|
Don't fool yourself - crash dieting and "marathon" gym sessions simply don't work. Your body was never meant to be fat. And getting it back in shape is easier than you think... |
Protein Is the Good Stuff
By Will Brink
Research has shown conclusively that intense exercise increases the need for protein to maintain muscle mass and performance.
From a nutritional point of view, protein is the least likely nutrient to be converted to body fat. Protein also has many other effects conducive to preserving muscle mass and increasing the metabolism. Of the three macronutrients—carbohydrates, fat, and protein—protein is the macronutrient that is the most effective for keeping your appetite in check.
Low-fat sources such as skinless chicken, lean red meat, seafood, eggs and high–quality protein supplements should be emphasized during a fat loss diet.
Most modern research looking at the protein needs of athletic people, which essentially means anybody who exercises, has estimated a higher need than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance, or RDA.
In a recent review paper on the subject by one of the top researchers in the field, Dr. Peter Lemon writes:
“This data suggest that the RDA (recommended daily allowance) should be more like the following:
“For those engaged in regular endurance exercise, i.e., cardio, running, skipping, etc.:
“1.2–1.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body mass (150 percent – 175 percent of the current RDA)
“And for people who exercise with weights regularly to gain muscle and or tone up:
“1.7–1.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body mass per day (212 percent – 225 percent of the current RDA)”
So What Does All That Mean?
Based on the most current data we have, active people who exercise, especially those looking to lose body fat, should eat approximately 1.2–1.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight to maintain muscle mass.
Remember, a kilogram is equal to 2.2 pounds. So a 150-pound person, using the higher end of the recommended range, would eat approximately 123 grams of protein per day.
Unfortunately, nutritional myths based on outdated and/or incorrect studies, like old habits, die hard.
The notion that protein intakes above the RDA are a health risk is a pervasive myth. Earlier studies suggested high protein diets may be a risk factor for increased rates of bone loss and kidney “stress.” These studies have been shown to be incorrect, however. For example, studies conducted years ago appeared to show higher protein intakes caused an excretion of calcium, which would ultimately lead to bone loss, but more recent studies have disproved that conclusion.
More recent and accurate research has actually shown potential health uses for higher protein intakes. One recent review that examined the above issues, “Optimal Intakes of Protein in the Human Diet,” came to some interesting conclusions. The study outlined an extensive body of recent data showing that high protein diets may in fact be beneficial for reducing blood pressure and stroke mortality.
On the matter of bone loss, the review paper concludes, “For bone health the established views of risk of high protein intakes are not supported by newly–emerging data, with benefit indicated in the elderly.”
It’s interesting to note that recent data suggest that older individuals require additional protein to offset muscle loss and related conditions associated with aging.
To sum up: Higher protein intakes do not appear to pose a health hazard to healthy active people, and higher protein intakes may, in fact, have health uses of their own. So when attempting to lose fat, make sure to eat your protein.
No Junk in the House!
If it doesn’t make it into your cart at the food store, it won’t make it into your house.
However, many people use excuses like, “I have snack foods for the kids,” or, “My spouse keeps a box of Oreo cookies in the kitchen cupboard” as reasons they can’t avoid the snacks that sneak into their diets and sabotage their efforts.
Many of the foods we eat—that we know we should not be eating—are eaten on impulse. Impulse control goes a long way here, but no one will deny it’s far harder to resist if your favorite junk food is under your nose. That’s human nature.
When I have an impulse for some junk food, I won’t resist it well if it’s only a few steps to the kitchen vs. having to get in the car to drive to the store and get it. The former I can’t resist, the latter I can.
Remember an impulse is defined as “a sudden desire, urge, or inclination.” That means it’s short–lived and will go away given sufficient time, so it’s a matter of not having foods in your house that allow you to act on the impulse while it lasts.
As for the excuse of the spouse, kids, etc, that’s an issue between you and your kids and/or your spouse. Should the kids be eating that stuff anyway? No! I had a client tell me one day, “I keep eating hot dogs ’cause I keep them in the house for the kids.” I said, “So you’re OK with feeding your kids foods you know to be unhealthy for you and them?” She stopped feeding her family hot dogs shortly after.
The bottom line here is, those foods should be occasional treats for both kids and adults, not staple foods that can be found in your kitchen. You should be teaching your kids good dietary habits while they’re young, so they don’t end up as overweight, unhealthy adults.
“Scientifically Formulated/Research Proven" Debunked
These are two common terms used by supplement companies. Let’s look at the first:
**“Scientifically formulated" — as opposed to what, unscientifically formulated? Designed by monkeys working on a computer?
One would hope the product in question was formulated with some scientific grounding in mind, but this is rarely the case, sad to say.
** “Research proven” – If the company has funded legitimate studies at an independent location and the study was published in a peer–reviewed journal some place, great. I applaud that company and have for many years lamented the number of companies that refuse to pay for research to support their own products.
The sad fact is, very few companies spend money on real research, preferring to spend money on marketing. If the company has some real research to back up the claim of "research proven," they should have no problem supplying that information, right?
Wrong. My calls to many companies either yielded a mish–mash of junk science or nothing at all. One guy said to me, "Hey man, it's a marketing term" and quickly got off the phone. You would not believe what passes for "research" with some companies.
The real harm here is that good companies that do shell out the money for real research have to compete with companies that simply pretend to, and that can put the good companies at a real disadvantage, not to mention it fools people into potentially buying a product with no research at all behind it.
You Should Sign Up for Will Brink’s Program, Fat Loss Revealed, Here.
