPTIONS OF FITNESS: FROM WHERE DO THEY ARISE? by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. During the æ70s, participation was limited to fanatics. By the time the æ80s rolled around, popularity had increased as competitive athletes and weekend warriors alike recognized the benefits. But it wasn't until the 1990Æs that it became universally accepted that taking part in exercise programs provided great benefits to the general population in improving health and decreasing the risk of many diseases. While it's now common knowledge that fitness programs provide dramatic health benefits, it's shocking how much misinformation still exists as to exactly what the correct methods are for achieving such results. Fitness guru Covert Bailey muses that were exercise a pill, it would be prescribed liberally as a panacea for a multitude of ailments. Similarly, if exercise were a drug, conclusive studies would have long ago been commissioned to determine the appropriate dosage - the mode, frequency, duration and intensity necessary to achieve optimal results. Instead, it seems like every month, a new theory is offered and countless misconceptions exist as a result of the proliferation of such divergent views. These fallacies result, at best, in people not making the most efficient use of their time and effort investment and, at worst, the discouragement and disappointment associated with a failed endeavor, possible injury, inevitable dropout and negative perceptions regarding future attempts at behavior modification. One question to address is why such inaccuracies exist. It certainly seems that enough research could be done to pinpoint the best ways to exercise and eat. For the most part, such research has been done and when one studies the subject matter extensively, the correct approaches are relatively clear. I believe one of the main reasons that some of the falsehoods exist has to do with the many "entrepreneurs" that have jumped on the fitness bandwagon since it became clear that it was becoming a lucrative business. Whether they are publishing books or marketing products or programs purported to bring dramatic results, such a venture's success would be limited if they simply stated what had been agreed upon in the past. Instead, if new concepts could be proven and endorsed, the ability to sell them would be enhanced. In short, new, different ideas make money and just about anything can be proven if studies are set up to yield the desired results. Soon, these theories take on a life of their own in gyms and health clubs and, before long, they are accepted facts that have no real basis for their existence. Not all of the misinformation is a result of unscrupulous business practices. Some grows from doctrines endorsed by various governing bodies. In an attempt to not intimidate those less apt for long-term success, such positions are often "sugar coated," guidelines pared to the least effort required for the derivation of some positive results. While such an approach might encourage those less likely to adhere to a program, it also does a disservice to those who would be willing to do more and underestimate their investment in accordance with these statements. As a personal trainer with fifteen years of experience, I'm still surprised at the degree to which many people believe these misconceptions - even trainers who blindly endorse them. The losers are those who apply a sincere effort toward achieving a healthier state and fail, not due to lack of effort, but simply because of misunderstanding what is required. In the series of articles that will follow, I'll explore some of the most common myths and misconceptions associated with diet and exercise aimed at improving fitness. While many exist, there are five specific ones that I will focus on. Fat loss is of paramount importance to many people, so I'll start by investigating the most effective way to reduce body-fat with exercise and follow with nutritional practices that should accompany such exercise to improve body composition in a safe, effective and permanent manner. The third installment will deal with how progressive resistance training fits into the fitness puzzle. Next, I'll examine an area of particular importance to most people, the abdominal, and then conclude with a discussion of the difference between the minimal and optimal effort investment necessary for health improvement. Initiating a healthy lifestyle through exercise and eating habits requires an investment of two commodities of great import to us all, time and effort. To waste time is unacceptable, to waste effort inexcusable. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line and the theories that will follow are the straight path that will bring you from where you are now to the apex of what you are capable of achieving. DISPROVING THE MISCONCEPTIONS OF FITNESS: THE FAT-BURNING WORKOUT by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. The vast majority of those that are taking part in exercise programs undoubtedly list the loss of body-fat as one of their main objectives. These people are often victim to one of the most common misconceptions of exercise. It all seems to make so much sense, maximize fat burn to most effectively reduce fat stores. When we examine how the body works, however, it's clear that such is not the case. The energy currency that the cells of the body use to derive the energy they need to perform all of their functions is the high energy compound Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP). ATP is produced via two distinctly different metabolic pathways - the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems. Many people mistakenly think these two systems work exclusively, in an either/or fashion, but such is not the case. During activity, both are in use, but to varying degrees. Which one predominates is primarily a function of the intensity level of the activity being undertaken. The aerobic energy system is dependent upon the availability of adequate oxygen in the cell where the energy is being used. Since oxygen requirements increase as intensity increases, the majority of energy for low to moderately intense activity is produced via the aerobic pathway, while high-intensity events are fueled anaerobically. These factors are important when studying fat usage, since exercise intensity and oxygen availability affect whether sugar (glucose) or fat is broken down to produce ATP (protein is also a source, but its contribution in a nourished, healthy person is not significant). In a nutshell, oxygen availability at the cell and fat usage are related. At low intensities, the low demand for energy can be met exclusively by aerobic means and fat is the main fuel substrate. In the intermediate range, a mixture of fat and sugar is used and the ratio shifts toward sugar and away from fat as higher intensities are approached. Near maximum efforts use sugar almost exclusively. Along this continuum from low to high intensity exists a specific point as dictated by conditioning level known as the lactate threshold. This is the point at which adequate oxygen is no longer available and above which the reliance on anaerobic energy production increases. Fatigue and inability to continue the activity for very long characterize efforts above the lactate threshold. Armed with this knowledge, it's easy to see where the misconceptions pertaining to the appropriateness of the fat burning workout originate. On the surface, it would seem logical that body-fat stores would be affected the most if exercise intensity were limited to the range where the percentage of fat burned is high. That is, however, not the case. Whether we increase, decrease or maintain our current level of body-fat depends solely on one factor, energy balance. If overall intake exceeds expenditure, fat is stored, and vice-versa: It's that simple. Whether or not we're burning a lot of fat when we exercise makes no difference. The relationship between intake and expenditure (energy balance) dictates how fat deposits on the body are affected. The intake side of the energy balance equation is straightforward: It is the energy ingested that is contained in the foods we eat. Expenditure is more complex and is a function of three variables - basal metabolic rate, thermic effect of digestion and thermic effect of activity. The third component is by far the most variable and the one to focus on when exercising. To shift the energy balance equation toward expenditure requires maximizing each of the three components, so using the most energy possible in an exercise session should clearly be the primary objective. Restricting intensity to a level where fat burn is relatively high limits the amount of energy we can use, since we can't work at a very high percentage of our functional capacity when such is the case. The energy source doesn't matter, but overall energy usage does. Fat stores will be affected if energy balance dictates it despite the fuel source that is used during the activity. Consider the following example: Let's say we could work exclusively at each end of the spectrum, 100-percent sugar- or fat-burn. During the 100-percent sugar-burn workout, even though no fat was used, if you used enough calories to shift the energy balance equation so that expenditure for that day exceeded intake, your reserve fuel stores (fat deposits) would be reduced. While sugar would be used during the workout, more fat would be used the rest of the day, since less sugar would be available. On the other hand, the 100-percent fat-burn workout, which would affect fat stores, would not result in the loss of body-fat if daily intake exceeded expenditure. In this case, you'd be removing on one hand and restoring in greater amounts on the other. Even if you were to discount the preceding and concern yourself with how much actual fat was used, higher intensity levels would still be superior, since you'd be using a greater amount of fat for energy, even when it represented a lesser percentage of overall energy used. Since energy demands are much higher at greater intensities, the smaller percentage (fat usage) of a much greater number (overall energy expenditure) will exceed the greater percentage of the smaller energy requirements at lesser intensities. Exercise done close to the lactate threshold allows for the highest calorie burn per minute at a level that can be maintained for sufficient duration. This intensity also provides a greater overload to the cardiovascular system, bringing an enhanced ability to deliver and extract oxygen. This results in a higher lactate threshold and the ability to exercise aerobically at greater intensities in the future. This is significant because it will enhance calorie burning potential, just what is needed to break through the sticking points often encountered while losing fat. Lower intensity exercise results in limited cardiovascular adaptations and allows only one alternative for future increases - longer, more frequent sessions (a less attractive alternative). A caveat to the preceding information: A conservative approach should be taken with beginners, the overweight and/or the de-conditioned. For such individuals, a lesser intensity might be appropriate to promote long-term compliance and prevent injury. All attempts should be made, however, to increase intensity if and when possible. DISPROVING THE MISCONCEPTIONS OF FITNESS: THE LOW-CARB DIET by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. Of all the areas in fitness, none is more saturated with misinformation and falsehoods than nutritional practices to promote the loss of fat. How confusing it must be for people trying to alter their eating habits when new, contradictory information emerges monthly. Studies show that more people are overweight now than ever before. Compare that with the high percentage of people on some type of diet at any given time and it becomes clear something is amiss. While genetic, cultural and behavioral reasons for being overweight cannot be dismissed, I believe many of those failing to lose weight are misinformed. One of the most common fallacies concerns carbohydrates and their impact on body-fat storage. Energy balance dictates whether fat is used, stored or maintained. When expenditure exceeds intake, fat is lost regardless of the composition of the diet. So from where do the false notions concerning carbohydrates arise? Dietary carbohydrates provide the most important source of energy for the body. All ingested carbohydrates are broken down into the simple sugar glucose, which is concentrated in the blood or stored in the liver and muscles as glycogen. The concentration of glucose in the blood is strictly maintained by regulatory hormones released from the pancreas, one being insulin. Insulin is released after carbohydrate intake and promotes cellular uptake of glucose for usage or storage as glycogen. Excess amounts are stored as adipose in fat cells. The reasoning, therefore, is less carbohydrate ingestion, less insulin activity and less stored fat. "Expert" theories espouse limiting carbohydrate intake and ingesting more protein since, in the absence of adequate carbohydrates, the use of amino acids and fat as fuel will increase. More fat use would seem to be what we're looking for, but that's the misconception. Unfortunately, such reasoning fails to take energy balance into account. If energy intake exceeds expenditure, fat stores will increase - even if you're using more fat as fuel. It's the total amount of energy consumed, not the macronutrient proportion, that will influence the net deposition or removal of fat stores. When high carbohydrate intake results in increased insulin activity and adipose cell uptake, a negative energy balance will still result in fat loss. In this case, one would be storing on one hand, but using in greater amounts on the other. To put this into perspective, imagine an employee working an eight-hour shift, making 10 dollars per hour and being paid in cash at the end of the workday. During the shift, the employee makes some personal purchases by credit card via telephone equaling $100. Upon leaving work, if one fails to look at the big picture, it would appear the individual's net worth has increased by the $80 they are holding. In reality, it has decreased by $20. Thinking this person's net worth had increased would be analogous to not seeing the big picture and assuming that, just because carbohydrates are eaten liberally, fat accumulation will occur. Similarly, the belief that fat storage will automatically result if carbohydrates are eaten later in the day is unfounded. When viewing the big picture, all that matters when considering how fat stores are affected is energy balance. Not only is limiting carbohydrate intake not the answer for those looking to lose body-fat, it can actually exacerbate the problem, in addition to causing some other negative health consequences. As previously stated, in the absence of adequate carbohydrates, there is an increased reliance on protein and fat as energy sources. Increased fat usage and incomplete fat breakdown (carbohydrates are needed for fat to be broken down fully) can cause ketosis (increased acids in the blood), resulting in nausea, fatigue and possible kidney problems. When protein's contribution as an energy source is increased, muscle can be compromised - either directly by breaking down existing tissue to supply amino acids to be converted to glucose or by using those ingested, resulting in inadequate amounts available for normal muscle repair. In either case, muscle can be lost. This causes a decrease in basal metabolic rate, which results in lower energy expenditure, shifting the energy balance and promoting an increase in fat stores if everything else remains constant. Another way these diets compound the fat storage problem is by adversely affecting performance. Any athlete knows it's essential to be adequately glycogen loaded before a competition or training session. Neither intense aerobic sessions (that result in high calorie burn) nor effective resistance workouts (that build muscle which raises the basal metabolic rate) are possible without adequate carbohydrate ingestion. In addition, muscle and liver glycogen depletion result in excessive water loss that may cause dehydration, another condition that will hinder performance. Ironically, this water loss is encouraging for many, since it makes the scale show the right message, but for the wrong reason. Health consequences of low carbohydrate diets also include impaired functioning of the central nervous system (since it's highly dependent on blood glucose), electrolyte imbalances due to the water loss and possible vitamin, mineral and fiber deficiencies (since carbohydrate foods are rich sources of these important elements of a healthy diet). To optimize both physical and mental performance, a diet high in carbohydrates (55-65% of total calories), moderate in protein (1.4-2.0g/kg bodyweight) and relatively low in fat (10-20% of total calories) is ideal. Since energy balance will dictate whether fat stores are increased, decreased or maintained, specific attention should be given to determining the correct energy intake level. While it's tempting to lower intake dramatically to set up the negative balance, this approach can be problematic, since excessively low or dramatically lowered intake levels can adversely affect the metabolism. It's far more prudent to create the negative balance by maximizing expenditure and the suggested macronutrient proportions will effectively place the body in the state most conducive to achieving this objective. DISPROVING THE MISCONCEPTIONS OF FITNESS: HIGH-REP TONING WORKOUTS by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. Who could blame resistance training if it had a bit of an identity crisis? It wasn't long ago when only hardcore bodybuilders and weightlifters dared enter the weight room. But times have really changed. Resistance exercise has now taken its rightful place as a prioritized activity when painting the overall picture of health and fitness. Experts are now figuring out what those who were lifting weights many years ago already knew: There are many health benefits exclusive to this type of training and simply spending the total time allotted for exercise on cardiovascular conditioning will not result in a completely healthy state. Benefits associated with resistance exercise include an increased basal metabolic rate, since the genetically determined BMR is alterable by changes in the amount of muscle on the body. Similarly, muscle mass is maintained with resistance exercise when restricting caloric intake to lose body-fat, thereby attenuating the loss in BMR usually accompanying such attempts. Stronger muscles and connective tissue crossing and supporting the joints augments their integrity and decreases the risk of injury. What's more, resistance exercise stresses bones causing their density to increase, thereby reducing the likelihood of debilitating, degenerative conditions like osteoporosis. In addition to these physical benefits, psychological benefits are also associated with resistance exercise: What used to be thought of as a narcissistic activity is now recognized as one that can dramatically improve one's self esteem. While many people are aware of and eager to experience these favorable effects, improperly administered resistance-training programs result in less than optimal gains, increased injury risk, discouragement and high dropout rate among many who attempt to derive these benefits from this type of exercise. Regardless of how highly touted an activity, long-term participation is unlikely when results are not experienced and one of the main reasons for lack of progress from resistance training is exercise done at an inadequate intensity level. The vast majority of those initiating resistance-training programs list "toning up" as one of their main objectives. This terminology is very vague and is a major cause of much of the confusion since the common consensus is that high repetition low resistance exercise will tone you. A toned appearance results from the presence of the desired amount of muscle and a corresponding level of body-fat that results in that muscle being clearly visible. There are two possible components to consider, therefore, when pursuing this goal - fat reduction and/or muscle enhancement. Fat reduction is achieved when energy balance (intake versus expenditure) dictates accessing reserve fuel stores (fat deposits) and, apart from the increased BMR and calories burned while exercising, resistance training will have no effect on this. Muscle enhancement is attainable with resistance training, but training at the proper intensity is crucial to the realization of this objective. As is the case with all types of conditioning activities, change is induced by forcing the body to adapt to a stimulus in excess of that to which it is accustomed (overload). As a survival mechanism, the body undergoes changes (positive adaptations) to make it more capable of handling the increased load in the future. Two important concepts in this overload/adaptation scenario are specificity and accommodation. The law of specificity states that adaptations will be specific to a particular system dependent upon the type of overload being applied. Results of a training activity are exclusive to that type of training. Accommodation occurs when the organism has adapted completely and the overload stimulus that induced the positive change is now inadequate for bringing about further change: The same absolute load no longer presents a relative overload. At that point, that stimulus will only maintain that level of development. These two concepts show why high repetition, low resistance protocols are ineffective for people looking to derive most of the adaptations associated typically with resistance exercise. To stress the muscles in a manner that brings the benefits stated previously (including the muscle enhancement necessary for a toned appearance), a specific overload of a high intensity nature - one where duration to failure of a set is relatively short (not more than 60-90 seconds) - must be used. This corresponds to a repetition range of approximately 6-15, with a weight that will exhaust the muscle somewhere in that range. Weights that will allow continuance of the set for a longer duration (even if it is voluntarily terminated earlier) will result in increases in muscular endurance and little more. Those who believe that training with a high intensity stimulus will "bulk you up" don't understand the concept of accommodation. As any bodybuilder will confirm, extensive development requires years of persistent training, increasing the stimulus constantly as the body adapts. To avoid over-development, one must simply keep the stimulus constant when the desired level of muscle has been achieved. By the same token, if over-development did occur, a stimulus less than the maintenance stimulus could be used to force a negative adaptation. This would bring about a loss of muscle since, unlike fat deposits which will remain unless you act to reduce them, muscle will leave (not turn to fat, that's another myth) unless you act to maintain it. Understanding and implementing resistance-training programs at appropriate intensities will allow you to reap the myriad benefits specific to this type of exercise. DISPROVING THE MISCONCEPTIONS OF FITNESS: ABDOMINAL TRAINING by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. One of the most frequent desires expressed by exercise participants is for abdominal muscles that are chiseled and defined. Abdominal development is also important, however, for many reasons other than appearance. Strong abs anchor the pelvis in place, maintaining the proper lordotic curve of the lumbar spine and decreasing stress on the lower back. In addition, since they are centrally located, they are active as movers or stabilizers in many general movements, including locomotion. They are also key players in cardiovascular performance since, when oxygen demands are high, exhalation becomes an active process requiring muscular involvement. Deriving the functional, as well as aesthetic, benefits from abdominal development requires understanding how to properly train this important muscle group. One common misconception related to training the midsection is the belief that spot reduction, exercising a specific body part to reduce fat in that particular area, is possible. There is no mechanism in the body to discriminate fat use. All we can do to reduce a specific area is reduce overall body-fat by maintaining a negative energy balance (expenditure exceeds intake) and allow our bodies to reduce fat stores from different areas at rates dictated by our genetic proclivity for fat storage. When you can no longer "pinch an inch" on your stomach, your body-fat level is low enough for the muscular look. If you still don't see clearly defined rows, muscle enhancement will need to be addressed, since a muscular appearance comes from the presence of some muscle and a correspondingly low level of fat accumulation which allows that muscle to clearly show. Abdominal muscle enhancement goals lead us to a second misconception - the value of low intensity, high repetition, frequent abdominal workouts. Muscle will develop when forced to adapt to a high intensity stimulus overload in excess of that to which it is accustomed. Duration to exhaustion indicates intensity level. A high intensity stimulus brings exhaustion in a relatively short period of time (60-90 seconds). Many people do long duration sets for abdominals (very high repetitions) very frequently (every day or other day), using low intensity movements like partial crunches, sit-ups or leg raises. Such time consuming labor will result in nothing more than maintenance of the muscle already present and enhanced muscular endurance. To build muscle, you have to overload. Just because we think of the abs as an area we do not want to "bulk up," that is, in fact, what we need to do to some degree if our body-fat level is where it should be and we still don't see the washboard. Higher intensity ab training will also bring the functional benefits previously stated. Think about how the push-up provides a sufficient stimulus for muscular development for a beginner, but must be replaced with a bench press when increased muscular potential results in the same absolute load (body weight) no longer providing a sufficient relative overload. The same set of circumstances applies to abdominal exercises that don't allow for resistance increases - they won't bring continued development. Movements like weighted crunches (dumbbell held in front of the neck), cable crunches, abdominal machine crunches and cable reverse crunches allow for the use of a high intensity (15-20 repetitions to failure) muscle building load. They also provide the ability to progress the load if more development is desired once adaptation has occurred. When training the abs with high intensity, frequency should be adjusted accordingly. It's important to allow at least 48-72 hours of recuperation time before training the area again. Once the desired amount of muscle is achieved, it can be maintained by using the load and reps that brought that level of development. Even at that point, high rep frequent workouts are not necessary. Another misunderstood component of abdominal training is the actual exercise execution. The abdominal muscles function to posteriorly rotate the pelvis (flattening the normal lumbar curve) and flex the spinal column (rounding it forward). The prime movers for many of the exercises commonly used to train the abs are actually the muscles that flex the thigh at the hip. In addition to decreasing the training effect for the abdominals, such hip flexor involvement results in significant strain on the intervertebral discs of the lower back, since the pelvis is pulled to the front when these muscles contract. Sit-ups performed with the legs straight result in such involvement, since the hip flexors are at their resting length, the point of maximal force-generating capability. While a bent leg sit-up flexes the hip, shortening those muscles and reducing their contribution, there's still considerable hip flexor activity since range of motion with a sit-up exceeds 30-45 degrees elevation, the point at which the spine is flexed fully. Bent leg crunches, on the other hand, isolate abdominals most effectively. When leg raises are done, all of the motion of the leg, in relation to the hip, is performed by the hip flexors. The abdominals only serve to move and hold the pelvis in a posteriorly rotated position while this movement occurs. Trying to maximally rotate the pelvis (as one would do with reverse crunches), however, utilizes the abs exclusively. Avoiding the common misconceptions associated with training the abdominal muscles is the key for developing this important area for functional integrity, as well as the desired look. DISPROVING THE MISCONCEPTIONS OF FITNESS: MINIMAL VS. OPTIMAL by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. In previous articles, I've focused on some of the common misconceptions prevalent in various areas of health and fitness enhancement. While most have no basis in fact or are misinterpretations of factual information, the misleading ideas I'll address this time are legitimate facts that may result in confusion when taken out of context. In an attempt to encourage more people to begin and continue the pursuit of a healthier lifestyle, some suggested recommendations and guidelines have been pared to the minimum level required to elicit some positive change. While less imposing objectives can be quite encouraging for those attempting major lifestyle modification, as well as those at a high risk for dropout, I believe those willing and able to put more time and effort into their health may be done a disservice by these edicts. By interpreting them as the appropriate, as opposed to minimal, investments necessary, one might underestimate what is required for them to achieve their health and fitness objectives. One example of such "sugar coated" recommendations is to base the effectiveness of activity on overall calorie usage, as opposed to intensity level. We've all seen the articles heralding studies that show that activities like parking farther away and walking the extra distance, taking the stairs instead of the elevator or gardening will dramatically improve health. While this statement is true, it can be misleading if the whole story is not told. The least active portion of our society will benefit greatly from anything that gets them off the couch and moving. Three ten-minute activity sessions per day, done five to seven days per week, will positively influence the sedentary, de-conditioned person's health - without overburdening them. The problem is that while many people may benefit from this approach, there will be some who are physically and emotionally capable of doing more that don't, simply because they think it's not necessary. Such a person should be aware that activity at levels of a higher calorie burn per minute (intensity) is essential for fitness. Higher intensity efforts allow for greater overall calorie usage and more adaptations relative to aerobic conditioning (lower blood pressure, heart rate at any given workload, cholesterol, glucose resistance, etc.). As for long-term adherence, while some dropouts may occur due to over-ambitious attempts at lifestyle changes that are not realistic for the particular person, I believe many also result from the discouragement associated with not realizing significant gains. As any ardent exerciser will attest, nothing promotes adherence better than successful achievement and such accomplishments are far more significant with higher intensity programs. Another example of a minimal, as opposed to optimal, guideline is the recommended dietary allowance for fat. While fats are an essential part of a healthy diet and serve numerous functions in our bodies, the recommendation that 30 percent of total calories come from fat is generally considered higher than necessary. Once again, the assumption is that if people are encouraged to eat less than 30 percent, they won't be able to do it. For those people who are currently taking in amounts in excess of 40-50 percent (common in the typical American diet), a reduction to 30 percent would certainly be a major positive change. Those willing and able to go further (10-20%), however, should know that it would certainly be prudent to do so. While the slow digestive transit time for fats, which promotes satiety, is used as a justification for maintaining a 30-percent level, since it results in increased satisfaction and discourages overeating, there's another side to the story. It's also true that since fats are more calorically dense than carbohydrates, limiting fat to 10-20 percent and replacing the extra calories with carbs will result in the ability to ingest a greater volume of food for any specific caloric intake level. While the assumption might be that limiting fat to this extent will cause feelings of deprivation and result in the inability to maintain the newly acquired eating habit, I would argue that eating more food and enjoying greater health benefits might actually encourage compliance. The bottom line is quite simple. Even well-intentioned suggestions can mislead. To prevent falling victim to the types of misconceptions outlined in this series of articles, it's essential to be well informed. There's more information available now in the area of health and fitness than ever before. The availability of accredited personal trainers that can help you reach your goals is also greater. Legitimate accreditation insures a minimum level of knowledge and competency - something that was lacking years back when there were no certifications and anyone could present themselves as a trainer. The downside, however, is that some accreditation's are dubious at best and even legitimately certified individuals may lack experience in the gym - an important asset in this field. A combination of theoretical and practical knowledge makes one best suited as a trainer. What's more, while a trainer should practice what they preach and exemplify health and fitness, it can be misleading to judge the book by its cover and automatically assume that someone who looks fit is knowledgeable. The prevalence of performance-enhancing drug use and the significant impact that genetic potential has on development can make such assumptions spurious. If you're considering using a trainer, question them and expect competent, confident answers explicating what you should do, as well as why you should do it. Be cognizant enough with the subject matter to sufficiently appraise their responses. Only through such understanding will the misconceptions elucidated in this series of articles be forever put to rest. EXPLORING THE LOW-CARB FAT LOSS DIET PART 1 by Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. With more people overweight than ever before, everyone is looking for that magical diet that will bring fat loss in an effective fashion. Low-carb diets are the current rage, with advocates citing many reasons for their applicability. Facts that are stated out of context make such eating programs seem quite attractive for people trying to lose fat. In the following articles, I'll attempt to present the big picture when it comes to why such diets work, but are not the ideal alternative for those looking to reduce their body-fat. Advocates of limiting carbohydrate ingestion cite the increase in insulin activity that's associated with such ingestion as the main reason to reduce carbs. Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas that regulates the amount of glucose we have in our blood. Glucose is used by the body to build glycogen, the storage form of carbohydrates in the liver and muscles that's used for energy production. Glucose is also the fuel for central nervous system functioning. The level of glucose in the blood must remain within a specific range if optimal health is to be maintained. Insulin lowers blood glucose when levels are too high - another hormone, glucagon, increases levels when they fall below the desired range. All carbohydrates are broken down into glucose after digestion and, at that point, blood glucose rises. Insulin is then released and stimulates receptors that increase uptake of glucose by the muscles and liver. If glycogen levels are already maxed-out, insulin stimulates uptake by fat cells and adipose deposits are increased (adipose is another way we store fuel, more of a long-range reserve type, as opposed to glycogen). The belief is if we reduce insulin activity by limiting the accumulation of glucose in the blood, fat deposition won't take place. This theory fails to take energy balance into account. The ultimate determinant of whether adipose stores are increased, decreased or remain the same is how much energy is contained in the foods we ingest compared to the amount we use throughout the day. Even if insulin activity is greater and fat stores are increased at one point in the day, the net result throughout the whole day will not be the deposition of fat if more energy is expended than ingested. In this case, the only available fuel we have to make up the deficit is our reserve stores (fat deposits). Think about two men working side by side, making $500 dollars per week. One gets paid cash; the other has his paycheck direct-deposited into his bank. Assuming they both spend $400 per week, in both cases their net worth goes up $100 per week. The only way for either of them to reduce their net worth would be to spend more than they're making: Changing from direct deposit to cash will have no effect. In a similar fashion, fat stores will be lessened if expenditure exceeds intake, regardless of what that intake consists of. A calorie of fat, one of protein and one of carbohydrate all affect energy balance equally. Another anti-carbohydrate argument is that the effects of insulin on blood sugar will result in less satiety and promote over-eating due to increased hunger. In this case, the ingestion of more food would correspond with the intake of more calories and, if amounts in excess of expenditure were ingested, fat stores would be increased. This response, however, is dependent solely on how well the body regulates blood sugar - if control is erratic, one could certainly experience hunger as a result of an abundance of blood-sugar clearing activity. One thing that affects the ability to control blood glucose is the type of carbohydrate that is eaten. Those that digest rapidly (simple, high glycemic sugars) can make the body overestimate the need for insulin and cause hyperinsulinism (too much insulin production), hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) and a corresponding feeling of hunger. But there's more to this story. Glucose control is highly dependent on receptor sensitivity. If your receptors are operating at peak efficiency, blood sugar will be regulated with maximum efficiency. De-conditioned, overweight people tend to have insulin resistant receptors and may have a problem regulating blood sugar, even after low glycemic carb ingestion. On the other hand, exercise regulars have much more consistent regulation and often can even ingest simple sugars and still not suffer the deleterious effects of the insulin over-shoot. Effective exercise sessions to improve one's glucose control are the key and as we'll see later on, an important component of workouts that bring such adaptations is adequate glycogen loading - something that's only possible if adequate carbohydrates are ingested. Next month, we'll see some of the other reasons why low-carb diets appear to work but, in reality, come up short. EXPLORING THE LOW-CARB FAT LOSS DIET PART 2 by Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. Last month, I explained why low carbohydrate intake, and the corresponding reduction in insulin activity, wouldn't result in the reduction of adipose stores unless energy expenditure exceeded intake. I also addressed the concern that insulin activity would decrease satiety and promote over-eating by stressing the importance of exercise for developing better glucose control. In addition to well-conditioned receptors preventing hyperinsulinism-induced hunger, well-planned intake also serves this purpose. Proponents of low-carb diets suggest you don't have to count calories to lose fat when restricting carbs. Since energy balance dictates how fat deposits are affected, that isn't true: If you over-indulge in non-carbohydrate foods, they'll be stored as fat also. What's more, it's insulting to the dieter to herald this supposed advantage. Caloric content is readily available on packages and in reference books - it's no big challenge to determine how much you're consuming and it's useful information for preventing hunger. Consider the following: You've determined your caloric maintenance level, the amount of energy you'd have to ingest daily to maintain your current fat, is 2,700 calories. To reduce fat stores, you decide to take in 2,400 per day to establish a negative energy balance. You plan to eat four daily meals (600 calories each), composed of moderate protein (25-30% of calories), high carbohydrates (55-60%) and low fat (15%). After one such meal (3 ounces of chicken and 8 cooked ounces of pasta, with a teaspoon of olive oil), you're still hungry. Low-carb advocates would say this was caused by blood sugar being reduced below normal due to excessive insulin activity from eating the pasta. They'd advise replacing the pasta with more protein and fat to prevent overeating. I look at it another way. You're not going to overeat because you know that you must limit yourself to 2,400 calories to set up the deficit. You are, however, going to figure out how to fill your stomach with more food for the same amount of calories, without reducing carb intake. Pasta is a good carbohydrate, but one that's dense in calories. Replace those calories with an equal amount from brown rice and you could eat 14 ounces. Switch to a baked potato and you'd be up to 22 ounces. Split the carb-calories between potatoes and a vegetable salad, add a glass of water 30 minutes before and after your meal and I guarantee hunger won't be a concern. Not counting calories, however, does explain one of the reasons people often lose fat when switching to low-carb diets. By nature, when one begins a diet, they'll eat less. Since they don't calculate how much they're taking in versus their previous intake, they don't realize the loss of fat they attribute to limiting carbohydrates is really just the result of ingesting fewer calories. The tendency to reduce caloric intake is also greater with low-carbs diets because of the restricted choice of foods such diets offer. Consider the following: Two equally hungry twin brothers enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant - one eats just steak, the other chicken, rice, bread and vegetables. Neither counts calories. Which one do you think will wind up ingesting more? While restricting choices encourages less caloric intake, it also robs one of the health benefits that varied intake supplies. A better approach is eating a balanced diet, but knowing how much energy is in the different foods you eat so you can choose portions in a calculated fashion. Another reason low-carb dieters experience success can be attributed to not differentiating between fat loss and weight loss. When carbohydrate ingestion is restricted, glycogen stores in the body are reduced. For every gram of glycogen stored by the body, three grams of water accompany it. Weight loss due to the reduction of glycogen and water doesn't represent fat loss and actually makes it harder to lose fat in the long run. Since glycogen is the body's preferred fuel during exercise, depleting storage capacity only serves to make establishing a negative energy balance during exercise more difficult. Muscle can also be lost with low-carb diets, again creating encouraging weight loss results that are quite misleading. In a well-nourished person, the contribution of protein as an energy source is negligible. When inadequate glycogen stores are maintained, the body must look elsewhere for fuel. As a result, existing muscle may be sacrificed to provide the amino acids necessary for gluconeogenesis (making glucose out of a non-carbohydrate source). Since basal metabolic rate, a significant component of energy expenditure, is dependent on muscle on the body, anything that compromises muscle will shift energy balance and make it harder to lose fat in the future. Next month, we'll see one reason why low-carb diets shift energy balance in an advantageous way, as well as considering the alternatives to such approaches. EXPLORING THE LOW-CARB FAT LOSS DIET PART 3 by Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. Last month, I theorized that reductions in stored adipose, believed to be from the decreased insulin activity when low-carb diets are followed, are really due to the tendency to ingest less calories when eating in that fashion. In addition, I explained how weight loss and fat loss are two separate things and depletion of glycogen stores, with corresponding water loss, along with the wasting of muscle, can make low-carb dieters scales say the right thing for the wrong reason. I also stressed that changing macronutrient profile (replacing carbs with protein and fat) won't result in the loss of stored fat, unless a negative energy balance is also established. There is, however, one exception to the preceding statement and this represents the only argument that can be made for low-carb diets facilitating fat loss. The efficiency of digestion of protein, carbohydrates and fat is not the same: An ingested calorie of each will affect energy balance differently. If a positive energy balance exists (intake exceeds expenditure), ingested fat will be stored most efficiently as fat (97%), carbohydrates second (72%) and protein least (60%). To see how this affects fat loss, consider a person with a caloric maintenance level (energy intake required to maintain their current level of adipose storage) of 2,500 calories that ingests 25% of those calories from protein (156 grams), 60% from carbohydrates (375 grams) and 15% from fat (42 grams). Due to the differences in digestive efficiency, if they were to reverse their carb and protein proportions, they'd save 63 calories per day. A 3,500-calorie negative shift in energy balance from the maintenance level results in a pound of fat loss (if all expenditure remains the same), therefore, this adjustment will bring fat loss - the only problem is it'll take 8 weeks to lose a pound! The difference in digestive efficiency outlined above is negligible and shouldn't be used as a valid reason to support low-carb diets. The caveat, "if all expenditure remains the same," however, must be considered. The best way to maintain the negative energy balance that's required to reduce adipose stores is to maximize expenditure. Two important components of expenditure are basal metabolic rate and the energy cost of activity. If a reversal of macronutrients, as described above, were attempted, these two components would likely be adversely affected. When carb intake is insufficient, the calories needed to satisfy basal metabolic requirements could be reduced if muscle was compromised when protein's contribution as an energy source was increased. In addition, significant calorie usage during aerobic exercise sessions, the primary way to maximize the activity component of expenditure, will be difficult since the preferred fuel for such exercise (glycogen) will be depleted. When exercising with insufficient glycogen stores, one can't work as hard and, therefore, must exercise longer to burn more calories. This won't, however, elicit the same cardiovascular positive adaptations that bring many of the health benefits or the increased calorie-burn potential due to improved conditioning. In addition, exercise done with a reduced reliance on carbohydrate results in incomplete lipid breakdown and the accumulation of ketone bodies in the blood, a potentially dangerous condition that can bring dizziness, nausea, fatigue and irritability. Energy balance is solely responsible for how fat stores on the body are affected and should be considered exclusively when determining what to eat when you're trying to lose fat. Once the appropriate intake level is established, macronutrient profile, on the other hand, should be designed to maximize performance, both physical and mental. Assuming adequate carbohydrate intake, ingested protein is only used by the body for growth and repair. While athletes do need more, 1.2-1.5 grams per kilogram of bodyweight for resistance trained individuals and 1.5-1.8 for endurance athletes should suffice. Fat is a necessary component of a balanced diet, but is not required in large amounts. It should be easy to take in enough by only using 15-20% of your total caloric intake. Once these requirements are met, the difference between the amount needed for these two necessities and the total amount you can ingest according to your energy balance requirements should come from quality carbohydrates. By structuring intake in this way, you'll be eating in a healthy fashion. The carbohydrates can be used immediately or stored in the muscles and liver and called on when energy is needed. They are rich in vitamins, minerals and fiber - necessary components of a balanced diet that are lacking when intake is limited to protein and fat. They represent the best source of blood glucose, a necessary requirement for central nervous system function. Last, but not least, you'll be establishing maximum glycogen stores that can be accessed to perform the high-intensity aerobic and anaerobic exercise sessions needed to alter energy balance and have dramatic effects on your adipose stores. SELECTING THE PROPER RESISTANCE TRAINING PROGRAM by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. This question comes from 16-year-old Bobby. It's a topic that's frequently addressed and, since there's really no single, correct answer, one where differing opinions abound. He wanted to know how his resistance training program should be set up; how many days per week he should train and how the body parts should be grouped. Continued gains in strength and muscular development come from progression. While most envision progression as increases in training poundage, a progressive approach is also used when choosing the appropriate resistance training program. A program is quantified using three variables, frequency (how many times per week a muscle group is being trained), volume (the amount of work per muscle group per session) and intensity (how hard a muscle group is worked). By manipulating these variables, we can set up a progressive pathway with a series of tiered steps that keep the muscle adapting, a necessity for consistent gains. Let's start with the beginner. Since their muscles are unaccustomed to any resistance training stimulus, a training effect can be established for the beginner with a relatively low volume, low intensity program. Since few sets need to be done per body part, many areas can be trained in one session. Frequency can be high, since recuperation time can be minimized due to the low relative intensity. An appropriate program at this stage would be a full-body program (all muscle groups trained in one session), done on non-consecutive days, three times per week. After repeated application of the aforementioned program, adaptations will occur and the same absolute load will no longer present a significant relative overload. At this point, changes must be made to bring continued adaptations. Increasing training poundage is a viable progressive step, but soon strength plateaus will be encountered and the limitations in volume and intensity inherent with this type of program will have to be circumvented. The general formula for program progression is to raise volume and intensity while decreasing frequency. This involves utilizing a split program where the body is broken into sections and different areas are trained on separate days. When splitting the body, one must remember that it operates synergistically and has no mechanism for strict isolation. When training different muscle groups on consecutive days, therefore, we must organize it such that those that were active one day are as inactive as possible the next. The first progressive step from full-body to split program would be a two-day split, where two sessions are complementary and form one full-body workout. The workouts could be done either on a Monday-Tuesday-Thursday-Friday pattern or a repeating two-on-one-off one (the later option does not conform to the seven-day week). When using the two-day split, I like to group chest, shoulders, triceps and abdominals on the first day and back, biceps, quadriceps, hamstrings, lower back and calves on the second. Since only half the body is done at each workout with this program, more sets per body part and more intense sets can be done. Each area is not trained as frequently (three times per week with the full body program vs. two this way), but the increased volume and intensity will warrant a longer recuperation time between workouts, so that is appropriate. Once again, accommodation will occur and progression will be needed if continued development is desired. As was the case with the preceding example, we progress by dropping frequency while increasing volume and intensity. At this point, that would involve breaking the body into thirds - training in a three-on-one-off manner. Since this does not conform to the seven-day week, those desiring the same day off every week could modify this and train in a three-on-one off-two-on-one-off fashion. There are a number of options for dividing the body for this type of program. One of my favorites is to split up the deltoids, training the front and side portions on the first day with chest and triceps, and the rear portion with back, biceps and abdominals on the third. Everything else is done on day two. Progression of the program continues in this fashion - frequency down, volume and intensity up. Advanced bodybuilders sometimes train each area only once per week, making up for the lost frequency with grueling high volume, intense workouts that are necessary for continued improvement at that level. Such programs are only appropriate when one's conditioning level warrants such measures. If such weren't the case, the loss in frequency would not be justifiable. Your conditioning level should dictate your place along the spectrum from beginner to advanced exerciser and indicate which breakdown is right for you. Once that is determined, divide the body parts in as mutually exclusive a fashion as possible, then implement volume and intensity increases and frequency decreases to progress the program and bring continued adaptive changes as you improve. CHOOSING EFFECTIVE RESISTANCE TRAINING EXERCISES by Fred DiMenna, C.S.C.S. This month, I'll consider a question from Maria, a coworker, who asked me why I was having a patient perform dumbbell front raises in a somewhat atypical manner. This made me realize that when we speak about performance of an exercise, we usually talk in terms of a right or wrong way to execute the movement. In a practical sense, however, there are many in-betweens, and often, there is a right way, and an even better way, to do exercises when attempting to stimulate a target muscle group effectively. An important concept to consider when evaluating whether a particular weight training movement is as effective as possible is whether the exercise results in maximal muscle stimulation through as full a range of motion as is attainable at that particular joint. People often do movements to stimulate a certain muscle group that are biomechanically correct, however, they limit the range of motion they are covering while performing the movement: The exercising muscle is capable of safely moving the attached limb a longer distance. More muscle fibers will have to contribute and the muscular fatigue necessary to bring about the adaptations specific to resistance training will be realized if a full distance is covered. Simply insuring maximal range, however, is not enough. We also need to provide a significant load on the muscles throughout that range. Continuous tension is present when there is considerable resistive force on the muscle throughout a joint's full range of motion. Since resistance exercises are dynamic in nature, numerous factors change as motion occurs. The lengths of the force and resistance arms (the horizontal distance from the center of the joint to where the muscle is attached on the limb and to where the resistance is loaded on the limb, respectively) change as the limb moves. These changes bring significant variations to the conditions under which the motion is taking place. The angle of pull of the muscle also changes, sometimes so dramatically that it actually changes the direction of movement produced by the muscle. In addition, a certain muscle length is most conducive to maximal force generation, since it allows for the greatest interaction between the contractile elements of the muscle fibers. All of these factors result in highs and lows regarding torque production and resistive forces. What's more, when the linear force of gravity is used as the resistive force to the rotational pull of muscles, inconsistencies are bound to exist. While consistent tension during these varying conditions is important, even more significant is the realization of peak contraction - maximal resistive force when the muscle is at its weakest point. In addition to strengthening the muscle's weak link, this also necessitates the recruitment of additional fibers - exactly what is needed to break the plateaus typically encountered in programs geared toward muscular hypertrophy. Bodybuilders have been using peak-contraction exercises for years, since encountering maximal resistive force at end range of motion requires really squeezing the muscle - a specificity of training that's transferable to competition posing performance. Continuous tension and peak contraction are the bases for accommodating resistance machines that use a cam to change resistive torque to vary it in accordance with muscular potential. Since the external resistance is constant with free weights, body positioning is the key to insuring peak contraction and a direction of movement that is continually opposed by the resistance of gravity. One other consideration when trying to isolate and maximally stimulate a muscle is minimizing the involvement of other muscle groups. Muscles are synergistic entities that will act in concert to perform movement and demonstrate force as efficiently as possible. This survival mechanism undermines our attempts to specifically target and thoroughly exhaust one component of this system. By consciously focusing on the exercising area, an increased neuromuscular discriminating ability will result and the ability to isolate will be enhanced. While these adaptations to repeated neural stimulation will help one develop the ability to isolate, body positioning is the key variable in striving to prevent unwanted synergistic involvement. Back to dumbbell front raises. These are often done standing, in an alternate fashion (left up, left down, right up, right down). This method limits range of motion to about 100 degrees, since it does not allow for initiating the movement from humeral hyperextension (upper arm behind the body). What's more, there is a deficit in tension for the first portion of the movement, since it's predominantly horizontal motion. Tension is also lost in one side when exercising the contralateral limb. Peak contraction is present at end-range flexion, but synergistic involvement is not discouraged, since the standing, upright position makes it easy for the stronger muscles of the back and legs to chip in. My version of dumbbell front raises has the person seated on an adjustable incline bench (approximate angle of 55 degrees, in relation to the floor), moving both dumbbells at once. Movement can begin with the arms perpendicular to the ground (at about 30 degrees hyperextension), which lengthens the range of motion significantly. Since the body is angled, gravity is opposed more consistently throughout, and doing both arms at once also keeps tension constant since neither side ever gets the chance to rest. The seated position enhances the ability to isolate by placing many of the muscle groups that would normally assist in a disadvantaged state. Try dumbbell front raises in this fashion. If they feel harder and less weight can be handled, our goals are being met. MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT FAT LOSS by Fred DiMenna C.S.C.S. Two related questions from different readers, Jim and Jeff, will be addressed this month. Both are attempting to reduce their body-fat levels and recognize the importance of aerobic exercise in undertaking this challenge. The duration of Jim's exercise sessions, however, is limited by an injury - a torn anterior cruciate ligament in the knee. He wanted to know if multiple, short daily sessions would be equally as effective as one long one. Jeff had heard that doing exercise the first thing in the morning on an empty stomach was beneficial: He wanted to know if that was true. As I have stated in the past, the goal of an aerobic exercise session should be to maximize energy, not fat, usage. Specific actions that maximize the percentage of fat used to supply energy for an activity also restrict calorie burn and limit the potential of an exercise to set up a deficit in intake vs. expenditure energy balance - the determinant of whether fat stores will be accessed. An example of this is limiting exercise intensity to a level where fat usage is proportionately greater - an effort where energy demands are very easily met. By limiting intensity in this manner, a higher percentage of fat is utilized, but less total energy is used because higher intensity levels cannot be approached. When the percentage of fat metabolized for energy decreases, more glycogen (sugar) will be utilized. While there may be proportionately less fat used, more energy from any source means more of a shift in energy balance. When expenditure exceeds intake, reserve fuel stores (fat deposits) will have to be tapped to make up the difference. As a result, any activity that brings more of a shift in energy balance will facilitate fat loss, regardless of the fuel substrate used during the activity. By the same token, if fat usage is proportionately greater, but significant amounts of energy are not used, fat deposits will not be affected. Energy balance is the key. Those who advocate long, continuous sessions and exercising in the morning before the first me |
