smallest.jpg
Home
Read the Introduction
About the Authors
Promote This Site
Articles and Media
Before and After Photos
For Wives
My Shameless Blog
Contact James

Chapter 6 - Metabolism Myth Busting

Bookmark and Share

I enjoyed writing this chapter because the subject of metabolism is the source of a tremendous amount of misinformation in the diet and exercise industry, and I love pointing out how people are full of shit. My kids and I like watching MythBusters and you can tell that the people on that show love their jobs. I don’t have a multimillion dollar budget to crash cars into each other and blow stuff up, but I found the whole aspect of the way metabolism really works to be fascinating in its logic.


Most of the “miracle cures” and fantastical new weight loss “secrets” revolve around boosting your metabolism. When I Google “boost metabolism” here are snippets of ads that I see:

  • “These three diet pills really work”
  • “Which weight loss pills work?”
  • “Amazing Chinese weight loss secret”
  • “Lose 25 pounds in 2 weeks”
  • “You can lose 30 pounds in 30 days”

Hopefully I’ve made you skeptical enough that you can see through this crap by now. The fact is that you can’t boost your metabolism; not enough to make a difference or without using dangerous chemicals (see Chapter 15 on supplements). Once you understand human metabolism and how it works you see that it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

 

The previous chapter gave you the basics of energy metabolism, and now I’m going to crush your spirit once again, because most of what I’m about to tell you is bad news. If you think you have a slow metabolic rate now, just wait until you get in shape – it’s going to get even slower. It will be elevated during exercise, but overall it is going to go down. I guess the good news in all this is that you will know the difference between metabolic fact and fiction, and will have a realistic understanding of what it takes to achieve your goals.


Again, you’re welcome. 


Myth #1

A pound of muscle burns 50 or more Calories a day while at rest.

 

Lots of people tell this one, although I’m not the first person to bust it. Popular fitness writers are waking up to the fact that this is a myth. Some writers who perpetuate this report that you don't need to do aerobic training at all because weight training adds muscle which burns more fat at rest than you can through something like running or intense cycling.

 

I wish it was true, but it isn't.

 

In fact, according to Dr. Claude Bouchard (yeah, him again), muscle has a relatively low resting metabolic rate. On average a pound of muscle will only burn an extra six Calories per day. This is marginally better than what a pound of fat burns in a day, which is two Calories.1 These are approximations and will vary from person to person, but the number will still be significantly lower than this myth states. If we believe the 50 Calories per pound of muscle myth I should be burning another 1,000 Calories a day because of the extra 20 pounds of muscle I’ve gained from weight training. I've run the numbers on my total daily energy expenditure based on my RMR, TEF and activity levels and I can tell you that it just isn't happening. Again, I would love it if were true, because those extra thousand Calories a day would taste awesome.

 

So let's use Bouchard’s numbers and do the math on what actually is happening. Since I started working out and changing my diet I've lost about 45 pounds of fat and gained around 20 pounds of muscle (both of which took a long time). The fat loss means I am burning 90 (45 X 2) fewer Calories per day and the muscle gain means I am burning 120 (20X6) more Calories per day. Net increased caloric burn = 30 Calories per day, or about half of an Oreo cookie. Fuck.

 

Why train with weights then? Well, it makes you look pretty from the neck down, makes you strong, improves overall physical performance for a host of activities, it does burn Calories during the activity (although not nearly as much as aerobic training does in the same period of time – see previous chapter), and it is good for your heart, joints, bones etc. Did I mention that it makes you pretty?

 

Since we’re on the subject of lifting weights, I want to express that it is not critical that you become a weightlifter in order to be healthy. However, I do encourage at least some form of resistance exercise. This can be done with a host of body weight exercises that you can learn about from someone else, if you so choose, because it’s not my area of expertise. The reasons why I endorse weight training are that it is the best route towards achieving vanity goals and it allows for greater strength improvements than exercises that only use your own body weight. Even more importantly, however, is the fact that most men can really get into it. Weight training is a guy thing. I think that compared to some other sports it is something that is easy to become passionate about if you approach it with the right attitude.

 

As much as I endorse weightlifting, aerobic exercise is more important for fat loss. For a guy my size, intense aerobic exercise can burn up 1,000 Calories an hour. Intense weight training is closer to 550 per hour. If you want to be trim, you need to spend some time on the former because it helps create a larger daily caloric deficit. It is better for your heart, lungs and cholesterol levels too.


Myth #2
You can lose weight on a high protein diet through the thermic effect of food (TEF). 


Fat burns almost nothing when getting stored as fat, but protein burns 25% of its Calories getting absorbed into your body via TEF.2 Kick ass, you say, but run the numbers and it's not much as you might think.

 

Take two camps. One guy eats 20% of his Calories as protein, which is more than enough for building muscle and controlling appetite (protein has a high satiety factor). The other guy makes himself eat 40% from protein because he incorrectly assumes it builds more muscle and he likes the thermic effect of food he gets from the extra protein (and maybe he believes all the low carb bullshit out there). Now, run the numbers on a 2,500 Calorie a day diet. The guy that eats 40% protein is getting an extra 500 Calories a day as protein and 25% of this is burning through TEF as part of the absorption process, but then you have to assume that these protein Calories replaced carbohydrate Calories (because many meat products contain fat, so he probably isn’t reducing that), which have a TEF of about 10%, so the total TEF gained on that 500 Calories shrinks to 15%. That works out to only burning an extra 75 Calories a day, which means he earned half a beer. Let the good times roll.

 

The above scenario also only holds true if all other things are equal, which they wouldn’t be. Carbohydrates are a vital source of energy and if he dramatically cut his carb intake then he wouldn’t have as much energy to engage in activity. That extra 75 Calories and then some would be wiped by him spending more time sitting on his ass. He'd be better served by eating more carbs to fuel protein synthesis into muscle and provide more energy. As well, cutting fat is always a good idea because of its high energy density (9 Calories per gram as opposed to 4 for protein and carbs).


Myth #3
Getting in shape boosts your metabolism. 


Nope. The exact opposite is true. First off, remember the Calorie calculator for activity level in the previous chapter? The less you weigh the lower your metabolic rate, not just RMR but the rate at which you burn Calories for all activities, even sleeping.3 I’m working on the assumption that you want to lose weight; doing so is going to lower your metabolic rate.

 

But that’s not all; by getting in shape you are making your body work better – you are making it more efficient. Think of this: you're in lousy shape and you run a mile. You sweat like crazy, your heart races, your lungs burn etc. Your metabolism is operating at a high level because it's not used to this kind of shit, and your heart and breathing rates stay elevated for a while even after you stop running.

 

Next scenario: six months later you are in much better shape and you run that same mile. You hardly sweat, your heart rate isn't that high and you aren't breathing very heavy. Also, your metabolic rate returns to normal not long after you stop. Ergo, your metabolism isn't working that hard because it has become accustomed to the exercise.

 

Guess which mile burned more Calories?


That's the sucky part. The better shape you achieve, the harder you have to work to burn Calories because your metabolism becomes more efficient at doing work; any kind of work. Even sitting at your desk you will be burning fewer Calories once you are in shape than if you're out of shape. Evolution is a real bitch sometimes. 


The fatter and worse physical condition you are in, the higher your metabolism and vice versa. Your body doesn’t want you to be too fat, so it speeds up your metabolism and decreases nutrient absorption when you are overweight and consistently take in too many Calories. There is also the fact that carrying around a lot of extra weight conducting daily activities requires more effort and therefore burns more Calories. Nevertheless, lots of folks manage to beat this higher metabolism into submission and still gain more weight by eating way too many Calories and doing the square root of fuck all for exercise.

 

Conversely, your body doesn’t want you to be too thin either because it likes to hang on to some fat stores in case of future famine, so when body fat stores drop and Calories are consistently restricted then it slows down the metabolism and makes sure it grabs as much of the Calories and nutrients out of ingested food that it can. Again, being lighter in weight also means that a person can move about with less energy expenditure. The axiom about losing the last ten pounds being the hardest is very true.

 

There is an interesting study that drives this point home. Again, we have Dr. Charles Bouchard to thank for convincing study participants to engage in some pretty rigorous experiments all in the name of science. These are the positive and negative energy balance experiments using identical twins.


The Positive Energy Balance Experiments

Twelve pairs of male identical twins were put on a diet that was 1,000 Calories per day above weight maintenance level for six days a week for 100 days (remember that there are 3,500 Calories in one pound of fat). Of course, these guys gained a lot of weight, but not as much as the calculations predicted, and there was a lot of variation among non-twin participant responses to the extra Calories (some gained more weight than others, proving that there indeed are genetic factors involved in weight gain – the twins gained close to the same amount of weight).


At the beginning of the experiment all the extra Calories translated at a one-to-one ratio of weight gain, but by the end of the 100 days this percentage had dropped to only 60% of extra Calories turning into weight gain.4 

The Negative Energy Balance Experiments
I much rather would have been in this group. This experiment used seven pairs of male identical twins and did not decrease Calories (it carefully measured and kept them constant at a “no exercise” maintenance level), but rather added a thousand Calories of activity (stationary bicycle) for nine out of every ten days for a 93 day period. This rigorously controlled experiment estimated that the participants were creating a 58,000 Calorie deficit over the course of the experiment, but in reality the average weight loss represented the equivalent of only 46,000 Calories. Running the numbers, they lost only 79% of the weight they would have expected had metabolic rates stayed the same. The good news is that, even though they weren’t weight training (just cycling), ALL of the weight loss was from fat. No muscle tissue was lost.5 However, other research has shown that you do need to include resistance exercise during weight loss in order to ensure that all the weight lost is from fat and none from muscle.6 There are so many benefits to weight training, however, that regardless of which is correct I still recommend it. 

Myth #4
The best way to burn fat is to keep your heart rate in the “fat burning zone.” 


Well, this is kind of true, but totally irrelevant. Yes, you do “oxidize” more body fat at moderate intensity levels, and burn more carbohydrate fuel at higher intensities, but think of your energy stores as one big soup and it all comes out as a wash.

 

If you’ve ever seen a heart rate chart in a gym or on a aerobic training machine then you’ve seen labels that read “fat-burning zone” at a moderate heart rate (about 60% of maximum) and “cardiovascular training zone” at a higher heart rate (75% of maximum or greater).

 

The logic works this way: at the moderate intensity your muscles burn more of the body’s fat stores than carbohydrates for fuel, and at the higher intensity muscles get most of their energy from carbs rather than fat. As you near your maximum heart rate, less than 10% of the Calories you burn come from bodyfat.7 This leads many to think that exercising at a moderate intensity causes more fat to be burned. While technically factual, it ignores the bigger picture.

 

Again, weight loss is all about fewer Calories in than Calories out. This needs to be viewed from the perspective of what is called the 24-hour energy balance. If energy (Calories) is negative, then weight is lost, if energy is positive weight is gained. Period. Yes, you may use more body fat for fuel while exercising at a moderate intensity, but in the grand scheme of the 24-hour energy balance equation this means bugger all. If you exercise and have a negative energy balance, you are going to burn those fat stores at some point in the day, no matter what you happen to be doing: eating, sleeping, working or having wild and crazy trapeze sex. The fact that the ratio of fat burned during moderate exercise was higher for fat than carbs does not matter!8

 

This is important because I don’t want you thinking that high-intensity exercise is a bad thing. High-intensity is a good thing. It’s a great thing.

 

Here’s why:

  • An hour of exercise at a high intensity burns substantially more Calories than an hour at a moderate intensity. As a result, this contributes to creating a larger caloric deficit and more fat loss over time9
  • To the above point, high-intensity exercise is a great time saver. You can burn the same number of Calories in 40 minutes of high intensity exercise that it would take an hour to burn at a moderate intensity
  • Higher intensity aerobic exercise makes you more capable of working harder during weight training sessions and other sports and activities
  • It is better at boosting HDL (good) cholesterol
  • It is good for your heart and lungs
  • It temporarily boosts metabolism after the exercise (although not to a large degree – see myth #5)10

When you are just getting started it isn’t a good idea to push intensity so much that you hurt or wear yourself out. The idea is gradual progression so that eventually you routinely engage in lengthy exercise that keeps your heart rate above 75% of maximum (maximum is about 220 minus your age).


Myth #5
Certain types of exercise burn significant extra Calories via Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC). 


The EPOC myth states that after intense exercise your metabolism stays revved up for a prolonged period of time and burns lots of extra Calories – some say far more than what you burned during the actual exercise.


EPOC does exist, but I refer to it is a myth because many have overblown it. EPOC accounts for anywhere from about 6%-15% of additional “oxygen cost” (which translates into extra Calories burned).11 For example, if you burn 1,000 Calories via intense exercise (it is a subject for debate as to whether or not level of intensity affects EPOC12) then you can expect to burn an extra 60 to 150 Calories over the next 24 hours or so because of that exercise. Big deal. Not only that, but the better shape you get in, the lower the percentage because being in good shape means your body’s metabolism returns to normal much quicker. One study found that in highly trained individuals EPOC was as low as 1% above the net total energy expenditure, and the mean among trained people was 4.8%.13 

High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)
We have Bill Phillips (Body-for-LIFE) to thank for popularizing HIIT, and since then it has been lauded by many as the ultimate fat-burning exercise, but several studies prove it to be no better than steady state high-intensity exercise. Phillips advises that you do 20 minutes of aerobics at intensities that change every minute, escalating from a perceived exertion of “5 out of 10” to “10 out of 10.”14 For example, if you do the same amount of exercise “work” (distance traveled, for example) in the same amount of time using either a steady pace or via HIIT, you will burn close to the same number of Calories, including the modest EPOC.15  Phillips stated that “the majority of calories will be used up the hour after our workouts, provided we don’t eat for one hour after our exercise sessions.”16 You get two myths for the price of one with that statement (see Myth #7).

Bill based his claims on a 1994 study by Angelo Tremblay et al., but the study was poorly represented using sketchy statistical analysis, and in reality the amount of fat lost by the participants using HIIT was very little.17 A couple of pages later Bill said, “You’ll become more metabolically efficient. Your body will burn fat at a significantly elevated rate, even while you’re sitting at your desk…”18 Uh, hello? Those two sentences completely contradict each other. Efficiency means you go through fuel (fat stores) at a much slower rate. When getting in shape, the first sentence is true, the second is wrong. 


HIIT works fine as a Calorie burner and is comparable to steady state high-intensity exercise that completes the same amount of work (such as number of miles) over the same period of time. However, I still don’t like it, and here’s why:

  • It lends itself to running on a treadmill because of the constant measured intensity changes, and I hate treadmills. Runners who do all of their running outside having higher adherence rates; they are more passionate about running. Outdoor running doesn’t lend itself to HIIT very well. I never see anyone doing HIIT outside.
  • It promotes an improper mindset. Running (or cycling) is something that is enjoyable. It is something that you can just pick your pace and go. It is therapeutic, allowing you to work through issues, plan things, or just plain daydream. Many chapters of this book were written in my head while I was running. Focusing on HIIT screws this up by making you change pace every minute. The HIIT mentality is that running is all about burning fat. In my opinion, HIIT ruins the whole Zen of running experience; I think it makes running less enjoyable.
  • For beginners, HIIT can lead to injury from the intense portions.
  • HIIT can be exhausting even for trained athletes. Several times I managed to run seven miles on a treadmill in an hour using Bill Phillip’s HIIT technique and I was wiped out afterwards; I couldn’t go any further. However, I can run seven miles in an hour at a steady state on a treadmill (and burn the same total Calories as HIIT, including EPOC) but be able to keep running for another three miles or so.
There is value to adding more intense portions to aerobic exercise where you get close to your maximum heart rate, because it can give a boost to your exercise tolerance when it comes to weight training, and being able to engage in short bursts of speed can come in handy. I once saved my son from turning his face into pizza when his feet slipped off the pedals of his bike and I raced after him and grabbed the back of his shirt right before he smashed into a parked truck. My wife saw the whole thing and was impressed; I earned major hero points that day. This is one of the reasons why whenever I run up a hill I speed up so that my heart is racing at about 95% of maximum by the time I reach the top, then I ease off to get it back down to about 80%. Also, during the last quarter mile I run as fast as I can and arrive home gasping. 


EPOC of Weight Training

Some say that you don’t need to do aerobic activity because weight training has a high EPOC. I love weight training. It’s not hard to motivate myself to do it. There are a lot of guys who, once they get the weightlifting bug, are hooked. Many men like the idea of working with weights even if they don’t currently engage in it. Conversely, a lot of men are less receptive to the idea of taking up aerobic activity like running. I think this is why some fitness authors, engaging in that despicable behavior of telling people what they want to hear, report that you don’t need to engage in aerobic activity. They say that you can be perfectly fit by just lifting weights because it has a high EPOC. This is the “new” weight training myth after the “50 Calories per pound of muscle per day are burned at rest” myth got busted.

 

Yes, there is some evidence of EPOC from intense weight training; about the same you get from intense aerobic exercise. In other words, the level of EPOC isn’t all that significant and factors hardly at all into the overall quest to burn fat, especially for trained people.

  • L. Van Etten et al. measured sleeping metabolic rate after weight training and found that it was no different that when participants didn’t lift weights.19
  • Irene Bosselaers et al. conducted a study that compared the metabolic rates of bodybuilders against lean control subjects. The bodybuilders did have a higher average metabolic rate, but further investigation revealed that this was due to their significant differences in fat free mass (the bodybuilders were huge). There was no measurable EPOC taking place from the bodybuilders intense weight-training activities.20
  • Craig Broeder et al. compared an aerobic training group with a weight-training group and discovered that “after both forms of exercise training, RMR did not significantly change…”21
  • Eric Poehlman and Christopher Melby found that when trained subjects engaged in 90 minutes of intense weight training that EPOC was 11-12% higher than normal for two hours after the exercise.22 First off, the subjects did a 90 minute session, which is totally hardcore, and second, 11-12% metabolic elevation still isn’t that much.

This information is not intended to turn you off of weightlifting; I provide it so that you understand that training with weights is not the holy grail of exercise. Yes, it is important, but sustained and intense aerobic activity is equally important.

 

Another important thing to note is that the manner in which you train with weights makes a big difference in how many Calories you burn during the exercise even when the same amount of work is completed. Intensity makes a big difference both for gaining size and strength. Fortunately, the manner in which I am going to teach you to lift to build strength, size and functionality lends itself well to maximizing caloric burn.

                                                     

Gary Hunter et al. ran the following test:

  • 17 subjects bench pressed 20% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) one time and oxygen uptake (VO2) was measured.
  • The 17 subjects then lift 80% of their 1RM one time and VO2 was measured.
  • They found that the subjects used 12 times as much energy (Calories) to lift at 80% of 1RM than at 20%, even though the amount of work done was only 4 times as much.23 Therefore, using the heavier weight resulted in three times the Calories burned for the same amount of work accomplished.
This is good news, because the intensities I want you to work at with all of your weight training activities will be mostly in the 65-85% of 1RM range. 


Whew. That myth took a lot of work to bust.


My final word on EPOC is this: ignore it. Don’t even factor it into your energy balance equations. If you’re lucky, the small amount of extra Calories you burn via EPOC will make up for the ones that you “forgot” that you ate.

Myth #6
Exercising first thing in the morning on an empty stomach burns more fat than exercising later in the day. 


Like Myth #4, this is also true, and also irrelevant. Many people have professed this one; it is popular in the bodybuilding community, which makes sense why it was yet another myth perpetuated by Bill Phillips. Phillips wrote (via Michael D’Orso) that:

 

“To further enhance the fat-burning effects of these workouts [his HIIT workouts], do them in the morning, in a fasted state (before eating). Scientific studies indicate that fat is burned much faster—up to 300 percent faster—when you exercise in the morning as opposed to doing the same exercise in the afternoon.”24

 

Bill mentions “Scientific studies,” but his book doesn’t have a single footnote or a bibliography, so I’m not sure which studies he refers to.

 

While it is true that you burn more fat by exercising in the morning in a fasted state, when put in perspective of a 24-hour energy balance it makes no difference.25 If you take in fewer Calories during the day than you consume, those same fat stores are going to be burned regardless if it was during your morning fasted run or even while you were sleeping. When you run out of easily accessible energy stores, your body metabolizes fat; no matter what you happen to be doing at the time. You don’t only burn off fat during exercise; you can be burning it at any time of day if you are in a negative energy balance.


Therefore, the best time of day to exercise is the time when you want to exercise. The time you will exercise, and you don’t need to fast beforehand. 

Myth #7
The size, frequency and timing of meals have a large effect on metabolic rate. 


Bill Phillips. Again.

 

And he’s wrong. Again.

 

Do you think Bill hates me yet?

 

According to Bill: “…studies show eating often helps accelerate the metabolism, so you burn more calories.”26 Again the word “studies” is used, but no reference is provided.

 

Eating one gigantic meal a day is a bad idea, but Bill wants you to eat six meals a day. I do not have time for that. It is impractical, as well as unnecessary. Bill says the three meals a day approach is all wrong, but the research disagrees. You should be eating a minimum of three a day, meaning three is just fine. Six is fine too if you want to do that and can make sure you keep them all small enough not to go over your caloric budget for the day. I eat three meals a day with some small snacks (like an apple or a banana) in between. Usually the snacks are timed right before exercise to give me an energy boost. I like the three meals approach for two reasons: it is far more practical than six, and they are large enough to provide me with some real satisfaction, because I like to eat.

 

Now I think I’ll quote some actual studies to back up my claims:

  • According to France Bellisle, “The notion [of high meal frequency] has been put into question by the recognition of a high level of dietary underreporting in overweight individuals. In addition, no difference in total daily energy expenditure has been documented as a function of daily meal number. Weight loss is not facilitated by high meal frequency. Snacking in obese subjects is associated with higher energy and fat intake.”27
  • M. A. Taylor and J. S. Garrow reported that, “When [equal amounts of Calories] was given as two meals per day or six meals per day there was found to be no significant difference in total energy expenditure.”28 Actually, the title of their article pretty much summed it up: “Compared with Nibbling, Neither Gorging nor a Morning Fast Affect Short-term Energy Balance in Obese Patients in a Chamber Calorimeter.”
  • Wilhelmine Verboeket-Van De Venne et al. compared two meals a day vs. seven and found that there was no difference in total energy expenditure or average daily metabolic rate.29

You don’t need to eat six small meals a day, but if you do and you’re overweight there is a chance that you will use it as an excuse to eat more, not even realizing that you’re doing so. It is easier to keep track of overall caloric intake if you eat three meals a day with a couple of small, healthy snacks.

 

On a 2,400 Calorie / day diet (which is maintenance level for me with no exercise) at six small meals a day each meal is only 400 Calories. I’m sorry, but I’m still hungry after 400 Calories. I don’t care if I get to eat again soon. I want more now! On a typical day I will eat 300 Calories worth of snacks, and three meals averaging 700 Calories each. That’s more like it. This pattern is at regular intervals and it keeps my appetite under control, allows for high nutrient absorption, and keeps my energy levels stable so I always have fuel for exercise. It’s also a lot more convenient than trying to measure and prepare six meals a day.

 

Although I discourage the six-meal a day plan, I also need to warn you about eating too infrequently. I recommend three or four meals a day. There are dangers associated with eating too infrequently:

  • France Bellisle reported that, “Obese people tend to eat little in the morning and much in the afternoon and evening. In extreme cases, a ‘night-eating syndrome’ is observed.”30 This is a common theme that obese people skip breakfast. I’m not sure why they do. Perhaps they believe that if they skip breakfast they think they will take in fewer Calories during the day, but the opposite is true. Contrary to what you might have heard or read, eating breakfast does not get your metabolism going in the morning. Hopefully you’ve learned by now that tricks to boost metabolism are mythical. What eating breakfast does do is help establish a regular meal pattern and keep appetite under control so that you don’t overdo it later in the day.
  • David Speechly et al. agree with the telling title of their article: “Acute Appetite Reduction Associated with an Increased Frequency of Eating in Obese Males.” The authors asserted that “Increased meal frequency thus induced a reduced appetite at the subsequent meal…”31
  • Astrid Smeets and Margriet Westerterp-Plantenga compared three meals vs. two meals a day and found that those who ate three a day had higher feelings of satiety over a 24-hour period. Conversely, they found that it had no difference on total energy expenditure.32
  • Taylor and Garrow reported that, “A morning fast resulted in a diet which tended to have a lower percentage of energy from carbohydrate than with no fast.”33 As you will read about in Chapter 13, healthy carbohydrates are your friend. When people reduce carbs, they often replace it with fat. This is bad.
If you want to eat six small meals a day then it isn’t bad for you. It also maximizes nutrient absorption, although I’m not sure that it is much higher than eating three or four meals a day. The point I make here is that you don’t have to eat that frequently if you don’t want to. Just don’t eat too infrequently. 


A note about Bill Phillips: Although he perpetuated a number of metabolism myths, he is not guilty of reporting blatantly false information the way many other diet and exercise writers do. Bill’s program includes weight training, aerobic exercise, healthy eating and portion control, which makes it better than many other books.


Eating Before Bed

You may have heard that eating right before bedtime is a bad idea because the food gets stored as fat while you sleep because you aren’t being active. Again, this myth contradicts the fundamental rule of the 24-hour energy balance equation. At what time of day you eat is irrelevant. How much you eat is what matters.


That being said, not eating that snack before bed is a good idea because it is a few hundred Calories fewer that you are eating and contributing to a larger caloric deficit. Tips on how to avoid the late-night snack and therefore have a greater caloric deficit for the day are in Phase 4 of this book. 

Myth #8

Eating a high-fat diet makes you fat


Technically this is not true, eating more Calories than you burn makes you fat, regardless of how much fat content is in the diet. Rudolph Leibel et al. proved this with a carefully controlled study in 1992 which was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The authors found that: “Variations in fat intake from 0% to 70% of total energy under conditions of equal energy intake produced no significant changes in body weight over periods of observation averaging 33 d [days].”34 Leibel’s study put participants on balanced energy diets: they controlled to ensure that they took the same number of Calories that they burned over a 33 day period. The participants got a varied range of overall fat content, from 0% to 70%, but everyone’s weight stayed the same.  

Weight stayed the same because they were on maintenance level Calories. It does not matter what percentage of protein, carbohydrates or fat you consume in the grander scheme of weight loss and gain. It is all the simple formula of Calories in minus Calories out. Golay and Bobbioni, in their article “The Role of Dietary Fat in Obesity,” agree: “…fat is almost exclusively used or stored in response to day-to-day fluctuations in energy balance.”35 

If you eat 2,000 Calories of butter-fried pork rinds a day, yet burn 2,500 Calories a day, you will lose weight. You will also be one unhealthy mofo. 

If you eat 3,000 Calories of spinach, carrots, and egg whites a day, yet burn 2,500 Calories a day, you will gain weight. 

Is this shit sinking in yet? 

All this being true, a high-fat diet is still a bad idea. Although it is not directly responsible in a simple cause and effect manner for weight gain, it is indirectly responsible for people being fat for two simple reasons. According to Golay and Bobbioni: “Dietary fat induces overconsumption and weight gain through its low satiety properties and high caloric density.”36 Fat has nine Calories per gram compared with carbohydrates and protein, which have only four. Its high caloric density simple means that when you eat a lot of fat, you get more than double the Calories than if you choose carbs or protein. Further, carbs and protein are proven to control appetite much better, whereas fat is hardly satiating at all.  

There has been a lot of news surrounding a so-called hunger hormone called ghrelin. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Essentially, ghrelin secretions tell us to eat. Numerous studies have shown that protein and carbohydrates have strong suppressing effects on ghrelin, whereas fat only weakly affects this hunger hormone.37 

There is also the fact that fat has a negligible TEF38, so no love there either. Pretty close to every Calorie of fat you eat counts as “Calories in.” Losing weight is about one thing and one thing only: creating a negative energy balance. In other words: cutting Calories. It is critical to understand that Calories are king, and cutting fat intake is a very powerful tool in cutting caloric intake because of the above mentioned reasons. Cutting fat intake does NOT give you carte blanche to eat as many non-fat Calories as you want. 

A comprehensive review of popular diets was published in 2001 in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association which stated:  

“Diets that are high in carbohydrates and low to moderate in fat tend to be lower in energy [which is good because energy is the same as Calories]. The lowest energy intakes were observed for those on a vegetarian diet [good for them – I’m still not doing it]. The diet quality as measured by HEI [Healthy Eating Index] was highest for the high carbohydrate groups and lowest for the low carbohydrate groups. The BMIs were significantly lower for men and women on the high carbohydrate diets; the highest BMIs were noted for those on a low carbohydrate diet.”39 

I’m not advising the elimination of fat from your diet, just a reduction. Not all fats are bad, but North Americans chronically ingest too much unhealthy fat in their diets. Advice on how to reduce fat intake and focus on healthier fats is in Chapter 13. 

Myth #9
Increasing activity level increases appetite, so you end up eating more Calories and wiping out the weight loss effect of the exercise. 


This one is so stupid the word “special” comes to mind. I could tell you the name of some diet guru who is currently preaching this one, but I don’t want to give him any more undeserved publicity. He’s another one of those guys who tell people what they want to hear: it’s not your fault, eat high fat, don’t limit Calories, and don’t exercise. Because I’m not going to name him I can call him an inbred, invertebrate, brainless bucket of crotch fungus and not worry about getting sued. Oh, and said crotch fungus? He’s fat. I’ve seen pictures of him and the guy has a Michelin-sized tire.

 

Enough; let’s debunk this stupid myth and move on.

  • Sonya Elder and Susan Roberts conducted a review of the published research in 2007 and round that there was a “failure of energy intake to increase to match increased energy requirements [caused by exercising]”40
  • Christina Wood Baker and Kelly Brownwell consulted numerous studies looking at the effect of exercise on both short and long-term energy intake and found that the difference was negligible.41
  • Kathleen Melanson et al., found minimal differences in hunger and satiety after exercise.42
  • Stephen Burns et al. found that aerobic exercise had no effect on total ghrelin levels, and that hunger levels were actually lower in the post-exercise group than the non-exercise group.43

Also important is what I mentioned in Chapter 2, that becoming a regular exerciser enhances your overall willpower. Once you integrate exercise into your life you will crave cleaner, more nutrient-rich foods to fuel more exercise, rather than the crap you’re eating now. Further, your stronger will enables you to resist junk food more frequently (not always) and avoid overeating.


Myth #10

Glycemic Index of foods is important for regulating metabolism.


Glycemic index is the level at which carbohydrates affect blood glucose, which in turn affects insulin levels. Low GI foods have a small effect on these levels, and high GI foods have a high effect (which really doesn’t matter – more on that in the next chapter on endocrinology).


My opinion about carbohydrates is simple: if nature made it that way, go big. If it has been processed to shit, then limit it. For example:

  • Apples = good / Apple sauce = not so good
  • Tomatoes = good / Ketchup = much less good
  • Whole wheat, whole grain bread = good / White bread = bad
  • Whole grain rice = good / White rice = sucky
  • Potatoes = good / Potato chips = toxic
  • Cherries = good / Cherry Coke® = [insert retching noise here]

You get the idea.


Even in their natural forms carbohydrates have fluctuating glycemic indexes, but in the grand scheme of things I don’t think it matters. If you focus on eating natural carbs then you are way ahead of the game, because as a general rule healthy carbohydrates are lower in glycemic index anyway.


I’m not the only one who thinks you should ignore glycemic index:

  • A 2008 Nutrition Reviews article found that it was “premature to include GI/GL [glycemic index and glycemic load] in dietary recommendations.”44
  • Also in 2008, Arne Astrup found that “It remains to be shown whether a low-glycemic index diet provides any benefit to weight control…”45

The funny thing is, I don’t actually completely agree with the above statements. In an indirect manner, I believe GI is important because highly processed crap carbs are high GI, and natural carbs are almost exclusively low or medium GI. Still, thinking about GI just overcomplicates things. You do not need a comprehensive list of what the various GI level of carbs is. Instead, keep it simple; make most of your carbs unprocessed and you’ll be fine.


Myth #11

Your bodyweight has a “set point.”


Your bodyweight does not have a set point, it has several. Your body will try to find a fat-balance equilibrium based on your current levels of energy intake and expenditure. It is possible to fight this equilibrium effect by beating it into submission through sloth and gluttony, continually gaining weight until you die, but even most obese people eventually level off and achieve a degree of energy balance.


Your bodyweight set point fluctuates based on your current behaviors.46 Say you start exercising and limiting Calories, then you will achieve a new, lower bodyweight set point. If you go back to your old behaviors, then you are going to go back to your old set point. You can’t just do all the work to lose weight and then expect to maintain your new weight if you go back to your old habits. I worked my ass off to achieve the body I have, and I must continue to work my ass off in order to maintain it. I am at my bodyweight set point for my current (healthy) lifestyle.


Myth #12

You can lose [insert ridiculously high number of pounds here] in only [insert ridiculously short period of time here]


Some people just really suck at math.


I just saw a video on CNN that showed how a guy lost 237 pounds in 7 months. That’s over a pound a day. This actually happened, but the guy started out at 640 pounds. He still weighs around 400 and needs to lose another 200 to get to a healthy weight level. I can guarantee that those next 200 pounds will come off a lot slower than the first 200 did.


Extremely obese people can handle rapid weight loss because they were taking in such massive amounts of extra Calories in the first place that putting them on a regular caloric intake makes it possible to lose a pound a day. This is coupled with the fact that a 640 pound guy has an incredibly high RMR (remember the calculations from the previous chapter).


For guys who need to lose 40 pounds instead of 400, there is no way we can lose weight that fast. Besides, I’ve already beat the tortoise vs. hare argument into your head.


There are innumerable weight loss books and products available that claim you can lose large amounts of fat in a short period of time. I’ll withhold names and titles to protect the guilty and just report that one very popular diet book that promises it can help you see your abs claimed one of their subjects went from 220 pounds to 190 pounds in six weeks. Let’s run the numbers on that:

  • 30 pounds of fat = 105,000 Calories
  • 105,000 Calories in 42 days = a 2,500 Calorie deficit per day

If we assume an average sedentary 220 pound guy has an RMR plus TEF plus NEAT of about 2,800 Calories a day, we could restrict him back to 2,000 Calories a day by instantly giving him a very healthy and fat reduced diet. He’d still be hungry, but let’s take that out of the equation, and we can’t go any lower than that or he may go into starvation mode (see previous chapter). This still leaves another 1,700 Calories a day that would need to be burned via added activity. This would be the equivalent of him running about eight miles each day, plus an hour of intense weight training each day. All told he would run 56 miles a week, plus do seven hours of weight training a week.


Riiiiggghhttt…


This doesn’t even take into account that his metabolism is going to start slowing down both due to the weight loss and due to an increase in efficiency (see Myth #3). By the way, the book doesn’t recommend an exercise regimen nearly so rigorous as what is outlined above. Therefore, the author’s math sucks.


The same book said you can burn off twelve pounds of fat (from your belly first – they claim) in two weeks or less. Even if we give them the full two weeks it means a 3,000 Calorie per day deficit. You already know that’s impossible, but what is also impossible is to control where you lose the weight from. Your body decides where the weight will come off, and you have no say in the matter. For the vast majority of men, the gut is going to be the last place you lose weight. That’s why you have to get to a very low level of body fat in order to see your abdominal muscles. Have you ever seen a guy with a fat ass and washboard abs?


There is a plethora of programs and products that promise rapid weight loss. Most are bogus, but some can actually work. You could read this entire book and jump right into Phases 5 and 6; exercising hard for at least six hours a week and creating large caloric deficits every week. If you did that you could lose at least two pounds a week for several weeks. BUT, do you honestly think you are ready to do that? Is your head and motivation there yet? Do you really think you could keep it up for very long or sustain it long-term? Almost nobody can. Accept that you are like the vast majority of guys in this regard, follow my advice, and take it slow. If you do that, you will succeed and you will maintain your new physique.


As I mentioned in Chapter 2, weight loss is a crappy motivator so just stop thinking about it for now. You’ve got more important things to concern yourself with, such as permanent lifestyle change. Weight loss will happen in time when you’re at a place when you can realistically commit to it. Let’s work on getting you to that place first.


The Good News

I think the most important take away from this chapter is that it uncomplicates things for you. You don’t need to worry about doing HIIT aerobics and changing your pace every minute, or how to maximize fat oxidation, or eating six times a day, or calculating EPOC, or any of the rest of that shit. It still just all boils down to: eat healthy, don’t overeat, and work your ass off at weights and aerobics. This is your formula for success, metabolism be damned.


To conclude, getting in shape and losing weight makes your body more efficient and lowers your overall metabolic rate. The act of exercising temporarily increases metabolic rate which increases the number of Calories you burn in a day so that you can create a caloric deficit and lose weight, but the longer term effect of regular exercise serves to lower the rate at which you burn Calories, both actively and at rest. It lowers your metabolic rate – anywhere from about 10-30% depending on how good shape you get in and how much weight you lose – It doesn’t make it come to a complete stop.


Take comfort in the fact that a more efficient body is a healthy one. Instead of owning a gas guzzling old clunker you now live in a finely-tuned and high-performance machine that will be able to do more and more as you get in better shape. Once you are in shape it may take 1.3 miles to burn the same number of Calories that you burned running only a mile when you were much less fit, but remember that getting in shape gives you the ability to run many, many miles further.


The lesson to be learned here is to go until you’re tired, and then go some more. Challenge your body and your endurance will improve, giving you the energy to burn even more Calories and lose more fat.

 

Go to the Next Section 

Previous Section


Notes

  1. Gina Kolata, Ultimate Fitness: The Quest for Truth about Exercise and Health, (New York: Farra, Straus and Giroux, 2003), pp. 203-231.
  2. Arline Salbe and Eric Ravussin, “The Determinants of Obesity,” Physical Activity and Obesity, Claude Bouchard (Ed.), (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000), p. 76.; Thomas Halton and Frank Hu, “The Effects of High-Protein Diets on Thermogenesis, Satiety and Weight Loss: A Critical Review,” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23 (5), 2004, p. 374.
  3. Claude Bouchard et al., Genetics of Fitness and Physical Performance, (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997), pp. 191-192; Arline Salbe and Eric Ravussin, “The Determinants of Obesity,” Physical Activity and Obesity, Claude Bouchard (Ed.), (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000), p. 73.
  4. Bouchard et al., Genetics of Fitness, pp. 189-190.
  5. Ibid., pp. 191-192.
  6. Petra Stiegler and Adam Cunliffe, “The Role of Diet and Exercise for the Maintenance of Fat-Free Mass and Resting Metabolic Rate During Weight Loss,” Sports Medicine, 36 (3), 2006, p. 258.
  7. Kolata, Ultimate Fitness, p. 97; Isabelle Dionne and Angelo Tremblay, “Human Energy and Nutrient Balance,” Physical Activity and Obesity, Bouchard (Ed.), pp. 160-161; Paul Poirier and Robert Eckel, “Adipose Tissue Metabolism and Obesity,” Physical Activity and Obesity, pp. 189-190; Stefan Bircher, “Is the Highest Fat Oxidation Rate Coincident with the Anaerobic Threshold in Obese Women and Men?” European Journal of Sport Science, 5 (2), June, 2005. p. 79.
  8. Eric Poehlman and Christopher Melby, “Resistance Training and Energy Balance,” International Journal of Sport Nutrition, 8, 1998, p. 156.
  9. R. Bryner et al., “The Effects of Exercise Intensity on Body Composition, Weight Loss and Dietary Composition in Women,” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 16 (1), 1997, p. 68.
  10. Margarita Treuth et al., “Effects of Exercise on 24-h Energy Expenditure and Substrate Oxidization,” Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 28 (9), September 1996, p. 1138.
  11. J. Laforgia et al., “Effects of Exercise Intensity and Duration on the Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption,” Journal of Sports Sciences, 24 (12), December, 2006, p. 1247.
  12. Paul Pacy et al., “The Energy Cost of Aerobic Exercise in Fed and Fasted Normal Subjects,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 42, November, 1985, p. 767; Edward Melanson et al., “Effect of Exercise Intensity on 24-h Energy Expenditure and Nutrient Oxidation,” Journal of Applied Physiology, 92, November 16, 2001, p. 1045.
  13. C. J. Gore and R. T. Withers, “Effect of Exercise Intensity and Duration on Post-exercise Metabolism,” Journal of Applied Physiology, 68 (6), 1990, p. 2362.
  14. Bill Phillips and Michael D’Orso, Body-for-LIFE (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999), p. 66.
  15. William McGarvey et al., “Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption Following Continuous and Interval Cycling Exercise” International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 14, 2005, p. 36; Nicolas Berger et al., “Influence of Continuous and Interval Training on Oxygen Uptake On-Kinetics,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2006, p. 511; Gore and Withers, “Effect of Exercise Intensity,” p. 2362; J. Laforgia et al., “Comparison of Energy Expenditure Elevations After Submaximal and Supramaximal Running,” Journal of Applied Physiology, 82, 1997, p. 665; Melanson et al., “Effect of Exercise Intensity,” p. 1045.
  16. Phillips and D’Orso, Body-for-LIFE, p. 65.
  17. Angelo Tremblay et al., “Impact of Exercise Intensity on Body Fatness and Skeletal Muscle Metabolism,” Metabolism, 43 (7), July, 1994, p. 816.
  18. Phillips and D’Orso, Body-for-LIFE, p. 67.
  19. L. Van Etten et al., “Effect of Weight-Training on Energy Expenditure and Substrate Utilization During Sleep,” Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, 27 (2), February, 1995, p. 188.
  20. Irene Bosselaers et al., “Twenty-four-hour Energy Expenditure and Substrate Utilization in Body Builders,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 1994, p. 12.
  21. Craig Broeder, “The Effects of Either High-Intensity Resistance or Endurance Training on Resting Metabolic Rate,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 55, 1992, p. 810.
  22. Eric Poehlman and Christopher Melby, “Resistance Training and Energy Balance,” International Journal of Sport Nutrition, 8,  1998, pp. 154-155.
  23. Gary Hunter et al., “Bench Press Metabolic Rate as a Function of Exercise Intensity,” Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 2, (1), 1988, p. 1.
  24. Phillips and D’Orso, Body-for-LIFE, p. 65.
  25. Bryan Bergman and George Brooks, “Respiratory Gas Exchange Ratios during Graded Exercise in Fed and Fasted Trained and Untrained Men,” Journal of Applied Physiology, 86, 1999, pp. 486-487; Paul Pacy et al., “The Energy Cost of Aerobic Exercise in Fed and Fasted Normal Subjects,” p. 767.
  26. Phillips and D’Orso, Body-for-LIFE, p. 45.
  27. France Bellisle, “Impact of the Daily Meal Pattern on Energy Balance,” Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition, 48 (3), 2004, p. 114.
  28. M. A. Taylor and J. S. Garrow, “Compared with Nibbling, Neither Gorging Nor a Morning Fast Affect Short-term Energy Balance in Obese Patients in a Chamber Calorimeter,” International Journal of Obesity, 25, 2001, p. 523.
  29. Wilhelmine Verboeket-Van De Venne et al., “Effect of the Pattern of Food Intake on Human Energy Metabolism,” British Journal of Nutrition, 90, 1993, p. 103.
  30. France Bellisle, Impact of the Daily Meal Pattern,” p. 114.
  31. David Speechly et al., “Acute Appetite Reduction Associated with an Increased Frequency of Eating in Obese Males,” International Journal of Obesity, 23, 1999. p. 1156.
  32. Astrid Smeets and Margriet Westerterp-Plantenga, “Acute Affects on Metabolism and Appetite Profile of one Meal Difference in the Lower Range of Meal Frequency,” British Journal of Nutrition, 99 (6), June, 2008, p. 1316.
  33. Taylor and Garrow, “Compared with Nibbling,” p. 519.
  34. Rudolph Leibel et al., “Energy Intake Required to Maintain Body Weight is not Affected by Wide Variation in Diet Composition,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 55, 1992, p. 355.
  35. A. Golay and E. Bobbioni, “The Role of Dietary Fat in Obesity,” International Journal of Obesity Related and Related Metabolic Disorder, Suppl 3, June, 1997, p. S2.
  36. Ibid.
  37. Karen Foster-Schubert et al., “Acyl and Total Ghrelin are Suppressed Strongly by Ingested Proteins, Weakly by Lipids, and Biphasically by Carbohydrates,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 93 (5), May, 2008, p. 1971; David Weigle et al., “Roles of Leptin and Ghrelin in the Loss of Body Weight Caused by a Low Fat, High Carbohydrate Diet,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88 (4), 2003, p. 1577; Palmiero Monteleone et al., “Differential Responses of Circulating Ghrelin to High-Fat or High-Carbohydrate Meal in Healthy Women,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88 (11), 2003, p. 5510; Monique Romon et al., “Influence of Weight Loss on Plasma Ghrelin Responses to High-Fat and High-Carbohydrate Test Meals in Obese Women,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 91 (3), 2006, p. 1034; Flavia Prodan et al., “The Nutritional Control of Ghrelin Secretion in Humans,” European Journal of Nutrition, 45, 2006, p. 399.
  38. Arline Salbe and Eric Ravussin, “The Determinants of Obesity,” Physical Activity and Obesity, Claude Bouchard (Ed.), (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000), p. 76.; Thomas Halton and Frank Hu, “The Effects of High-Protein Diets on Thermogenesis, Satiety and Weight Loss: A Critical Review,” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23 (5), 2004, p. 374.
  39. Eileen Kennedy et al., “Popular Diets: Correlation to Health, Nutrition and Obesity,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101, 2001, p. 411.
  40. Sonya Elder and Susan Roberts, “The Effects of Exercise on Food Intake and Body Fatness: A Summary of Published Studies,” Nutrition Reviews, 65 (1), 2007, p. 13.
  41. Christina Wood Baker and Kelly Brownell, “Physical Activity and Maintenance of Weight Loss: Physiological and Physical Mechanisms,” Physical Activity and Obesity, pp. 316-317.
  42. ­Kathleen Melanson et al., “Appetite and Blood Glucose Profiles in Humans after Glycogen-Depleting Exercise,” Journal of Applied Physiology, 87 (3), 1999, p. 950.
  43. Stephen Burns et al., “A Single Session of Treadmill Running has no Effect on Plasma Total Ghrelin Concentrations,” Journal of Sports Sciences, 25 (6), April, 2007, p. 635.
  44. Helle Hare-Bruun et al., “Should Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load be Considered in Dietary Recommendations,” Nutrition Reviews, 66 (10), 2008, p. 569.
  45. Aarn Astrup, “Dietary Management of Obesity,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 32, 2008, p. 575.
  46. Angelo Tremblay, “Dietary Fat and Body Weight Set Point, “Nutrition Reviews, 62 (7), July, 2004, p. S75.