If you set a goal this year to lose weight (and by weight I mean fat) no matter if it was 5 pounds or 50, let me ask you this question: How are you doing so far?
If your honest answer is anything resembling, "Not so good", then please adhere to this one piece of advice:
DO NOT GO ON A DIET!
Why? People who utilize a "diet" fail way more often than they succeed. In fact, diets fail more than 9 out of 10 people. You wanna know why?
It's really very simple.
1) Almost all "diets" focus on restrictions of some sort in the amount of food you eat. Furthermore, unless you enjoy being in a continual state of hunger, you won't stick with it. Your body's psychology overrides your will power.
Why?
2) In restricting your calories, your body sends a signal to your brain that you are starving. This starts a chain of events that begins a sort of "survival mechanism" that slows your metabolism down, which in turn signals your body to stockpile what you eat and store things as fat. The result is that by decreasing your metabolism, you're bound to regain the weight, and probably a few pounds extra, when you do eventually begin a normal eat program.
If you're serious about a desire to finally drop a few (or more) pounds of fat, as well as keep it off for life, I HIGHLY suggest that you eat smaller meals more frequently.
You should also focus on cleaning up your diet in order to eat more of the right foods. Doing so will increase your metabolism naturally. Your body will receive signals that "all is well" and that there is no starvation emergency, and that it can let go of the fat.
The bottom line:
1) Get rid of the junk from your diet. Keep the food you eat real, not processed.
2) Stock your kitchen with wholesome goodness straight from God's hand. If it's been altered from the way He made it, don't eat it. Do the same where you work.
Make every effort possible to keep fresh fruits and vegetables, yogurt (if you like it, unsweetened, of course. you can sweeten it with some stevia and berries), nuts (almonds, pecans, etc) sardines and fresh made peanut butter.
Personally we like to take a little time and make healthy meals that can be frozen and place them into individual portion containers. This allows us to quickly and easily prepare a meal when we're short on time. In other words, you never have to worry about having a healthy and nutritious lunch or supper ready.
Remember, if you made plans this past New Years to drop some fat, please don't expect to succeed by dieting. It's senseless to starve yourself, so why do it? The better solution to dropping fat and keeping it away for good is to eating more of the foods that God gave us to eat and staying away from the junk that advertisers and marketers tell you is food.
God bless,
Steve
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Confidence exemplified
If I was twenty years younger (and hadn't had the thirty plus broken bones I've experienced thus far in life) I might like to try some of these moves.
If you've seen the latest "James Bond" film or the last "Jason Bourne" film, you may recognize some of these moves.
Kids, don't try this at home. these guys are professionals.
SP
I'm so proud of you!
I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate all of my clients on their success in working so hard to achieve their health, fitness and fat loss goals.
You know who you are and what it has cost you in terms of time, effort and consistency.
I especially want to congratulate S.R. and K.W. for their dedication to "the cause" and for allowing me to be their fitness coach, confidant and encourager.
Since starting with me at the gym six weeks ago, S.R. has lost almost 9 inches!
That's huge.
Oh, and don't think she's some metabolically charged, chronologically advantaged, super-powered little girl. No, she's a full on, healthy, active and mature soon to be 50 year young Amazonian Queen!
K.W. on the other hand is transforming himself even as we speak. He's a more rugged, intelligent and stronger Matthew McConaughey in the making.
Since starting at the Firestorm Fitness Systems Fat Burning Fit Camps a month ago, and as of two weeks ago a client at the gym, he's dropped from 220 pounds at 5' 9" to 203.
It won't be long until the scale will cease to move and his shape will continue to change as he replaces body fat with lean, hard and shapely muscle.
So to these two, as well as the rest of my "family" of clients:
WAY TO GO!
God bless,
SP
You know who you are and what it has cost you in terms of time, effort and consistency.
I especially want to congratulate S.R. and K.W. for their dedication to "the cause" and for allowing me to be their fitness coach, confidant and encourager.
Since starting with me at the gym six weeks ago, S.R. has lost almost 9 inches!
That's huge.
Oh, and don't think she's some metabolically charged, chronologically advantaged, super-powered little girl. No, she's a full on, healthy, active and mature soon to be 50 year young Amazonian Queen!
K.W. on the other hand is transforming himself even as we speak. He's a more rugged, intelligent and stronger Matthew McConaughey in the making.
Since starting at the Firestorm Fitness Systems Fat Burning Fit Camps a month ago, and as of two weeks ago a client at the gym, he's dropped from 220 pounds at 5' 9" to 203.
It won't be long until the scale will cease to move and his shape will continue to change as he replaces body fat with lean, hard and shapely muscle.
So to these two, as well as the rest of my "family" of clients:
WAY TO GO!
God bless,
SP
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Fat Transformation Device
Her Q: Hey, Steve...this past Wednesday while I was at a friend’s house I got on their scale and grew completely discouraged and utterly disappointed. I've been training my tail off for almost a year now. I haven’t set foot on a scale for nearly six months (mainly because I don’t have one) but I’m as mad as a wet hen because the reading hasn’t changed since that time.
I know I’m in much better shape since then... and for sure all of my clothes fit better. I’m in the best shape I’ve been in since college (I played volleyball then) and I also realize that muscle is more dense than fat. In fact, if I may say so myself...I look fantastic. However...
Just by stepping on the scale it threw me for a mental loop. I mean, with those numbers staring back at me, unchanged, the same as they were six months ago, well, I feel like I’ve just been spinning my wheels. I feel like I’ve made no progress whatsoever.
My A: What? Let me see if I understand this: your clothes fit better; you're in the best shape of your life since college and, by your own admission, you appear to look “fantastic”.
Nevertheless... the sole reason you're so bummed out is because the magic, “all seeing eye” of a friend’s restroom scale (the one which you don't even own) didn't register a new number of your liking.
This is something akin to marketing and advertising psychosis. You've drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid.
The following is a variation on some insight I once read by Alwyn Cosgrove, who apparently heard it from Chris Shugart.
Let me query you this: What if I had a magic fat loss machine, an FTD (Fat Transformation Device) that you could sit in, flip a switch and you would emerge appearing EXACTLY as you’ve always felt you’d like to appear?
I mean you would have the precise blouse, dress or trouser size you’ve always desired; you’d have the EXACT level of visible muscle definition you’d want; you would achieve the specific body-fat percentage you seek. Perhaps you’d have “six pack abs”, striations in the muscle structure of your legs, or "cuts" in your shoulders, (if you so desired) and more.
Would that be something you could get in line with?
You betchum, Red Ryder!!
Now consider this: what if the "cost" of the FTD was that it amplified your muscle and bone density by no less than 100%.
In other words, you’d would absolutely, beyond a doubt look and feel like you have always dreamed . . . but the scale would now read somewhere in the neighborhood of 50lbs more than you've ever weighed.
In other words, a 135 lb woman would emerge looking like a fitness model or a glamour queen (in essence, amazing), but every scale she stepped on would now read 185 lbs.
This is the BIG Q: Which would YOU prefer...the look, or the number?
Let's look at it from another angle: let’s say the FTD worked the opposite way.
An individual would step in and sit down, flip the switch, the lights would flash, the buzzers would sound and they would emerge looking exactly like they’ve looked for the past five years (or ten, or twenty, or ...) only now, according to the scale, they simply weigh 50 lbs less.
If this was you, would you be happy with this result?
My money is on the "not at all" side of the table.
Let’s get one thing straight: how a person looks & feels AND how much they weigh are not necessarily connected in the least.
Imagine a spaghetti squash and a red delicious apple. This picture is a representation of the difference in size between five pounds of fat (the squash) and five pounds of muscle (the red, lean looking thing).
As you've no doubt inferred, there's a demonstrably noticeable difference.
Let's put this mental image, as well as what we've ascertained so far, into perspective:
If, due to your hard work, effort and consistency, you add just 10 pounds (according to the scale) of muscle while simultaneously dropping 10 pounds (again, according to the scale) of excess fat, it will appear as though you look at least 20 lbs lighter from head to toe.
Just understand; the scale ain't gonna move a bit.
Have you still got a problem with that?
God bless,
SP
I know I’m in much better shape since then... and for sure all of my clothes fit better. I’m in the best shape I’ve been in since college (I played volleyball then) and I also realize that muscle is more dense than fat. In fact, if I may say so myself...I look fantastic. However...
Just by stepping on the scale it threw me for a mental loop. I mean, with those numbers staring back at me, unchanged, the same as they were six months ago, well, I feel like I’ve just been spinning my wheels. I feel like I’ve made no progress whatsoever.
My A: What? Let me see if I understand this: your clothes fit better; you're in the best shape of your life since college and, by your own admission, you appear to look “fantastic”.
Nevertheless... the sole reason you're so bummed out is because the magic, “all seeing eye” of a friend’s restroom scale (the one which you don't even own) didn't register a new number of your liking.
This is something akin to marketing and advertising psychosis. You've drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid.
The following is a variation on some insight I once read by Alwyn Cosgrove, who apparently heard it from Chris Shugart.
Let me query you this: What if I had a magic fat loss machine, an FTD (Fat Transformation Device) that you could sit in, flip a switch and you would emerge appearing EXACTLY as you’ve always felt you’d like to appear?
I mean you would have the precise blouse, dress or trouser size you’ve always desired; you’d have the EXACT level of visible muscle definition you’d want; you would achieve the specific body-fat percentage you seek. Perhaps you’d have “six pack abs”, striations in the muscle structure of your legs, or "cuts" in your shoulders, (if you so desired) and more.
Would that be something you could get in line with?
You betchum, Red Ryder!!
Now consider this: what if the "cost" of the FTD was that it amplified your muscle and bone density by no less than 100%.
In other words, you’d would absolutely, beyond a doubt look and feel like you have always dreamed . . . but the scale would now read somewhere in the neighborhood of 50lbs more than you've ever weighed.
In other words, a 135 lb woman would emerge looking like a fitness model or a glamour queen (in essence, amazing), but every scale she stepped on would now read 185 lbs.
This is the BIG Q: Which would YOU prefer...the look, or the number?
Let's look at it from another angle: let’s say the FTD worked the opposite way.
An individual would step in and sit down, flip the switch, the lights would flash, the buzzers would sound and they would emerge looking exactly like they’ve looked for the past five years (or ten, or twenty, or ...) only now, according to the scale, they simply weigh 50 lbs less.
If this was you, would you be happy with this result?
My money is on the "not at all" side of the table.
Let’s get one thing straight: how a person looks & feels AND how much they weigh are not necessarily connected in the least.
Imagine a spaghetti squash and a red delicious apple. This picture is a representation of the difference in size between five pounds of fat (the squash) and five pounds of muscle (the red, lean looking thing).As you've no doubt inferred, there's a demonstrably noticeable difference.
Let's put this mental image, as well as what we've ascertained so far, into perspective:
If, due to your hard work, effort and consistency, you add just 10 pounds (according to the scale) of muscle while simultaneously dropping 10 pounds (again, according to the scale) of excess fat, it will appear as though you look at least 20 lbs lighter from head to toe.
Just understand; the scale ain't gonna move a bit.
Have you still got a problem with that?
God bless,
SP
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What should I eat?
That's the big question, isn't it? Everyone wants to know what they should eat to achieve the health and fitness goals they dream about, yearn for, work for and stress over.
Let me see if I can shed some light on it for you.
We as humans complicate things so much. That something so simple should be so difficult is a testament to the power of marketing and advertisement. I guess I'm just too dumb to know any better since I see most things in life in black and white.
We all have decisions to make each and every day. God has granted each of us freedom of choice, but there is a responsibility that coincides with that freedom. It's the law of sowing and reaping. You see, while each of us has the freedom to choose, once the choice is made we become a servant to that choice.
Please read that again.
While each of us has the freedom to choose, once the choice is made we become a servant (or slave, if you will) to that choice.
My question to you is this: To what are you willing to become a servant?
If you have a choice between a nice piece of fish, some fresh, crisp, steamed vegetables and a salad OR a few slices of pizza and a large glass of soda...which will you choose?
I believe it depends upon your goals as well as the level and quality of questions you ask yourself.
HUH?
Here's what I mean: Let's say you have a clearly defined and written set of goals with a date for their achievement, and one them is to drop 15 pounds by March 15th. If an opportunity such as the one above should arise, you can then ask yourself this question, "Is what I'm about to eat going to take me closer to my goal or further from it?"
You know the meal with the fish is full of solid protein, quality carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, phytonutrients, water and fiber. It is a body enhancing, health producing quality meal.
You also know the pizza and soda meal means crummy carbs, low protein, poor quality fats, not many vitamins, minerals, is devoid of enzymes and phytonutrients as well as fiber and contains WAY too much sugar. It is a nightmare on a plate and represents hours wasted at the gym.
You now know which meal will serve you better and to which you will "become a servant."
The bottom line:
Let me see if I can shed some light on it for you.
We as humans complicate things so much. That something so simple should be so difficult is a testament to the power of marketing and advertisement. I guess I'm just too dumb to know any better since I see most things in life in black and white.
We all have decisions to make each and every day. God has granted each of us freedom of choice, but there is a responsibility that coincides with that freedom. It's the law of sowing and reaping. You see, while each of us has the freedom to choose, once the choice is made we become a servant to that choice.
Please read that again.
While each of us has the freedom to choose, once the choice is made we become a servant (or slave, if you will) to that choice.
My question to you is this: To what are you willing to become a servant?
If you have a choice between a nice piece of fish, some fresh, crisp, steamed vegetables and a salad OR a few slices of pizza and a large glass of soda...which will you choose?
I believe it depends upon your goals as well as the level and quality of questions you ask yourself.
HUH?
Here's what I mean: Let's say you have a clearly defined and written set of goals with a date for their achievement, and one them is to drop 15 pounds by March 15th. If an opportunity such as the one above should arise, you can then ask yourself this question, "Is what I'm about to eat going to take me closer to my goal or further from it?"
You know the meal with the fish is full of solid protein, quality carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, phytonutrients, water and fiber. It is a body enhancing, health producing quality meal.
You also know the pizza and soda meal means crummy carbs, low protein, poor quality fats, not many vitamins, minerals, is devoid of enzymes and phytonutrients as well as fiber and contains WAY too much sugar. It is a nightmare on a plate and represents hours wasted at the gym.
You now know which meal will serve you better and to which you will "become a servant."
The bottom line:
- If you don't have a written set of clearly defined goals that you can look at at least twice per day, do it now. If you don't know how to set goals, e-mail me at steve@firestormfitness.com
- Eat foods as close to the way God made them. If they have been altered from their original form, seek the more natural choice. You will never be wrong in doing this.
- Learn to ask better quality questions. With respect to health and fitness, what we eat does not usually affect us in the here and now. The negative effects of smoking, drugs and alcoholism takes years to show up. Likewise, poor eating choices sort of creep up on usover time. Look down the road and ask, "Is this going to benefit me in the long run."
To what are you willing to become a slave?
God bless,
SP
Monday, February 18, 2008
The "Fat-Makes-You-Fat" Myth Is Only Half Right
Many folks are aware that certain fats will increase your risk of cancer and cardiovascular dysfunction as well as make you gain weight. However, what few apparently recognize is that healthy fats have the ability to not only improve your cardiovascular health and reduce your risk of cancer, but they can even assist you in weight loss.
Almost all processed foods and traditionally raised meats (grain fed) contain much too high levels of omega-6 fatty acids. It's true that in small amounts it is essential, but too much of these fats will elevate your risk of disease and increase the growth of fat in your body.
Conversely, Omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in fatty fish, fish oil, walnuts, hemp seed, and flax seed oil, have the opposite effect.
COOL!
Not long ago the Journal of Nutrition published a study wherein rats that ate diets supplemented with DHA, one of the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, had a decrease in overall body fat mass. Not surpringly, other laboratory studies indicate the reasons for this result.
Here's an example: DHA prevents undifferentiated cells from becoming preadipocytes (precursors to fat cells). DHA is also found to inhibit the fat storage capacity of adipocytes (the cells that store fat).
The cool thing is that not only does DHA reduce the total number of fat cells, it also reduces the fat-storage capability of your existing fat cells.
Here's the deal: If you currently eat a bit too many processed foods and/or traditionally raised meats, it is very likely you are probably consuming WAY too many omega-6 fats and not enough omega-3s. The fact that you likely have an excess of fat on your body is probably at least part of your problem.
Omega-3 difficiency is the root of a whole host of physical and mental maladies.
So what can you do about it? Change your diet; get rid of processed foods in your diet and purchase meats that state they are "Organic", grass or range fed. Or do like I do and harvest your own wild game and fish.
The best source (by far) of DHA is fish oil. NOT flax seed oil. A good brand to choose is Carlson's Lemon Flavored. Many health food stores carry it or you can find it online.
God bless,
Steve
Almost all processed foods and traditionally raised meats (grain fed) contain much too high levels of omega-6 fatty acids. It's true that in small amounts it is essential, but too much of these fats will elevate your risk of disease and increase the growth of fat in your body.
Conversely, Omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in fatty fish, fish oil, walnuts, hemp seed, and flax seed oil, have the opposite effect.
COOL!
Not long ago the Journal of Nutrition published a study wherein rats that ate diets supplemented with DHA, one of the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, had a decrease in overall body fat mass. Not surpringly, other laboratory studies indicate the reasons for this result.
Here's an example: DHA prevents undifferentiated cells from becoming preadipocytes (precursors to fat cells). DHA is also found to inhibit the fat storage capacity of adipocytes (the cells that store fat).
The cool thing is that not only does DHA reduce the total number of fat cells, it also reduces the fat-storage capability of your existing fat cells.
Here's the deal: If you currently eat a bit too many processed foods and/or traditionally raised meats, it is very likely you are probably consuming WAY too many omega-6 fats and not enough omega-3s. The fact that you likely have an excess of fat on your body is probably at least part of your problem.
Omega-3 difficiency is the root of a whole host of physical and mental maladies.
So what can you do about it? Change your diet; get rid of processed foods in your diet and purchase meats that state they are "Organic", grass or range fed. Or do like I do and harvest your own wild game and fish.
The best source (by far) of DHA is fish oil. NOT flax seed oil. A good brand to choose is Carlson's Lemon Flavored. Many health food stores carry it or you can find it online.
God bless,
Steve
Friday, February 15, 2008
Drugs Aren't The Answer To ADD
Recent research has shown that treating children who have ADD or ADHD with drugs is not effective in the long run.
After three years of treatment, drugs such as Ritalin and Concerta work no better than behavioral therapy. Long term use of the drugs quite often stunt the growth of the children and the makers' published benefits have now been proven exaggerated.
The initial study's author who promoted the drug approach to therapy was quoted as stating, "I think we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study. There's no indication that medication is better than nothing in the long run."
This is what I've been trying to get parents to understand for years. Please do not medicate your kids.
Instead, stop feeding them useless junk, like sugary things and soda and rather make sure they eat a sound quality diet for EVERY breakfast, lunch and dinner and that their snacks are healthy as well.
Supplement their diets with fish oil and limit how much television they watch.
As an aside, the pharmaceutical industry's push to diagnose and sell drugs to adults who supposedly have ADD and ADHD is allowing for a new category of drugs to adults.
The one currently approved, Strattera, was just found to cause serious liver damage.
Yeah! Gimme some more of that!
The apparent race to develop, exploit and sell new and dangerous drugs never stops.
Physical ailments are NEVER the result of a lack of a potentially poisonous drug.
Clean up your diet and get some exercise and sleep. That has the potential to cure a whole host of syndromes and disorders.
God bless,
Steve
After three years of treatment, drugs such as Ritalin and Concerta work no better than behavioral therapy. Long term use of the drugs quite often stunt the growth of the children and the makers' published benefits have now been proven exaggerated.
The initial study's author who promoted the drug approach to therapy was quoted as stating, "I think we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study. There's no indication that medication is better than nothing in the long run."
This is what I've been trying to get parents to understand for years. Please do not medicate your kids.
Instead, stop feeding them useless junk, like sugary things and soda and rather make sure they eat a sound quality diet for EVERY breakfast, lunch and dinner and that their snacks are healthy as well.
Supplement their diets with fish oil and limit how much television they watch.
As an aside, the pharmaceutical industry's push to diagnose and sell drugs to adults who supposedly have ADD and ADHD is allowing for a new category of drugs to adults.
The one currently approved, Strattera, was just found to cause serious liver damage.
Yeah! Gimme some more of that!
The apparent race to develop, exploit and sell new and dangerous drugs never stops.
Physical ailments are NEVER the result of a lack of a potentially poisonous drug.
Clean up your diet and get some exercise and sleep. That has the potential to cure a whole host of syndromes and disorders.
God bless,
Steve
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
8th of November - Music Video
I cried when I watched this. I hope it touches you as well.
God bless you,
Steve
Monday, February 11, 2008
Eight things I believe but can't prove by Alwyn Cosgrove
Alwyn Cosgrove, if you don't know, is the consumate fitness professional. He is one of the smartest guys in the industry and has authored many pieces, including two hard back books, "The New Rules of Lifting" and "The New of Lifting for Women". This is a piece he wrote some time back that I really liked and agree with very much.
Enjoy!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The information presented is my opinion based on over 25 years of experience. I’m not here to argue my opinion versus your opinion. Please ask questions. I’ll explain my views but, won’t change them." Mike Boyle
--------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago I contributed to an article called "Can't prove it" over at t-nation. The premise of the article was "what do you believe to be true - even though you can't prove it". I actually sent it a few more tips (the editors chose what I was to expand on) and thought I'd share a few of them here:
1. I think fat loss is like a thermostat -- you can dial it up and burn more fat, dial it back and burn less. I guess that's why it interests me -- as I always wonder how we could 'turn up the dial'. (That line of thinking led me to create the Afterburn program actually).
2. On the other hand -- I think muscle growth is more like an on-off switch -- your individual genetics tend to determine the rate of growth - and all the "bulking phases" in the World won't change that rate once you have turned growth "on".
You create the need for muscle growth - and provide enough of a positive protein balance - and that's that. You can increase the rate of 'destruction' (fat burning) but I don't think you can increase the rate of 'construction' (muscle building).
Obviously - Drugs can change both of the above scenarios. Which is why it makes no sense to look at programs that involve anabolics or are based on anabolic users when you're natural.
3. The only supplement that I have ever really seen dramatically enhance fat loss has been fish oil. And I include ephedrine in that statement. In terms of pure pounds of fat lost over 12 week I don't think ephedrine did anything that 1-2 extra weeks of dieting wouldn't give you.
4. I think a good personal trainer is usually more knowledgeable than most strength coaches. As Mike Boyle has pointed out - a strength coach gets about 8+ hours per week with genetically gifted individuals who often only train and practice full time - no job and no responsibilities.
A trainer may only get 2-3 hours with someone who is 'athletically challenged' and has a full time job, and a host of other stresses. Getting results in that situation requires MORE ability.
5. The psychological differences in men and women make a bigger difference to programming than the physiological differences. Until you get that -- you can study all the training you want - but you'll fail as a coach.
6. Omega 3's will be recognized as the breakthrough 'drug' of the future - they really do seem to be that powerful. I think curcumin will follow. The research from MD Anderson is pretty exciting as regards curcumin and cancer.
7. An advanced individual doing a basic/beginners program will still progress well. A beginner or intermediate doing an advanced program will halt his progress completely. Most people aren't advanced enough to be worrying about anything more than a basic program.
8. If you train 'chest' - you apply a load to the shoulder girdle. In order to keep the shoulder healthy - you need to apply a corresponding load to the opposite side.
Most people get this part. But you also have to apply loads in the vertical plane and at every angle in between. Every time you do an exercise (e.g. an incline bench press) that applies load in one direction - you need to apply load in the exact opposite direction to keep the body healthy.
So we have to balance horizontal, vertical, incline, left to right and rotation in our loading.
And there's a 'balance' all through the 3 dimensional structure- - like a bicycle wheel with spokes. Actually - think of the shoulder and hip as a 3-dimensional BALL with spokes. It's simple physics really. Anytime you apply a load to one side of the ball in a certain direction - you are "denting" it -- and have to apply a similar load in the opposite direction.
If you don't understand that logic you probably have a list of injured clients. And this is one of the reasons why I can't even bring myself to discuss 'bodypart' routines. If you're programming based on 'bodyparts' - thinking only of muscles - without thinking about the 3 dimensional implications of how the muscle functions - where it attaches, how you are loading the shoulder or hip girdle (remember that ball) -- then we're so far apart in our basic thinking that I almost can't communicate with you.
Like I said -- I can't really prove any of this, as most of it's my opinion. But I feel strong enough to share them with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks Alwyn,
God bless you this week,
Steve
Enjoy!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The information presented is my opinion based on over 25 years of experience. I’m not here to argue my opinion versus your opinion. Please ask questions. I’ll explain my views but, won’t change them." Mike Boyle
--------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago I contributed to an article called "Can't prove it" over at t-nation. The premise of the article was "what do you believe to be true - even though you can't prove it". I actually sent it a few more tips (the editors chose what I was to expand on) and thought I'd share a few of them here:
1. I think fat loss is like a thermostat -- you can dial it up and burn more fat, dial it back and burn less. I guess that's why it interests me -- as I always wonder how we could 'turn up the dial'. (That line of thinking led me to create the Afterburn program actually).
2. On the other hand -- I think muscle growth is more like an on-off switch -- your individual genetics tend to determine the rate of growth - and all the "bulking phases" in the World won't change that rate once you have turned growth "on".
You create the need for muscle growth - and provide enough of a positive protein balance - and that's that. You can increase the rate of 'destruction' (fat burning) but I don't think you can increase the rate of 'construction' (muscle building).
Obviously - Drugs can change both of the above scenarios. Which is why it makes no sense to look at programs that involve anabolics or are based on anabolic users when you're natural.
3. The only supplement that I have ever really seen dramatically enhance fat loss has been fish oil. And I include ephedrine in that statement. In terms of pure pounds of fat lost over 12 week I don't think ephedrine did anything that 1-2 extra weeks of dieting wouldn't give you.
4. I think a good personal trainer is usually more knowledgeable than most strength coaches. As Mike Boyle has pointed out - a strength coach gets about 8+ hours per week with genetically gifted individuals who often only train and practice full time - no job and no responsibilities.
A trainer may only get 2-3 hours with someone who is 'athletically challenged' and has a full time job, and a host of other stresses. Getting results in that situation requires MORE ability.
5. The psychological differences in men and women make a bigger difference to programming than the physiological differences. Until you get that -- you can study all the training you want - but you'll fail as a coach.
6. Omega 3's will be recognized as the breakthrough 'drug' of the future - they really do seem to be that powerful. I think curcumin will follow. The research from MD Anderson is pretty exciting as regards curcumin and cancer.
7. An advanced individual doing a basic/beginners program will still progress well. A beginner or intermediate doing an advanced program will halt his progress completely. Most people aren't advanced enough to be worrying about anything more than a basic program.
8. If you train 'chest' - you apply a load to the shoulder girdle. In order to keep the shoulder healthy - you need to apply a corresponding load to the opposite side.
Most people get this part. But you also have to apply loads in the vertical plane and at every angle in between. Every time you do an exercise (e.g. an incline bench press) that applies load in one direction - you need to apply load in the exact opposite direction to keep the body healthy.
So we have to balance horizontal, vertical, incline, left to right and rotation in our loading.
And there's a 'balance' all through the 3 dimensional structure- - like a bicycle wheel with spokes. Actually - think of the shoulder and hip as a 3-dimensional BALL with spokes. It's simple physics really. Anytime you apply a load to one side of the ball in a certain direction - you are "denting" it -- and have to apply a similar load in the opposite direction.
If you don't understand that logic you probably have a list of injured clients. And this is one of the reasons why I can't even bring myself to discuss 'bodypart' routines. If you're programming based on 'bodyparts' - thinking only of muscles - without thinking about the 3 dimensional implications of how the muscle functions - where it attaches, how you are loading the shoulder or hip girdle (remember that ball) -- then we're so far apart in our basic thinking that I almost can't communicate with you.
Like I said -- I can't really prove any of this, as most of it's my opinion. But I feel strong enough to share them with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks Alwyn,
God bless you this week,
Steve
Friday, February 8, 2008
Real Food
Michael Pollan's new book 'In Defense of Food - An Eater's Manifesto'
I love it.
This guy has a lot of good, truthful things to say.
This is rare in a country where the majority of nutrition information that we hear about has a corporate or political agenda and not based on whether it is truly healthy for us.
Here are a few of his points from his manifesto:
The Omnivore's Solution: A New Way to Eat In the New Year
1) Don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.
2) Avoid foods containing ingredients you can't pronounce.
3) Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot.
4) Avoid food products that carry health claims.
5) Shop the peripheries of the supermarket; stay out of the middle.
6) Better yet, buy food somewhere else: the farmer's market or CSA.
7) Pay more, eat less.
8) Eat a wide diversity of species.
9) Eat food from animals that eat grass.
10) Cook and, if you can, grow some of your own food.
Find a copy of this book (click here) buy it and read it.
God bless you,
Steve
I love it.
This guy has a lot of good, truthful things to say.
This is rare in a country where the majority of nutrition information that we hear about has a corporate or political agenda and not based on whether it is truly healthy for us.
Here are a few of his points from his manifesto:
The Omnivore's Solution: A New Way to Eat In the New Year
1) Don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.
2) Avoid foods containing ingredients you can't pronounce.
3) Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot.
4) Avoid food products that carry health claims.
5) Shop the peripheries of the supermarket; stay out of the middle.
6) Better yet, buy food somewhere else: the farmer's market or CSA.
7) Pay more, eat less.
8) Eat a wide diversity of species.
9) Eat food from animals that eat grass.
10) Cook and, if you can, grow some of your own food.
Find a copy of this book (click here) buy it and read it.
God bless you,
Steve
Monday, February 4, 2008
Want stronger muscles? Try a little cholesterol…
Guest blog from William Campbell Douglas, M.D.
Can you name a bigger medical boogeyman than cholesterol? In recent years, it's become more and more notorious in the public mind thanks to Big Pharma's many TV ad campaigns for everything from cholesterol-lowering pills to cholesterol-fighting breakfast spreads (yuck!). But now, there's a new study that's found that low levels of cholesterol can actually reduce the beneficial muscle gain from exercising.
Another great medical myth bites the dust! Fire up the griddle and break out the bacon and eggs!
The researchers looked at 55 healthy men and women in their 60s. Overall, the study concluded that there was a significant link between dietary cholesterol and the increase in strength: Those with the higher cholesterol intake had the most muscle strength gain. What's more, the test subjects who were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs showed lower muscle gain than those who were not.
Yeah, yeah… I know I'm always telling you that excessive exercise is bad. But having healthy, strong muscles is good. And staying active in order to maintain those muscles is one of the best things you can do for yourself. But if you think you're doing yourself a favor by taking statins or cutting out burgers and eggs, well, think again.
Naturally, the researchers conducting the study were stunned. "Needless to say, these findings caught us totally off guard," said lead researcher Steven Reichman, a professor of health at Texas A&M University. But they stopped short of saying that cholesterol is actually beneficial. A statement like that would cause too much of a meltdown in medical circles.
I find it amusing that the researchers seem nervous about the results, and already seem to be to bracing themselves for the avalanche of criticism from the mainstream medical community (and the inevitable assault from Big Pharma, which has too many billions of dollars invested in anti-cholesterol meds to take even the slightest positive cholesterol press lying down).
Of course, I'm not shocked by the results. I've known just about forever that the entire cholesterol paradigm is way off base.
I consider a cholesterol level between 200 and 300 to be within the normal range. Only if it's above that level does it indicate that something is broken. And even then, elevated cholesterol levels are simply a sign, just like an elevated temperature is a sign, a protective measure against whatever is broken.
Most people who've been to the doctor have had their cholesterol tested and re-tested to the point where it's absurd. If you listen to these "cholesterol cowboys," they soon turn your health into a numbers game, equating your well being with the number of your cholesterol level. Then they start prescribing you every cholesterol-lowering statin they can think of in the quest for the perfect number. The rest of your health? Well, it's just not that important.
Unfortunately, most doctors will pin an increased cholesterol number on a bad diet. The second the results come back (and your wife finds out about them), no more bacon cheeseburgers for you!
According to Reichman, "Because cholesterol is negatively associated with cardiovascular health, we need further study in this area." Yet in spite of all the hedging, Reichman was forced to admit that, at the very least, these results show that "there is still a lot about cholesterol that we don't know." Yeah … no kidding.
Whether or not this little nugget of truth will cost them millions of dollars in research money remains to be seen. As for me, I don't get research money, so I'm always happy to give you actual facts.
God bless you,
Steve
Can you name a bigger medical boogeyman than cholesterol? In recent years, it's become more and more notorious in the public mind thanks to Big Pharma's many TV ad campaigns for everything from cholesterol-lowering pills to cholesterol-fighting breakfast spreads (yuck!). But now, there's a new study that's found that low levels of cholesterol can actually reduce the beneficial muscle gain from exercising.
Another great medical myth bites the dust! Fire up the griddle and break out the bacon and eggs!
The researchers looked at 55 healthy men and women in their 60s. Overall, the study concluded that there was a significant link between dietary cholesterol and the increase in strength: Those with the higher cholesterol intake had the most muscle strength gain. What's more, the test subjects who were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs showed lower muscle gain than those who were not.
Yeah, yeah… I know I'm always telling you that excessive exercise is bad. But having healthy, strong muscles is good. And staying active in order to maintain those muscles is one of the best things you can do for yourself. But if you think you're doing yourself a favor by taking statins or cutting out burgers and eggs, well, think again.
Naturally, the researchers conducting the study were stunned. "Needless to say, these findings caught us totally off guard," said lead researcher Steven Reichman, a professor of health at Texas A&M University. But they stopped short of saying that cholesterol is actually beneficial. A statement like that would cause too much of a meltdown in medical circles.
I find it amusing that the researchers seem nervous about the results, and already seem to be to bracing themselves for the avalanche of criticism from the mainstream medical community (and the inevitable assault from Big Pharma, which has too many billions of dollars invested in anti-cholesterol meds to take even the slightest positive cholesterol press lying down).
Of course, I'm not shocked by the results. I've known just about forever that the entire cholesterol paradigm is way off base.
I consider a cholesterol level between 200 and 300 to be within the normal range. Only if it's above that level does it indicate that something is broken. And even then, elevated cholesterol levels are simply a sign, just like an elevated temperature is a sign, a protective measure against whatever is broken.
Most people who've been to the doctor have had their cholesterol tested and re-tested to the point where it's absurd. If you listen to these "cholesterol cowboys," they soon turn your health into a numbers game, equating your well being with the number of your cholesterol level. Then they start prescribing you every cholesterol-lowering statin they can think of in the quest for the perfect number. The rest of your health? Well, it's just not that important.
Unfortunately, most doctors will pin an increased cholesterol number on a bad diet. The second the results come back (and your wife finds out about them), no more bacon cheeseburgers for you!
According to Reichman, "Because cholesterol is negatively associated with cardiovascular health, we need further study in this area." Yet in spite of all the hedging, Reichman was forced to admit that, at the very least, these results show that "there is still a lot about cholesterol that we don't know." Yeah … no kidding.
Whether or not this little nugget of truth will cost them millions of dollars in research money remains to be seen. As for me, I don't get research money, so I'm always happy to give you actual facts.
God bless you,
Steve
Friday, February 1, 2008
Cardio Lite
Q: If I could offer you a session of cardio every day wherein you would burn calories but never have to set foot on a piece of "cardio" equipment, would you take my offer?
The thermic effect of food (TEF)- or thermogenic effect - is a term used to describe the energy expended by the body in order to consume (bite, chew and swallow) and process (digest, transport, metabolize and store) food. This is where the popular thought lies with respect to celery. You know the mantra, "it takes more calories to eat celery than are in it."
For the "Average American" this overall sum in general describes about 7-10% of their daily calories consumed, based on the Standard American Diet (SAD)
Upon closer inspection:
Protein foods typically have a TEF of 25 -30%.
Carbohydrate foods require about 5-10%.
Fruits are around 15%
Cruciferous vegetables are around 30%
Fats are somewhere between 0 and 3%.
Can you see where I'm going with this?
If you just exchanged 100 calories of carbs for 100 calories of protein, in effect you would burn off another 20-25 calories.
If you swapped 100 calories of fat for 100 calories of vegetables, you would chew up an extra 27-30 calories.
Try this on for size: imagine you are the typical person eating a highly processed, low fiber, low protein diet. You eat about 2500 calories and burn about 7% of those calories.2500 - (7% of 2500) = 2325 calories absorbed
Due to the revelations of a superior trainer, you are convinced to switch to a higher protein diet, low in refined carbs and very high in whole foods, vegetables and fruits. You could easily increase the thermogenic effect by 2500 - (16% of 2500) = 2100 calories
That would mean you'd burn an extra 225 calories by doing nothing! For most people that's the equivalent of about 20-25 mins on a treadmill!
Small changes add up to big differences in the long term.
God bless,
Steve
The thermic effect of food (TEF)- or thermogenic effect - is a term used to describe the energy expended by the body in order to consume (bite, chew and swallow) and process (digest, transport, metabolize and store) food. This is where the popular thought lies with respect to celery. You know the mantra, "it takes more calories to eat celery than are in it."
For the "Average American" this overall sum in general describes about 7-10% of their daily calories consumed, based on the Standard American Diet (SAD)
Upon closer inspection:
Protein foods typically have a TEF of 25 -30%.
Carbohydrate foods require about 5-10%.
Fruits are around 15%
Cruciferous vegetables are around 30%
Fats are somewhere between 0 and 3%.
Can you see where I'm going with this?
If you just exchanged 100 calories of carbs for 100 calories of protein, in effect you would burn off another 20-25 calories.
If you swapped 100 calories of fat for 100 calories of vegetables, you would chew up an extra 27-30 calories.
Try this on for size: imagine you are the typical person eating a highly processed, low fiber, low protein diet. You eat about 2500 calories and burn about 7% of those calories.2500 - (7% of 2500) = 2325 calories absorbed
Due to the revelations of a superior trainer, you are convinced to switch to a higher protein diet, low in refined carbs and very high in whole foods, vegetables and fruits. You could easily increase the thermogenic effect by 2500 - (16% of 2500) = 2100 calories
That would mean you'd burn an extra 225 calories by doing nothing! For most people that's the equivalent of about 20-25 mins on a treadmill!
Small changes add up to big differences in the long term.
God bless,
Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
