In another entertaining post, AC writes about EPOC-
the impact of intense exercise on post-exercise metabolism. Some have
claimed that EPOC enables greater fat burn from shorter duration exercise.
Perhaps it's true, but is that relevant to fat loss for the majority of us
that"train to live"? In other words, it's a rehash of the more
basic question - is exercise effective for fat loss? As the American
College of Sports Medicine has opined, the science of the
topic is not compelling.
Have a good read from the link below - AC takes a
poke at Mike Eades, Gary Taubes, and CrossFit, all in one article. Funny
that he should take the shot at CF since most of us have been told for
years by CrossFit founder Greg Glassman that exercise should not be thought
of as the best means to fat loss.
AC's idea for fat loss and exercise is simple and
mirrors the "conventional wisdom" of the last 30-40 years - hold
intake constant and increase activity levels in order to induce a negative
energy balance leading to fat burning and weight loss.
"Calories in, calories out." The problem is, in the real world,
this tactic doesn't work out well for most. I've discussed why before, but
in review:
1. Increased activity tends to lead to increased
hunger. In the long term, hunger wins, leading to a resumption of higher
calorie intake.
2. There's a limit to the amount of time most of
can spend doing exercise; we exercise to live, vice living for exercise.
3. There's a limit to how hard folks are willing to
work day after day, week after week, year after year, to count calories.
If you worked very, very hard at it, and put calorie control ahead of
nearly all other priorities in life, you could probably maintain a
good body composition from calorie control alone, and skip the daily
workout. In fact, if it's just about calories, why not do just that? Most
folks simply are not going to do this. Nor should they. The human
body will regulate intake nicely via hunger if one does not eat a bunch of
nasty, Neolithic food. In other words - there's a way the body can and
should work to maintain a healthy range of body fat, and that is by eating
foods the body has evolved to consume.
4. The body, unlike a bomb calorimeter, is not a
closed system. There are many ways the body responds to changes in diet,
changes in sleep, changes in exercise, changes in sunlight on the skin;
some of those have long term effects, further complicating the mix of
variables. In fact - AC's assertion that fat loss is about nothing more
than calories in, calories out, is absurd for ignoring the fact that in
living animals, caloric intake is a result and a cause in body
composition. People with pregnancy hormones eat more. Rapidly growing
children eat more. Folks who eat nasty, high carb foods, eat more calories
and eventually lose their ability to tolerate same, resulting in fat gain,
increased appetite and reduced activity levels.
AC uses the phenomenon of retired athletes as an
example for his "calories are all you need to know" mantra;
"hey, some guy quit training six hours a day and exploded with fat!
That proves that a calorie is a calorie." To my way of thinking,
unless you plan on training six hours a day, that's an irrelevant
observation. This phenomenon illustrates another point well - it is
difficult to eat enough food to support six hours of daily training. It
takes work, and it is completely arguable whether the result is biased
more towards health or illness, as Primal Blueprint author Mark Sisson (www.marksdailyapple.com)
argues compellingly.
AC's post is an entertaining read, but here's his
most insightful blurb (hint: that's not a compliment to his insight):
"As I have stated countless times on this site
and in my book The Fat Loss Bible, fat-derived weight loss is all about
calories.
Yep, calories.
Calories, calories, calories, calories, calories,
calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, CALORIES!
Damn I love that word. In fact, I absolutely adore
it because every time I mention it some angry reality-hating low-carber
out there who earnestly believes he/she knows more than me (and folks like
Jules Hirsch and George Bray) about fat loss - despite
the fact he/she is built like a girdle-wearing hippopotamus - is
guaranteed to suffer a self-induced aneurism.
Ca-lor-ies, bay-bee!
Look, there goes another low-carber!
OK, enough funnin'.back to the topic at hand:
Calories!
It bemuses me to no end to see people trying to
devise all manner of clever routines that will somehow send their
metabolism off into the stratosphere and burn fat like butter in a fry
pan, and yet ignore the most fundamental equation that underlies every
successful fat-derived weight loss attempt:
CALORIES IN MUST BE LESS THAN CALORIES OUT."
That's a good example of where AC's lack of insight
becomes stupefying - there's no one who disagrees with this point. It's like shouting "the sun comes up in the morning!" He's
picking a fight here with a straw man. Of course we know that a person who
is losing fat is in negative caloric balance. The question is
"why?" This is a question AC ignores, because to him it is a
simple thing; just eat less, move more, any idiot can do it, and anyone
who does not do it is a lazy sloth (AC tends to choose uglier, more
colorful characterizations for those more fat laden than himself).
People eat when they are hungry - maybe not this
minute, or even for a month, or two - but eventually, hunger wins BECAUSE
IT IS SUPPOSED TO! A million years of evolution ensures we eat when
hungry! So the first answer to the question of how to get someone to
negative caloric balance is to get their hunger under control.
How does one "get hunger under control"??
First, end metabolic derangement by reducing carb intake by eliminating
most Neolithic foods.
When you are eating meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts and
seeds, little fruit or starch, and no sugar/wheat, after the initial
adaptation period, hunger is regulated because blood sugar levels are
regulated; this helps to break existing positive associations to
sweets/carbs, which the metabolically deranged use to treat their gyrating
blood sugar levels.
By regulating food quality, carb intake is
generally kept low, ~100g/day or less. You only need to eat more carbs
than that if you really love veggies and/or train for competitive
activity. If you have a lot of metabolic injury (high body fat or poor glycemic
control or both) you will benefit from a period of ketogenic adaptation -
keeping carbs below 25g/day (what the Atkins diet calls
"induction").
As you learn how to convert to a diet modeled on the
Paleolithic idea, exercise for the physical attributes you desire -
strength, speed, endurance, agility, coordination, skill, accuracy,
balance, power, stamina or whatever suits your fancy. Exercise for health,
exercise for appearance if you like, exercise for performance/job
requirements. There are many reasons for exercise, but fat loss is not
primary among them. So, on this point AC and I agree - HIIT is
not important for weight loss, it is important because you can use it to
buy a lot of fitness in a small amount of time.
Over the first month of this approach, you will
restore the normal metabolic process of using fat to fuel most of you
activity, using sugar/ketones to feed the brain, and maintaining stable
blood sugar.
You will lose visceral fat, liver fat, and likely sleep better (due to stable night time blood sugar). You will increase HDL, reduce LDL particle size, and reduce triglycerides - and these things will happen faster than if one follows AC's advice to reduce calories with no further guidance.
AC also likes to mis-characterize
"low-carbers" as folks who advocate only "very low
carb" intakes (<75g atkins="atkins" but="but" day="day" didn="didn" even="even" extended="extended" famous="famous" for="for" intake="intake" level="level" low-carber="low-carber" most="most" nbsp="nbsp" o:p="o:p" of="of" periods.="periods." recommend="recommend" robert="robert" t="t" that="that" the="the">
So when AC wails about the decrease in thyroid
output due to low carb intake, he's talking about sustained very low carb
consumption only; presumably then, he knows that someone eating 75g/day is
eating a relatively low level of carbs, but does not suffer much risk of
thyroid issues (at least not due to insufficient carb intake).
Eat meat, eggs and veggies, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch,
and no sugar/wheat.
No comments:
Post a Comment