Barbells and Beakers

Latest Posts

Do you have to “Eat Clean” to lose weight?

One of my major pet peeves is when people tell you the reason you’re not losing weight is because you’re not “eating clean.” What does “eating clean” even mean? You can buy a ton of books on these “lifestyle changes” that involve cutting out sugar, soda, sometimes dairy, sometimes fruit, anything processed, etc. For some people that is hell on earth – you cut out 99% of some peoples diet. I can understand why people tell you this. It’s a lot easier to lose weight when you’re eating cups and cups of spinach (which can be like 20 calories a cup) versus downing a whole 1,200 calorie pizza in one setting. But do you really NEED to eat clean to lose weight?

No. And if someone tells you that, slap them with some science yo.

First, let’s look at the nutrition professor who lost 27 pounds in two months eating just Twinkies, Hostes cakes and other gooey treats. He took a multivitamin and had one protein shake a day, but otherwise he ate Cartman-style meals for 2 months. And lost weight. And improved his cholesterol. His only requirement was to eat 1,800 calories a day or less. Considering his maintenance caloric intake is about 2,500 (according to him) this was enough to cause a serious deficit conducive to losing weight. He. Lost. Weight. Does he recommend this diet to anyone else? No, he doesn’t. He makes an important point though – some people in poor states live like this day in and day out. They only have access to a convenience store and there’s no grocery store for miles. I did an article on this, so you can read it here.

There’s also a marathon runner who sent a PR of 2:34.14 after eating nothing but McDonalds for 30 days. Spoiler alert: he lowered his cholesterol too. (If this freaks you out, google some articles about how Morgan Spurlock’s “Supersize Me” is kinda a total scam)

Now you’re asking, where’s the science? This is just some dude eating crap and losing weight, big deal. Don’t worry. There’s been a TWO YEAR study comparing diets of groups of people by changing their macronutrient intake and showing weight loss over this time. Some people ate only 15% protein, others 40% fat, etc. They wanted to know if the amount of calories you ate were more important than what you ate. Guess what? Calories won. It flew in the face of previous studies that only lasted 6 months or less testing various diets (Zone, Atkins, etc.) on different people. Long term calories are all that matter.

Now, I know what you are thinking. Losing weight =/= health. And you’re right! It doesn’t! These studies don’t take into account building muscle and needing adequate protein, or meeting your daily vitamin nutrients, or any of that fun stuff. However, this series is about metabolism and losing weight, so I’ll assume you all know this.

So no, you don’t have to “eat clean” to lose weight. Calories are king. Do you eat clean because it keeps you fuller longer? Because you genuinely enjoy vegetables and fruits? Is eating cleaning turning out to destroy your social life? Ask yourself these questions before you buy into this idea that you can or cannot eat certain foods in order to lose weight.

July 4, 2012 Metabolism Series, Myths, Nutrition, , Read more >

What is the Thermic Effect of Food?

The thermic effect of food is the small increase in BMR that happens when you eat. It’s the main drive behind the “eat 4-6x a day” because the theory is that if you eat 6 times a day you’re causing a “spike” in BMR 6x a day versus 3x a day. However, this is grossly misunderstood. The “spike” is directly related to the amount ingested.

Say we have two people eating 3000 calories a day – one person eating 1,500 calories twice a day and one eating 600 calories 5 times a day. Let’s also pretend these people have a TEF (thermal energy of food) of 10%. The first person burns 150 calories twice a day with the spike, the other 60 calories 5 times a day. Both burn 300 calories from the thermal effect of food.

It differs when the calorie count differs – but then your weight loss is based on calories, not the thermal effect of food. Yeah, someone eating 3,000 calories a day burning 300 is burning more than someone eating 2,000 calories a day burning 200. That’s not because they’ve increased their frequency of the meal, but because they’ve increased their calorie count.

July 4, 2012 Metabolism Series, Nutrition, Science, Read more >

Hands OFF the treadmill!

  • Holding onto the treadmill creates a “fake walk” or “fake run” situation. Depending on how you’re distributing your weight onto your hands, you may actually be creating a lighter body load onto your legs. Since your legs hold some of the largest muscles in your body (and, you know, help you walk) cheating them from a good workout is only cheating yourself.
  • Your arms and shoulders sway in an unnatural fashion to accommodate the new movement, causing unwanted strain. Many chronic treadmill-holder-oners complain of shoulder pain.
  • You’re cheating your lower back muscles, which typically engage to stabilize your core and keep you upright.
  • You ruin posture. This is especially true of tall people, or people with short arms. Your body isn’t angled the way it is in the real world, and often you must hunch, lean, or otherwise screw up your posture to compensate.
  • Holding on reinforces improper spinal alignment. Your foot cannot extend fully so you take smaller step lengths. This can cause repetitive stress injuries in your hips.
  • You burn fewer calories (about 20% fewer) by essentially under exerting yourself. We already know the machines suck at counting your calories for you, now you’re making it think you’re engaging multiple muscle groups when really you’re cheating.
  • If working at an incline you’re creating an even more unnatural posture. imagine you’re hiking, or running up a hill…do you unnaturally lean back and hold your arms out in front of you? No. If the incline is at 10% and you’re holding on while leaning back, your body is now at a 10% incline.
  • You’re cheating your body of balance. The world has many uneven surfaces we often walk on without handlebars in front of you to hold onto.
  • Holding on at fast speeds can raise blood pressure due to the grip plus the speed.

Let go of the handlebars! Walk at an incline that you can maintain, don’t jack it up to impress someone else. You are at the gym for yourself. Pick speeds that you can maintain, don’t hurt yourself trying to show off.

July 1, 2012 Exercise Read more >

What does it mean to “lift heavy”?

You hear a lot of people advocating for men and women to forgo the mindless reps and trade it in for “lifting heavy.” Much like “clean eating” this is an ambiguous term that is often met with blank faces.

What is “heavy”?

How do you judge “heavy?”

Can you look at someones workout and say with assurance, “Yeah, that’s heavy”?

Nope, you can’t.

Heavy is a relative term. To “lift heavy” means that your 8th, 10th or 12th rep is extremely hard. Some people would argue that “lifting heavy” means your 5th rep should be nearly impossible. It’s really up to the individual to decide what is or is not heavy for that person.

For example, when I first started lifting weights it was really hard for me to curl 7 pounds. I think in December of 2011 I was fighting for that 10th rep. Now, some 5 months later I feel the same way about 20 pound weights.

As your level of fitness changes, so does what it means to “lift heavy.”

Don’t feel bad that you’re squatting the bar, or benching the bar, or even are trying to work your way UP to the bar. EVERYONE started at square zero, and if people make you feel inferior because you’re not squatting or dead lifting two plates then they’re judgmental assholes and you shouldn’t listen to them anyway. Once upon a time these same people were struggling to get one rep at the same weight you are.

No one comes out of the womb with a two plate squat.

In conclusion, “heavy” is a relative term. As long as you’re working hard, breaking a sweat, finding your workout challenging, etc. you’re lifting heavy. There are no rules, no guidelines, just you and your body.

You know your body best. Heavy is relative. 

June 20, 2012 Exercise Read more >

The Myth of “Toning”

When asking people (especially women) about their goals with weight loss and fitness they normally respond with, “Well, I’d like to tone up.” Like “clean eating,” the term is ambiguous. Google it, you’ll get THOUSANDS of articles. “Want to lose cellulite? Tone!” or “Tone up those problem areas!” Dictionary.com has a definition after a long list of ones involving sound that basically says “strengthen ill-used muscles.”

Lots of weird words for a very simple concept.

First of all, “toning” implies that you can spot reduce. They give you specific exercises for specific areas of the body, like your inner thigh, muffin top, etc. They have you powering out multiple exercises targeting one or two muscles in hope that you “replace that fat with muscle!”

It doesn’t work that way. Fat and muscle are two completely different things. Fat is our storage form of energy, muscle is what we use to move (along with tendons, ligaments, etc). They are two completely different things and one does not simply *become* the other. When you do strength training exercises you are increasing the diameter – not the length – of the muscle. Increasing your heart rate, eating below your maintenance calories, etc. will cause fat loss – but in no particular area.

Let me repeat that – fat loss does not happen in one area because you “worked” that area out. It is 100% determined by genetics as to where you gain or lose weight first/last.

That’s the myth of toning – the idea that crunches will give you a 6 pack, that the adductor machine will give you a thigh gap, or that running will only burn leg fat. You lose fat based on genetics, you gain muscle

June 15, 2012 Exercise, Myths Read more >