Rob Faigin, author of Natural Hormonal Enhancement and Hormonally Intelligent Exercise recently joined our forum for a Q&A session. His books are sold in our online store, and excerpts of both books are available on each book's sales pages.
His publisher's website includes a collection of Q&A, and I'll drop you there:
Extique's Ask Rob
You can also download this archive in printable, live-link pdf format by clicking the attachment link at the top of this post.
Dave writes:
We hit the jackpot, Bombers. Our ship has finally come in. No grand prize is as grand as this one. We're rich!
Rob Faigin, AKA Captain Hormone, is joining us this month to advance an open Q&A exchange to further enlighten us in our pursuit of muscle and might and enduring health. Rob is a man who's devoted much of his vigorous life to exercise and nutrition and the study of these two vital resources. He's written a pair of fascinating books, Natural Hormonal Enhancement and Hormonally Intelligent Exercise, that have alerted and informed the serious weight trainer of his potential through the understanding of his hormonal system. Wow! How much we need to know and how exciting it is to learn.
Thanks, Rob, for your knowledge and understanding, and your generosity.
Welcome aboard... The Bomber
Here is a compilation of the information shared.
On resetting the metabolism:
I'm 52 years old and easily and consistently maintain my bodyfat in the 7-9% range. For years now, I've been on a 30p/40c/30f diet (which, along with weightlifting has helped me recover from a rapid onset, 2 year endocrine disorder and reduce quickly accumulated bodyfat by 44 pounds while losing only 15 pounds of total weight in a 10 month project). My diet is often strict and carefully analyzed but sometimes extemporaneous. Over this time, I've developed a metabolism that is seemingly far too efficient. Two years ago, at 170 pounds, my maintenance calorie requirement was 2800. Now, it's much higher.
Earlier this year, in April, I had a rather serious injury which completely put me down for months and then a secondary injury in mid-August which is still affecting me greatly. I've been advised by the doctors to forego weight training in the form of heavy, compound movements until all the problems are sorted out. Consequently, I haven't bothered with any lifting at all but have resumed my usual routine of "real work". Over the first few months of recovery from the initial injury, I lost somewhat over 20 pounds of lean body mass in going from 170 down to 145. During this time, I had a five pound lifting limitation and was restricted from virtually all activities except walking.
In recent months, I've been trying very hard to regain weight, eating well above my previously noted maintenance level. I've regained a solid five pounds. This happened quickly, in between partial release from injury #1 and occurance of #2. Since 'cane Ivan hit us in September, my workload has gone through the roof and I've been running around like my hair's on fire but my daily intake has been 3500 or better. I've gained not a single additional pound.
I need to slow my metabolism down. It's out of control. The only way I reliably know how to do this is go to a high carb diet but this ain't gonna happen because it's way too scary and dangerous. I realize I don't have much of a chance of replacing the lean mass until I resume my weight training but at this point I'd be very satisfied to add 5-6 pounds of pure bodyfat and go to 10½% or so. I've even broken from my usual diet by eating at least a pint of ice cream before bed every night. It's not helping.
I read your NHE book last year and quite honestly, I wasn't impressed but at this time, I'm wondering if adopting your dietary regime may help me in taming this monster that's eating me alive. Since I'm loathe to go to one extreme, perhaps going to the other may help me. Thoughts? Don
Rob writes:
You said you read NHE and weren’t impressed. I recommend you re-read it. Now that other approaches have failed you and there’s a “monster eating you alive,” maybe you’ll re-reread NHE with added focus and attention to detail. It will put the metabolic issues raised in your letter in better context and provide more answers, than I can in this forum.
You say you need to slow down your metabolism. What’s wrong with being naturally lean? Injuries have set you back, not your metabolism. You said the only way to slow down your metabolism is with a high-carb diet. Chapter 16 of NHE discusses the thermogenic value of protein, fat, and carbohydrate and shows that the comparative effect of a high-carbohydrate diet is to speed up metabolism. In fact, “the only way reliably to do this” is to eat less food because as Chapter 9 of NHE explains, metabolism downregulates to compensate for caloric restriction.
You wrote: “I realize I don't have much of a chance of replacing the lean mass until I resume my weight training but at this point I'd be very satisfied to add 5-6 pounds of pure bodyfat.” I don’t see where the satisfaction lies in adding 5-6 pounds of pure bodyfat.
You wrote: “I've even broken from my usual diet by eating at least a pint of ice cream before bed every night. It's not helping.” It’s helping to suppress whatever small amount of nocturnal growth hormone surge you have left at 52 years of age, while likely raising serum triglyceride levels. The only monster eating you alive, Don, is the cookie monster.
-----
Thanks for the input. Subsequent to writing the original query, some wise and experienced people here at IOL have suggested my body is simply requiring tremendous amounts of resources for the healing process. That it may be foolish to alter something that's not broken, my metabolism, as it continues to work overtime fixing something that is. Five vertebrae in my back. This is new territory for me. I've never had to contend with serious injury but this seems to provide a reasonable and logical explanation for my dietary "failure".
Certainly, cutting back from 10 feedings a day @ 3500-4000 calories to 3/day @ 1200-1500 calories would effectively slow my metabolism but that's not within the scope of intelligent possibility. It would eventually make it easier to gain weight but it would be difficult for me to make a profit in the transaction. Another option is going to a high carbohydrate diet which would enhance weight gaining ability but at the expense of good blood chemistry. Yet another option is a type of cyclic diet but it's not appealing to me.
As strange as it may sound to you, I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about adding 5-6 pounds of fat, if I only could. I know it would burn off in a very short time once I'm able to resume my proper weight training schedule. It would simply be more fuel for the fire. I'm also not concerned about triglycerides. My TG's typically run between 40-60 mg/dL. They will read higher now due to my exercise limitations but not a concern.
For the past 2½ weeks I've been knocking myself out to ensure I'm at or above 4000 calories every day and have gained maybe one pound. It's very frustrating. The smart thing for me to do is just relax, forget radical dietary changes and just let nature take it's course. Unfortunately, one thing I'm not overly endowed with is patience.
Thanks again, Don
On low after carb loading:
I dropped 31 lbs, two weight classes using this plan for me it works great and my training was strong all the way thru. ( I compete in powerlifting.) My question is I was carb depleted at weigh in then over the next two hours I carb loaded, warm ups went well but I had nothing left when I got to platform could this be a low after a insulin spike. I weigh in at 191 and after the meet I was 198. Tony
Rob writes:
The timing of carb-loading relative to an athletic event is critical. The shorter the period of carbohydrate re-filling the more likely it will hamper rather than help performance. When the weigh-in is hours before the event it puts you in a difficult position. I would advise not trying to fully re-fill glycogen stores.
-----
Thanks Rob this is what I was thinking My training when I was depleted was alot better than I felt at the meet and the days where I had a full 24 hour carb load was awsome I should have given this a test run before I went to the meet
Thanks for your time, Tony
-----
I seems to me that for powerlifting, you don't need a heck of a lot of glycogen to fuel your warmups and lifts. I don't see any reason to risk a blood sugar roller coaster ride to get carbed up before your first squat. Maybe it would make sense to figure out how much and what types of carbs (and fluids) you need to replenish stores a little while keeping blood sugar low. A couple dry runs with a glucometer might help fine tune this. CCrow
-----
It's more about weight. If I drop6 lbs thru carb depleting and anougther 6 to 8 lbs thru dehydration (I do this all the time} I should be able to weigh in at 220 but lift at 232. 10 lbs makes a big diferrence in strength levels, but you're right with a short weigh in time it's not worth the risk. I'll try it again when I go to a meet with a 24 hour weigh in. Tony
-----
Does the dehydration affect your lifts? Jag
-----
For me if I do 4 days of super hydration followed by cutting all fluids for 12 hours that gets me down to where I need to be then it's just a matter of rehydrating after weigh in Works for most people. If you need to use a sauna or a hot tub you need to weigh in with in an hour or the body starts to pull water from the blood and then you've got problems
hope this helps. Tony
-----
Rob writes:
Taz, if I may respond to a question directed to you by Jag. . . Dehydration can affect lifting performance big time, mainly because of its impact on electrolytes. “Strength” has a significant neural element unlike endurance which is predominately biochemical. Electrolytes conduct neural impulses; so if your electrolyte balance is off due to dehydration your muscles won’t fire like you need them to in order to lift maximal weight.
On post-workout carb allowance:
Many thanks for your continually inspiring ideas in NHE, which I have been following to my great benefit; and thanks for engaging with us here at Dave's Place.
We in the iron community often hear of the benefits of a moderate (15-25 grams?) carbohydrate intake at the end of a workout. Sometimes this is in conjunction with a glutamine or creatine dose, but it's also touted as a good thing by itself, because of various metabolic recovery systems (that I don't really grasp). Can you recommend this (regardless of the glutamine/creatine factor) post-workout, even though it's likely not a carb-load time? That is, is there some mechanism taking place at that time which negates the usually baneful effects of carbohydrates?
Thanks, Bob Gallo
-----
I'm not Rob, but glycogen depletion in the muscles creates a state of extreme insulin sensitivity in the immediate post-workout period. Taking in high-glycemic carbs and rapidly digested protein in a 2:1 ratio during the post-workout period promotes more rapid recovery, greater strength and muscle gains, and may even promote improved body composition. Basically, I'd save your allotted carbs for post-workout on workout days. Chris
-----
If I may piggyback a related question here, Rob, how important do you think post workout carbs are to recovery? CCrow
-----
Rob writes:
Leave it to a longtime NHE supporter to give me the opportunity to resolve misconceptions about NHE and the post-workout meal.
NHE denounces "high-carbo concoctions" designed to produce an "insulin spike," it doesn't say carbs should be avoided altogether. Given that the NHE Eating Plan allows up to 60 grams of active carbohydrate during the downcycle and unlimited during the upcycle, there's a place on the plate for carbs post-workout. The notion that one must radically escalate one's insulin level post-workout to maximize gains originated as a marketing ploy designed to sell people cheap sugar-based products and has gained little scientific credence since that time. Rather, the post-workout meal should evoke a modest insulin response, and as NHE explains, protein is moderately insulinogenic. Sprinkle in some carbs with the protein, and the insulin response is right on target. Better to eat a steak, salad, and a few baked French fries than to drink or eat a carbohydrate-dominant meal - this is the real issue, and thanks for giving me a chance to clarify it.
With all due respect to the Chris, I'd like to suggest that heightened insulin sensitivity post-workout argues in favor of a meal lower in carbohydrate because it means the insulin response is more pronounced for a given carb quantity.
-----
But with the increased insulin sensitivity post-workout, you get the improved nutrient partitioning. Basically, you get the quick and pronounced insulin response, but you also have the quick return to baseline blood sugar levels. The glycogen depletion from training pretty much turns the muscles into sponges in the immediate post-workout period. Chris
-----
Nudging my question - what is the big deal about topping off glycogen stores after every workout? If I was Lance Armstrong, I want my glycogen "tanks" topped off, I'm going to need it. But if I'm someone trying to shift my metabolism toward burning fats, maybe I'd rather leave some room in the muscles and liver for any extra sugar that might come along. Unless the glycogen is needed for the muscle to recover - I am not aware of any such need, but that's my question - do you need a lot of glycogen for recovery? CCrow
-----
Basically, topping off your muscle glycogen stores post-workout helps prevent catabolism. Without sufficient PWO nutrition, your body is more likely to break down muscle tissue to restore glycogen levels (this being the ugly downside of gluconeogenesis that Gary and I discussed a while back). Carbs and protein post-workout give your body glucose and amino acids that don't come from muscle tissue to carry out its recovery process. You don't need a lot, but 30-40g of carbs PWO can go a long way, even on an aggressively low-carb diet. Chris
-----
Chris, if we're only talking 30-40g we're more on the same page, as this isn't likely to "top off the tank," more just to keep the tank from going dry. But if we are trying to get to a fat-adapted state, are we ever going to get there if we don't deplete?
And even if we are, what's the hurry? If we're talking about a high glycemic source that is delivered in a few minutes, versus a medium glycemic source that's delivered steadily over the course of say 30 minutes to an hour, what's the big deal? I doubt any significant catabolism will occur in that window. I doubt any insulin spike is necessary to deliver a piddling 30-40 g of carbs, especially not with good insulin sensitivity post-workout. So why rock the blood sugar boat? CCrow
-----
Basically because the catabolic processes begin when you hoist your first barbell or dumbbell, and you want to bring them to a screeching halt while jump-starting recovery. In many ways, this is more similar to the targeted ketogenic diet concept, in which you consume a quantity of carbs sufficient to fuel your workout and no more. The general idea is that this quick refuel does nothing to interfere with your fat-adapted state but significantly improves recovery and subsequent performance, while helping put the brakes on muscle catabolism. The biggest reason for doing this with high-glycemic carbs is to take advantage of the window during which the glucose is most likely to be shuttled to skeletal muscle, rather than remaining in the bloodstream or preferentially being used to replenish liver glycogen. Chris
-----
There is a LOT of debate on this:
http://c-k-d.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2015
http://www.extique.com/askrob5-2.htm#5-2-1
Jag
-----
Rob writes:
Maybe the hormonal perspective can help bring this debate into better focus. One thing that became increasing evident while I was researching Hormonally Intelligent Exercise is that catabolism and anabolism are “ying and yang” – so to speak – of muscular development. They’re both indispensable elements of the muscle-building process. There can be catabolism without anabolism (if nutrition and rest are inadequate), but there cannot be anabolism without catabolism. In fact, Hormonally Intelligent Exercise discusses an advanced training strategy called overreaching, which calls for a deliberately exaggerated catabolic period as a springboard to enhanced anabolism and muscle growth. Certainly, one should ingest ample protein after intense training and some post-workout carbohydrate is okay as well. But the notion that the catabolism that spurs anabolism must be immediately and completely squelched after training seems misguided in light of the research I’ve reviewed and the understanding of how the pituitary-adrenal axis responds to resistance training.
-----
Interesting, Rob.
I'd definitely like to hear more about this. I don't doubt that your research has been more extensive than my reading, but this flies in the face of a lot of what I've read, seen, experienced, and intuited. It also seems to run counter to the studies I've seen on post-workout nutrition. Chris
-----
Approaching 60, my understanding is that it will take me longer to recover from workouts than a younger lifter......so, do I understand it is even more important for me to make sure I ingest a level of carbs along with some protein right after trainging??....I'm currently working all body parts twice weekly and on a metabolic type diet.
Rob, I have your book ordered, but I'd like to hear a word from you about being an older bodybuilder and your Hormonal eating plan...If you have time can you give me a little taste of what I might find in your book?? Thanks, Art V
-----
I'd definitely recommend that an older lifter get 30-40 grams of carbs PWO, along with about 20g of protein. An hour later, eat a normal meal conforming to your diet. Really, I don't see a good reason for not doing this--particularly on a metabolic-type diet, where part of the point is that you've got a somewhat flexible carb allowance to adjuct for individual needs. Be tighter on carbs throughout the rest of the day if you must, but I definitely believe you'll experience faster and more complete recovery with a PWO drink. Chris
Rob writes:
The way I see it, there’s no relationship whatsoever between aging and the macronutrient composition of the post-workout meal. There’s a certain optimal way to eat in terms of protein, carb, and fat (outlined in my book Natural Hormonal Enhancement) and that doesn’t change as one gets older. You may need extra recovery time between workouts, and you will need to raise supplement intake levels to compensate for lower absorption rates, but I’m aware of no research supporting the proposition that as you get older you should increase post-workout carbohydrate.
-----
Rob, allow me to add my thanks too. I'll definitely be buying your book. I followed you and Chris discussing the post workout nutrition and to take a slightly different twist from both of you, wouldn't a 100% protein meal with excessive calories, but 0% carbs work basically the same? Plus, it wouldn't give you the evil carbs on noncarb days for those of us trying to lose weight. Pointcove
Rob writes:
I’m glad to hear you’ll be buying the books. It’ll save me a lot of time, and give you the answers you need based on ten years of documented research.
I wouldn’t advise a 100% protein/zero-carb meal with excessive calories because of per sitting limitations on protein absorption discussed in NHE Ch. 17 and because excessive protein taxes the detoxifying organs of the body. That said, if it came down to either consuming the meal you describe or knocking yourself off the NHE Eating Plan and back into a sugar-burning state (because a second high-carb meal usually follows a first, that’s the nature of “hormonal hunger” - see NHE Ch. 11), then I’d recommend the former.
On "NHE didn't work for me":
Steve Holt writes:
While I enjoyed reading NHE and learned a lot, the diet itself was ineffective for me. Perhaps I missed something. But I was not able to find anywhere in the book where a limit on caloric intake was defined. In fact, the book actively discouraged any calorie counting, on the basis that the body would eventually self-regulate itself due to diminishing hunger. This never happened with me. Maybe I'm just a glutton. I remained in ketosis during the week, but lost little fat. I have subsequently learned that ketosis is not a recipe for fat loss if one is eating above maintenance calorie levels. NHE never broached the subject of maintenance calories, which I this is a mistake. I still do not understand how the NHE diet can work for anyone who is eating above maintenance levels.
Don B writes:
You won't lose fat when eating above your maintenance level, no matter what your dietary plan. What you can do is change your metabolism. If you don't find your metabolism changing for the better and maintenance level increasing over time, you're using the wrong plan.
Steve Holt writes:
Precisely. And NHE makes the assumption that you'll naturally eat below maintenance without tracking calories , when you're on that diet. Unfortunately that was not the case for me. I never did get a response from Rob on this and I would be interested in Rob's thoughts.
Rob responds:
I am happy to answer your question. Let me first say that although I don’t favor vegetarianism, I strongly advocate eating vegetables. Studies show a protective effect of vegetable consumption against many diseases, particularly cancer. Supplementation is vital for optimal health, but vegetables contain innumerable phytochemicals that have not been isolated and bottled. The NHE Eating Plan permits greater consumption of fruits and vegetables than does the now-highly-popular low-carb diet. For this reason, while vegetarians may be averse to the NHE Eating Plan because it endorses consumption of meat, in fairness, you – as a leading spokesman for the noble and in many ways health-promoting “vegetarian bodybuilders diet” – must acknowledge that the NHE Eating Plan is a superior alternative to an Atkins-type low-carb diet for those inclined to adopt a carbohydrate-controlled approach.
As to your letter, you wrote:
“I remained in ketosis during the week, but lost little fat.”
First, it is biologically impossible to lose much fat in one week absent starvation. Second, the NHE Eating Plan is a lifetime dietary strategy for PERMANENT fat loss and long-term optimal health, so the relevance of your statement is not obvious.
You also wrote: “And NHE makes the assumption that you'll naturally eat below maintenance. . .when you’re on that diet.”
This is an untrue statement. Chapter 14 of the NHE Eating Plan is entitled, “The NHE Eating Plan: A Lifetime Dietary Strategy.” Pgs 122-128 are devoted to the “general NHE Eating Plan.” Pgs. 129-130 discuss the anabolic potential of water. Pgs. 131-136 are devoted to the “bodybuilders' NHE Eating Plan.” The bodybuilders' NHE Eating Plan makes the assumption that you will eat ABOVE maintenance.
Thank you for your letter. I hope it makes clear to visitors of this site that if you rely on snippets from discussion boards for your understanding of NHE, you cannot be assured of getting an accurate picture. There are many aspects of NHE that I never see discussed on the boards, yet are frequently mentioned by people who send testimonials to us.
Steve Holt's response:
You wrote: I am happy to answer your question. Let me first say that although I don’t favor vegetarianism, I strongly advocate eating vegetables. Studies show a protective effect of vegetable consumption against many diseases, particularly cancer. Supplementation is vital for optimal health, but vegetables contain innumerable phytochemicals that have not been isolated and bottled. The NHE Eating Plan permits greater consumption of fruits and vegetables than does the now-highly-popular low-carb diet. For this reason, while vegetarians may be averse to the NHE Eating Plan because it endorses consumption of meat, in fairness, you – as a leading spokesman for the noble and in many ways health-promoting “vegetarian bodybuilders diet” – must acknowledge that the NHE Eating Plan is a superior alternative to an Atkins-type low-carb diet for those inclined to adopt a carbohydrate-controlled approach.
- Absolutely. And btw I really liked your book, and continue to like it today. Much of what you say in there is bang on. Informative, thought-provoking, lots of good references. But....the diet itself didn't work for me.
You wrote: As to your letter, you wrote:
“I remained in ketosis during the week, but lost little fat.”
First, it is biologically impossible to lose much fat in one week absent starvation. Second, the NHE Eating Plan is a lifetime dietary strategy for PERMANENT fat loss and long-term optimal health, so the relevance of your statement is not obvious.
- I didn't mean to imply I did the diet for a week. I actually did the diet for a couple of months. What I said was I was in ketosis during the week... ie. as opposed to the weekend. Sorry for not being clear. What I meant was, I was in ketosis when I was supposed to be in ketosis, during the downcycles. But after being on the diet for many weeks I hadn't lost BF.
You wrote: You also wrote: “And NHE makes the assumption that you'll naturally eat below maintenance. . .when you’re on that diet.” This is an untrue statement. Chapter 14 of the NHE Eating Plan is entitled, “The NHE Eating Plan: A Lifetime Dietary Strategy.” Pgs 122-128 are devoted to the “general NHE Eating Plan.” Pgs. 129-130 discuss the anabolic potential of water. Pgs. 131-136 are devoted to the “bodybuilders' NHE Eating Plan.” The bodybuilders' NHE Eating Plan makes the assumption that you will eat ABOVE maintenance.
- Precisely why I didn't do the bodybuilders version, as I was looking to cut.
But Rob, there was no specific caloric restriction in your diet. And no one loses BF unless they eat below maintenance calories. It was my assumption that you got around this by assuming that the body would eventually self-regulate and the dieter would find him/herself eating below maintenance. Is that why you never gave us a specific quantity of fat to eat per day? Am I missing something?
Rob responds:
I’ll gladly answer your question, but first I’d like to continue with what I was saying at the end of my last letter. People who get snippets about the NHE "diet" don't know:
Sunlight exposure affects testosterone production in both sexes (one of the best natural hormonal enhancers is 93,000,000 miles away)
Certain types of sunscreen may promote development of malignant melanoma (the perfect diet is of little value for someone with deadly skin cancer)
How properly adjusting your sleep-wake cycle can vastly improve hormonal status by “resetting” your circadian rhythm (here’s an example of a small change making a big impact)
Seasonal Affective Disorder - how to combat it naturally so you can be both healthy and jolly this holiday season.
Contrary to common belief, total cumulative sunlight exposure is NOT directly correlated with melanoma and in fact a suntan can help protect against melanoma whereas infrequent sunning that results in burning increases melanoma risk.
While we talk about how to develop a great-looking physique, let’s not forget that there’s a cancer epidemic and the treatments in many cases can be more deadly than the malignancy. In terms of muscle growth, getting adequate sunlight (a particular challenge during wintertime in high latitudes), maintaining the integrity of your hormonal circadian rhythm, and working-out earlier in the day can amount to a larger difference than which supplements you take. But there’s money in supplements, so that’s what we hear about. Supplementation is important, but should not distract from equally important health considerations.
Now to your question. . .
Here’s where the confusion lay: there’s a difference between the dietary prescription optimal for reducing excess bodyfat and the dietary prescription optimal for going from “lean” to “super-lean.” Judging from your picture and the fact that you are a vegetarian, it would seem safe to assume that you maintain a lean physique year-round. When a bodybuilder gets on stage he or she is not looking to impress the spectators with a “lean, fit physique” but rather to bedazzle them and the judges with an abnormal and sensational degree of muscular definition. The general NHE Eating Plan does not claim to take an already lean athlete and turn him into a contest-ready Mr. Universe contestant (you may have to consult Dave Draper for that). Depending on one’s metabolism, deliberate calorie restriction may be necessary to look like a walking anatomy chart. The NHE Eating Plan can be used as a basis to achieve this objective, but may need to be combined with calorie reduction. For a long time there has been a post on Ask rob that discusses this. I thought about copying it to you from the archives, but I wanted to address your question personally (my position, and the facts, have not changed though since I wrote NHE).
One reason I don’t recommend calorie counting is because how am I supposed to know how many calories a given person needs to achieve their objectives? The best I could do was to create two NHE diets: one for general fat loss and one for bodybuilding. If the approach were the same for each objective, there’d be only one NHE Eating Plan just like there’s only one version of most other diets. It is fantasy to think an author can publish a book telling each reader how many calories they should consume. Here’s what I’d need to know, at minimum, to even have a chance at providing a competent estimate of how many calories you should consume.
1) what is your weight?
2) what percentage of your body mass is muscle?
3) what type of metabolism do you have? “Fast”? “Slow”? “Medium”?
4) How often do you work-out and what is your workload?
5) Besides actual workouts (and the new book, HIE, goes into this) what is your “non-workout activity level”? Is one relaxing on the beach when not lifting or participating in other vigorous activities or sports?
6) What are your objectives? Maximizing muscle growth or maintaining or gradually building muscle while trimming-off excess bodyfat?
It seems to me that a book that tells people how many calories to consume without first finding-out the answers to these questions, belongs in the fiction section. It might sell books by providing a façade of numeric certainty, but it’s a disservice to the readers because it’s inherently inaccurate. Our commitment to truth at Extique Publishing precludes furnishing make-believe information.
As NHE explains, once hormonal hunger is eliminated calories and appetite tends to self-regulate which helps greatly the average person lose excess bodyfat. Also, it is not accurate to say: a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. The type of calorie matters. A calorie of flaxseed oil is less apt to wind-up as bodyfat than a calorie of lard (see NHE). Also, someone who is eating a hormonally incorrect diet (that suppresses fat-burning hormones) needs to eat further below maintenance than someone who is eating a hormonally sound diet. Conversely, if you need to restrict calories in order to get super-lean, you are much better off doing it within the framework of NHE so that the anti-catabolic effect can offset or minimize muscle loss.
Steve Holt:
You wrote: Here’s where the confusion lay: there’s a difference between the dietary prescription optimal for reducing excess bodyfat and the dietary prescription optimal for going from “lean” to “super-lean.” Judging from your picture and the fact that you are a vegetarian, it would seem safe to assume that you maintain a lean physique year-round. When a bodybuilder gets on stage he or she is not looking to impress the spectators with a “lean, fit physique” but rather to bedazzle them and the judges with an abnormal and sensational degree of muscular definition. The general NHE Eating Plan does not claim to take an already lean athlete and turn him into a contest-ready Mr. Universe contestant (you may have to consult Dave Draper for that). Depending on one’s metabolism, deliberate calorie restriction may be necessary to look like a walking anatomy chart.
-Sorry, but I really can’t agree. While I might look like an anatomy chart for a competition, I sure don’t during the off season. My BF rises to 12-15%. If your diet works, it should certainly work for these BF levels. Unless this is a diet for more obese folks, in which case it should be spelled out as such.
You wrote: One reason I don’t recommend calorie counting is because how am I supposed to know how many calories a given person needs to achieve their objectives?
-It’s simple. There are formulae for determining maintenance calories (The Harris-Benedict formula, The Katch-McArdle formula, etc.). Or on a simpler level, the dieter can begin with levels around 10-12 calories per lb. of bodyweight.
You wrote: Here’s what I’d need to know, at minimum, to even have a chance at providing a competent estimate of how many calories you should consume.
1) what is your weight?
2) what percentage of your body mass is muscle?
3) what type of metabolism do you have? “Fast”? “Slow”? “Medium”?
4) How often do you work-out and what is your workload?
5) Besides actual workouts (and the new book, HIE, goes into this) what is your “non-workout activity level”? Is one relaxing on the beach when not lifting or participating in other vigorous activities or sports?
-Points 1 and 2 are rendered unnecessary by the maintenance calorie calculation. Points 3-5, related to metabolic activity, will be dealt with as the maintenance level is tweaked.
You wrote: It seems to me that a book that tells people how many calories to consume without first finding-out the answers to these questions, belongs in the fiction section.
-Not at all. Like I said above, all one needs to know is their maintenance calorie level. Their goal will then determine any deficit or surplus thereof.
You wrote: As NHE explains, once hormonal hunger is eliminated calories and appetite tends to self-regulate which helps greatly the average person lose excess bodyfat. Also, it is not accurate to say: a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. The type of calorie matters. A calorie of flaxseed oil is less apt to wind-up as bodyfat than a calorie of lard (see NHE).
-Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics?
You wrote: Also, someone who is eating a hormonally incorrect diet (that suppresses fat-burning hormones) needs to eat further below maintenance than someone who is eating a hormonally sound diet.
-Ok.
You wrote: Conversely, if you need to restrict calories in order to get super-lean, you are much better off doing it within the framework of NHE so that the anti-catabolic effect can offset or minimize muscle loss.
-That is the best point you make.
Rob:
First, I’d like to thank Dave and Laree for giving me the opportunity to address this forum. It has been fun and we’ve sold quite a few copies of Natural Hormonal Enhancement and Hormonally Intelligent Exercise as a result. I’d also like to thank the forum members for their engaging participation, and for giving me the chance to answer questions. I hope we can do this again, and I welcome questions and comments sent to me directly at [Email]nheauthor@extique.com.[/Email]
Steve,
I’m not going to rehash my prior response, which I believe addresses the issues re-raised in your latest letter. But hopefully this whole matter can be settled by addressing your question, the core and crux of the issue, which is:
You wrote: Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics?
As explained in NHE:
The "laws of thermodynamics," which are the basis and rationale for calorie counting DO NOT APPLY. The four reasons, discussed in NHE, are as follows.
1. Certain types of fat are more readily burned for energy than other types, which are more readily stored. This has to do with the chemical structure of the fat and oxidation rate. It is simply not accurate to suggest that medium chain triglycerides (MCTs), flaxseed oil, and lard, undergo the same metabolic fate in the body. If the studies cited in NHE don't impress this fact upon you, then you should consider reading some of Dr. Udo Erasmus's writings (regarded by myself and others as the foremost published authority on facts and oils).
2. Thermogenesis (and there’s an entire chapter devoted to this in NHE, 16), which concerns the calorie burn associated with digesting and processing food, varies for protein, carbohydrate, and fat.
3. Chapter 9 of NHE cites many scientific studies showing that metabolism slows-down or speeds-up to compensate for differences in caloric intake. So if you reduce caloric intake by 10%, let's say for example, and your metabolism counterregulates by slowing down by 7% - that 10% reduction is of meager practical consequence. Furthermore, counterregulation may be minimal initially, then increase in response to a reduction in bodyweight. P. 66 of NHE describes how the body uses thyroid output, thermogenesis, and alterations in the hormone leptin to “waste” calories. “Wasting” of calories (and it’s opposite, conservation) is a vital evolutionary mechanism, and directly contradicts thermodynamics as a rule governing metabolism in complex living organisms like you and me. If the law of thermodynamics governed, the human race would have been lost.
4. NHE p. 68 says: “The calorie counts for foods are obtained by burning food in a calorimeter and measuring heat produced. TO ASSUME THAT THE SAME RULES THAT GOVERN COMBUSTION IN A CALORIMETER GOVERN HUMAN METABOLISM IS LIKE SAYING THAT BECAUSE LIFE EXISTS ON EARTH IT MUST EXIST ON PLUTO. Nonetheless, the values of four calories per gram of carbohydrate and protein, and nine calories per gram of fat, which are approximations conceived almost a hundred years ago, have become a central figure of dietary mythology.”
Whether one wants to use the term “mythology,” “fiction,” “fantasy,” or “make-believe” – the facts are the same and existing science does not support the calorie theory. We can pretend it does, advise others concerned about improving their health that it does, but it doesn’t.
But let’s go ahead – for argument's sake - and assume all the published research cited in NHE is dead wrong.
You wrote: Points 1 and 2 are rendered unnecessary by the maintenance calorie calculation. Points 3-5, related to metabolic activity, will be dealt with as the maintenance level is tweaked.
So you agree with three-fifths of the argument, which is the functional equivalent of agreeing with the whole thing because the issue here (lest we forget or allow it get obfuscated in this long thread) is what instructions can realistically and competently be provided BY THE AUTHOR. I did not say or suggest that it was impossible for someone to figure-out “1 and 2” - weight/percentage of muscle mass. And once you have this information you can use “Harris-Benedict Formula,” “Katch-McArdle Formula,” or any other formula you please, it will not – by the terms of your own letter – get you past determining “maintenance" calories. But if two people are 175 lbs and have equivalent muscle mass (maintenance calories equal) but one exercises more, has a faster metabolism, and leads a more active lifestyle outside the gym, the difference in the amount of calories each will need to reduce fat or build muscle is enormous. So if an author doesn’t (which he cannot) account for these factors, when he offers numerical instructions about how many calories to consume, he is providing potentially misleading and disserving information. In other words, it’s the “tweaking” and “determining” referred to in your letter that an author cannot do on his end for each reader.
You wrote: While I might look like an anatomy chart for a competition, I sure don’t during the offseason.
“Walking anatomy chart” refers to Mr. Universe, Dave Draper, but I will take the opportunity to say your physique looks excellent – keep up the good work.
You wrote: NHE didn’t work for me.
This is the essence of the matter. From the early part of this thread it seems clear that there were some important substantive parts of NHE that were not available to you. And since NHE extols the virtues of meat and is designed for the 95-or-so percent of people who are omnivorous (like our ancient ancestors), whereas you are a vegetarian, I’m not surprised that you don’t subscribe wholeheartedly to NHE. Even assuming that you applied NHE as instructed and with full willingness to adopt a diet that runs counter to the one you promote, it may just have not worked for you. Not even penicillin is effective in all people; there are always non-responders. But if you go back and re-read this thread, read the relevant parts of NHE, then try it again and stick to it, I believe there’s a very good chance the results will be positive like for so many others. However, you seem highly committed to vegetarianism and until such time as you decide to introduce protein-predominant foods into your diet, NHE is going to be difficult for you to follow correctly. As I’ve said, though, vegetables have great health benefits in their own right, and a diet that doesn’t allow for ample vegetables (unlike NHE) is one I would recommend against just as ardently as you would.
Steve Holt:
You wrote: You wrote: NHE didn’t work for me. This is the essence of the matter. From the early part of this thread it seems clear that there were some important substantive parts of NHE that were not available to you. And since NHE extols the virtues of meat and is designed for the 95-or-so percent of people who are omnivorous (like our ancient ancestors), whereas you are a vegetarian, I’m not surprised that you don’t subscribe wholeheartedly to NHE. Even assuming that you applied NHE as instructed and with full willingness to adopt a diet that runs counter to the one you promote, it may just have not worked for you. Not even penicillin is effective in all people; there are always non-responders. But if you go back and re-read this thread, read the relevant parts of NHE, then try it again and stick to it, I believe there’s a very good chance the results will be positive like for so many others. However, you seem highly committed to vegetarianism and until such time as you decide to introduce protein-predominant foods into your diet, NHE is going to be difficult for you to follow correctly.
-Obviously I've touched a nerve...
Do you really consider a vegetarian diet inferior to a meat-based diet? I didn't want to get into a debate as to the merits of a vegetarian diet, which are so well documented in so many large and long-term studies. As for the references to "our ancestors", I think its fair to say that they died young and contracted disease frequently. And I'm sure I don't know what you mean by "protein-predominant foods" that I am lacking, unless you've forgotten about eggs, dairy, soy, and wheat gluten.
If you go back to my original post, you will see that I was not attacking your book or your diet. I thought you wrote a great book and I learned a lot from it. But the diet didn't work for me. And it sure seems to me that the reason you studiously avoided a calorie count as part of the diet was because you assumed that eventually the dieter would automatically move to a hypo-caloric regime due to diminishing hunger. That was not the case for me.
Rob:
Steve, the reason why correcting false health information is so important is because tens-of-thousands of people die each year because of it in America. I don’t take any of this personally, so your statement that you “touched a nerve” is as imaginary as the calorie theory. However, I must acknowledge having been to convalescent centers, hospitals, and cancer wards more often than I wish, false health information does make a health researcher and author feel an obligation to provide a correction where possible. Sometimes such efforts are appreciated, sometimes they aren’t, sometimes they perturb those whose misleading statements are being contradicted. But it makes no difference, because I intend to fulfill my promise to stamp-out health misinformation wherever it crops-up.
Your post says, about our ancient ancestors: ". . . it's fair to say. . . they died young and contracted disease frequently.” They died young because their predators were not vegetarians, and because infant and mother mortality are high when birthing occurs in a swamp, savanna, or cave. As far as contracting disease frequently, there’s a critical difference between 1) infectious diseases in the pre-inoculation/pre-antibiotic era 2) degenerative diseases like clogged arteries and Type II diabetes. So assuming "fairness" and truthfulness have some relation, it does NOT appear "fair to say. . ."
Thank you for clarifying that the “vegetarian bodybuilders diet” includes eggs and other animal products. It certainly makes sense that a bodybuilder of impressive muscle mass would be eating animal protein. Egg is probably the best all-around form of protein when you consider price, ease of preparation, and bioavailability. For my part, though, I like having the option of eating a filet mignon, or a mature chicken, when eggs are not available.
Steve Holt:
You wrote:Thank you for clarifying that the “vegetarian bodybuilders diet” includes eggs and other animal products. It certainly makes sense that a bodybuilder of impressive muscle mass would be eating animal protein. Egg is probably the best all-around form of protein when you consider price, ease of preparation, and bioavailability.
You are welcome for the clarification. One final correction though... my diet does not include animal products, but rather animal bi-products. For our purposes, the latter is defined as any animal derivative which does not axiomatically involve the death or injury of the source animal. ie You do not need to kill the cow to get the milk; you do not need to kill the chicken to get the eggs. This is in contrast to an animal product ingredient like lard or beef tallow, etc. which you'll find in many baked and other foods.
You are absolutely correct in your statement regarding eggs - in terms of AA profile and BV, this is the highest quality protein and one of the highest quality foods available.
You wrote: For my part, though, I like having the option of eating a filet mignon, or a mature chicken, when eggs are not available.
-That is of course a personal choice everyone makes. But in terms of bodybuilding, such a choice did not help my competitors at the Ontario Provincial Championships this year. :^)
All the best, Rob.
On general NHE questions:
I have read both of your excellent books. Regarding the exercise program, this is a radical change from my lifting over the past 17 years (I am 47 years old). My workout is now around one hour, lifting weights three times a week (instead of 1 1/2 to 2 hours, five days per week). But, even after working out to failure, I still desire more of a workout. Is it a matter of sticking with the program exactly as you have printed it in your book or should I add some sets or reps until I feel satisfied? (I am trying to avoid breaking my muscles down, but my current muscle mass would be better than an intermediate at my age).
I have changed my diet to comply with the cycle suggested in the book (I am not overweight, I am simply trying to maintain my current excellent health... and maybe gain a few pounds). Breakfast is my downfall. I do not like eggs and most dairy products (I drink soy milk, when I need something like milk). Cerial and bread are loaded with carbs as well as oatmeal. Should I just drink a protein drink for breakfast? What do you eat for breakfast to keep carbs low? Can you recommend a recipe book for a low carb/high protein breakfast? Mike
Rob writes:
Taking your questions in reverse order, others have asked me the same question regarding breakfast. Your “downfall” is not breakfast itself but rather your buying into stereotypical notions of which foods should be eaten when. Your options for breakfast are no wider or narrower than for any other meal. You may not be conditioned to eat a salad for breakfast, but why not?
Regarding your exercise program, bodybuilders tend to be obsessive about certain things (like body building). Your urge to weight train two hours per day, five days per week is probably pure obsessiveness, because you know better from having read Natural Hormonal Enhancement and Hormonally Intelligent Exercise. The same drive that takes you to the point of failure tempts you to overtrain. I’m sure Arnold could attest to this, and so can the Bomber. It’s a trait of all champion bodybuilders – they’re more likely to overtrain than to undertrain, because if they were prone to undertrain they wouldn’t be champion bodybuilders. You need to conform your workouts to the research in NHE and HIE, so that exercise can be a means of promoting anabolism to ward-off age-associated degeneration – not just a routine overtaxing grind. It’s great that your commitment to training is still as strong as ever at 47; and that should be an inspiration to others. But you can do better, and if you follow the exercise schedules and instructions in HIE, you will do better.
On when to eat carbs:
There has been some discussion of when to consume your carb's....Throughout the day...in the A.M. or in the P.M. for best results?.....Does it matter the type of metabolism you have, i.e. fast, slow? Thanks in Advance Rob....we all appreciate you taking the time to be here. Art V
Rob writes:
I don't think it matters much the type of metabolism you have as far as when to consume carbs. I recommend carb-loading as the last meal of the day but not right before bed, for reasons explained in NHE.
-----
One of your (and my) nutrition idols, Dr. Michael Colgan, advises that one should consume carbs with whey protein after exercising. His rationale for this is twofold: 1) Your body needs fuel so badly after emptying its glycogen stores that these carbs do not cause the usual insulin spike, and are instead shuttled directly into muscle tissue, and 2) Consuming carbs with your protein after a workout aids in absorption of the protein through cell walls, and hence kick starts the hypertrophic process.
I'm wondering why you eschew consuming carbs in a post workout meal if it doesn't cause a spike / subsequent fall in insulin levels? And has Dr. Colgan come around to your opinion in recent years? (i.e. since OSN was written) Mark
Rob writes:
I don’t think anyone has contributed more to fitness and nutrition during the last 25 years than Dr. Michael Colgan. If we instituted a Hall of Fame for this most important field of publication, Colgan would be inducted at the opening ceremonies.
Dr. Colgan has extensive experience in the health industry and he was training world-class athletes long before the current research came out (cited in my book Natural Hormonal Enhancement) showing that a cyclical high-fat diet with periodic carb-loads may produce markedly superior results by allowing access to two metabolic pathways (glycolytic and lipolytic) rather than predominately one (glycolytic), and conditioning the metabolic system to utilize glycogen more efficiently. Setting that aside, it’s important always to carefully clarify the objectives at stake. There’s a difference between a diet optimal for sports performance and a diet optimal for health, just like there’s a difference between training for optimal sports performance and training for optimal health. The general NHE Eating Plan (as compared with the bodybuilders' NHE Eating Plan – a different diet based on the same principles) is not designed to maximize sports performance so it’s very possible that the esteemed doctor’s diet is, in fact, superior to the general NHE Eating for purposes of athletic competition.
On NHE and testosterone production in women:
Hi, Rob, and thanks so much for visiting and answering our questions.
The book "touches" on testosterone production in women, but doesn't really talk much about it. I realize that all the hormones SHOULD work in synergy - but for menopausal women (either natural or surgically induced)... it seems that we will get testosterone only from adrenals (unless we practice HRT that includes testosterone).. so.. will NHE increase testosterone production for women, too? And how directly is muscle-building linked to testosterone production? I, like many women, used to think that the only way to lose "weight" was drop calories. I got real good at the starvation diet! Just the last few years I realize that I probably destroyed my metabolism, and my thoughts are, if the thyroid and adrenals are "exhausted", there's probably virtually no testosterone production taking place... again, just my opinion...
I hope the question makes sense; it was difficult for me to try to express.
Thanks again, ...Liz...
Rob writes:
I understand what you are asking.
Natural Hormonal Enhancement applies to women, too, but less so than to men, in regard to sex hormones only. The two key metabolic hormones, insulin and glucagon, can be controlled naturally to the same extent in men and women. NHE's prescriptions for enhancing growth hormone also apply to both men and women. With respect to sex hormones, however, women have less control because nature has decided that the monthly hormonal whirlwind that governs fertility reigns supreme. I have come across studies showing that the hormonal effects of exercise are different depending on time of month. Enhancing hormones naturally assumes an outputting organ, so if the hormone is not being produced it cannot be enhanced. As you point out, this prompts inquiry into HRT that includes testosterone as a means of post-menopausally restoring female sex hormones to youthful levels.
-----
So, is muscle-building linked so closely to testosterone production that if there IS virtually none being naturally produced, the hope of building muscle is ... um.. none? I'm not talking about Ms. Olympia proportions - it's more that I know in my past yo-yo or starvation diets that I lost muscle... and I'm just hoping to regain some of what I lost (if that makes sense, what I'm asking). Thank you, Liz
Rob writes:
The clinical studies show convincingly that elderly women can dramatically increase bone density, muscle mass, and power output. These findings are partly attributable to the fact that the women began at a very low baseline - but nonetheless it establishes beyond doubt that the physiological mechanisms for growth are available to be turned-on with the proper training prescription, at any age. Older women find it more difficult to build muscle mass than younger women, but the same applies to men. The relative age-related drop in testosterone levels in women isn't that much different than in men, it just happens more abruptly (and mens' testosterone levels have farther to fall).
On ketosis:
How important is it to get into ketosis during the delpetion phase? Also, are there any other daily tests besides the keto strips that would be helpful, like say using a glucometer every morning? CCrow
-----
When I am doing NHE I only reach ketosis on the long downcycle. You may very well be in ketosis and not show on a ketostix. Blood ketone show up first then ketones show up in your urine.
Glucose levels can relatively high (too much protein) and you can still be in ketosis.
If you are a lifter you may very well use all your ketones and not have "extrag" spilling into your urine. NHE is not necessarily a "ketogenic" diet. Not showing in a ketostix doesn't mean you are not in ketosis.
There is a glucose / ketone meter available that tests for blood ketones. It costs about 160.00 for the unit and 8 keto test strips will set you back about 28.00.
Being in ketosis is not as important as having your metabolism shifted to be a fat burner. Your body can be in fat burner mode and not necessarily be in ketosis. Jag
Rob writes:
Dr. Atkins is credited with having popularized ketones, and the sticks you buy at the drug store, which when peed upon, turn purplish if ketones are present in the urine. Ketone testing has added a much needed element of suspenseful fascination to the otherwise boring and mundane urinary process. But the significance of ketosis for fat burning is overrated in general; and, specifically, it has limited relevance to the NHE Eating Plan. The only thing that a purple ketone stick signifies is that fat is being burned in a low-carb environment. Whether the fat burned derives from bodyfat or food (or a percentage from each) is not evident from the result of a ketone test. And just as the presence of ketones in the urine does not prove that bodyfat is being burned, the absence of ketones in the urine does not prove that bodyfat is not being burned.
The questions I get on this subject fall into two categories. 1) NHE practitioners who test negative; and, therefore, infer that they must be doing something wrong. 2) NHE practitioners who test positive; and, therefore, infer that they must be doing something wrong. Both of these groups are wrong in drawing this conclusion. (There are two other groups of people who test either positive or negative; and, therefore infer that they are doing everything right. This conclusion, too, is unwarranted, but these folks are less motivated to inquire because they believe based on the results of the ketone test that they are succeeding rather than failing - which may or may not be the case.)
To those who fear ketosis because supposedly it is dangerous (and are not diabetic nor have any other metabolic condition): ketosis is neither the hazardous nor unhealthy condition that the high-carbohydrate folks insist on saying it is. To those who fear ketosis because they believe that ketosis is a catabolic state: it's not. However, chronic low-carbohydrate consumption, which coincides with ketosis, precludes optimal anabolic hormonal enhancement (see p. 139 of NHE). The NHE Eating Plan is not a "chronic" but rather a "cyclical" low-carbohydrate diet, and it is designed to be more anabolic (and more lipolytic), calorie-for-calorie, than a chronic low or high carbohydrate diet.
To those who covet a grape-colored ketone stick, I have news for you as well: Just because one IS NOT in ketosis does not mean that one IS NOT burning bodyfat; and just because one IS in ketosis does not mean one IS burning bodyfat. So what does ketosis mean? Short answer: Fat is being burned incompletely.
Ketones are partially burned fat fragments regularly produced by the liver from fatty acids. They then travel through the bloodstream where they are utilized for energy by most of the body's tissues, especially the heart which burns ketones preferentially. When one is in a fat-burning state and insulin is low, fatty acids are mobilized from adipose tissue in greater quantity. This along with a diet comprised of a higher fat/carb ratio makes more raw material available for the liver to produce ketones. However, it is not the greater mobilization so much as the impaired metabolization of fatty acids that causes ketones to accumulate, and consequently appear in the urine, stool, and breath (the three main avenues by which excess ketones are excreted from the body). By impaired metabolization, I don't mean that the body cannot get all the fatty acids/ketones it needs, but rather that it must break down more fat from food and adipose tissue than it needs (because some of it is literally leaking away). In other words, the fat-burning process becomes less efficient (which is actually good from the standpoint that some fat leaves the body without having to be burned). The reason it becomes less efficient is because, as the saying goes, "fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate."
For non-diabetics, long before ketones in the blood rise to a dangerous level, insulin is called forth to exert its anti-lipolytic effect, halting the release of fatty acids from adipose tissue so that the ketones in the blood can be disposed of without more being produced. In a Type I diabetic, who has no anti-lipolytic insulin to counterbalance lipolytic glucagon, fatty acids rush from adipose tissue and food unchecked, and get converted by the liver into ketones at a rate that exceeds the body's energy needs and outstrips the body's capacity to get rid of them. Consequently, the blood level of ketones, which are acidic, escalates to toxic levels causing coma then death if not treated quickly. This is called diabetic ketoacidosis. Notice the word "diabetic"; if that doesn't describe you, "ketoacidosis" doesn't apply to you. One final note of particular relevance to bodybuilders: the higher one's muscle/fat body composition ratio, the more difficult it is to turn a ketone stick purple.
...
continued next post...
