Date post: | 16-Apr-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | thomas-abich |
View: | 129 times |
Download: | 3 times |
In Part II of our hard-hitting interview with Charles
Poliquin, Charles delves into the taboo issue of drug
use in competitive sports. He discusses the evasion
techniques of the old East German Olympic doping machine,
as well as the current state of drug culture in professional
sports, including football, basketball, and hockey. Charles also
gives us a little more detail about what it is he does with his
elite clients at his Poliquin Performance Centers. Our inter-
view took place shortly before the 2004 Summer Olympics.
WL:What do you say to the person who says that you can do a
lot of things to build muscle and improve performance, but
nothing is ever going to bring it to the level that steroids do? You
must take anabolics to be a world-class athlete. What do you say
to that person?
CP: I think that’s bullshit really because I coach a lot of people
who don’t use anabolics. The only place it’s going to make a world of
difference is in bodybuilding. Even in track, a guy I coach, Dwight
Phillips is clean. Because of a variety of issues, I ran a hormone
profile on him. I don’t run a standard IOC drug test because any guy
with any smarts can cheat that test. So I have doctors runs test on LH,
FSH to see if anything is depressed.
WL: I always wondered why they didn’t look at that.
CP: Yeah, because that’s actually what weightlifting does. The
cleanest sport out there is actually weightlifting because weightlift-
ing chose years ago to do hormone profiling and not compound
testing. The reason they did that is to clean the sport, and it’s
obviously working because their weight performances are not what
they used to be. The trend in other sports is to get something that is
not on the list. But that is not an Eastern list. It is a Western list. That’s
why there has never been a positive Eastern on record. Look it
up. Why? Because actually at the ‘92 Olympics I had a friendly
discussion with an Olympian and he basically said,‘We were always
12 steroids ahead of the list’. So you know they would take a
steroid that they are testing, say oxandrolone, and add a chlorine
ion to modify it so the test couldn’t pick it up. Compound testing
doesn’t work.
WL: So this was a somewhat recent conversation? Can you tell me
more about what he used to do.
CP: The Wall had fallen by then and the athlete was competing for
unified Germany. He said when he was an East German, he took ana-
bolics for 20 years. He said in the original days, he used Deca
Durabolin, maybe 12 weeks out, but would switch to different com-
pounds for testing. He would use Turinabol and he knew how many
days to go off, and then he would take non-steroidal anabolic com-
pounds to prolong the affects of the cycle. They basically used
injectables and then switched to orals and then they would get to a
closer and closer period with the orals. They felt Turinabol was the
drug of choice because it maintained gains when they went off;
there wasn’t such a drop in performance. Both males and females were
on it. The difference between men and women back then was basi-
cally the time they would spend on Dianabol. They were onto other
stuff before the Wall fell too. Basically, the drug program was run by
the state security, which is equivalent to the U.S. Secret Service. It’s
maybe more equivalent to the KGB or CIA.
WL: The Germans definitely had the most in-depth doping system,
judging by a lot of the documents released the past 10-15 years.What
about China? How do you think they played into the Eastern dop-
ing system?
CP: The drug program basically set out to make the Eastern sports
system the one to beat. There was also cooperation with China. In the
80’s, the Germans were shitty at diving, and the swimmers in China
were terrible, so they swapped coaches. So they sent Eastern swim-
B O D Y O F S C I E N C E S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 3 9www.bodyofscience.com
training/nutrition
C H A R L E S P O L I Q U I N
INTERVIEW PART II
Poliquin Performance
ming coaches to China.And the Chinese sent diving coaches to East
Germany. So they started to show the Chinese the East German
training techniques, and two weeks later the swimmers were all sick.
So they asked if there was a chance it was because testosterone lev-
els were low.And they were like “um.. yyyeah”. It took the guy about
10 minutes to realize the Chinese doctor had no clue about anabol-
ics. So ok, they knew the deal. They said they would bring in these two
guys from East Germany, and now suddenly the Chinese start to
dominate in swimming.And then they got smarter with testing, and
they popped them for DHT. But anyway, so the East German doctor
and the pharmacist show up, and they gave them the anabolics to sup-
port the East German training system. But that’s where the argument
that anabolics are a requirement is bullshit, because there were coun-
tries that could actually beat the East Germans with anti-doping con-
trol. Right now Canada is doing very well in swimming, to spite no
doping. The difference is they just didn’t follow the East German train-
ing methodology. They said, well, we can’t do as much, so we’ll just
adjust the training.
So I don’t really agree with that statement. I think it was truer in
1996, and then after that there is more and more to help you outside
of steroids. Look, where there is money and profit, there are more
drugs. So like in weightlifting it is pretty much gone. But track,
swimming, cycling, tennis - probably the worst offender for steroids
is tennis, (which is)not well known by the general public.
WL: Yes, you wouldn’t think, but I have seen it myself.
CP: Do they use big dosages? No. Do they use stuff like Anadrol? No.
But they use small doses of designer stuff, just enough so the guy can
recover and play and make money every weekend. That is probably
where designer steroids first started; in tennis.
WL: So what do you think going into the Olympics this summer?
Who do you think is going in using? Do you think there is a lot with
organized doping and designer compounds?
CP: Not as an organized country anymore. It is an individual thing.
Correction, I think there is one country doing it as an organized sys-
tem and if I said it on the record, I’d get sued.
WL: Without mentioning any names, what technologies do you
4 0 S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 B O D Y O F S C I E N C E www.bodyofscience.com
The cleanest sport out there isactually weightlifting becauseweightlifting chose years ago todo hormone profiling and notcompound testing.
Poliquin Performance
Inside the Poliquin
Performance Center
see right now?
CP: Self testing, they will test themselves to see how many days you
need to stop before a test to come back clean. They’ll find, say go 28
days on this compound, 14 days on another.With orals now, the test
can pretty much pick anything within 28 days. 4 years ago, some guys
were doing 8-10 days and they would use cream form. Like one
medallist I know used an oxandrolone cream and he tested clear in
8 days.
WL: That’s really interesting. I would have thought that the trans-
dermal would have had a small delayed action effect. I would have
thought orals would have been a little bit better.
CP: So would I. For some reason, they want the cream. But you got
to realize, this guy had bodyfat of less than 4%. And also, there is a
trend after they go off steroids to use detox protocols.
WL: Can you explain what you mean by a detox protocol?
CP: They use a program to get rid of the metabolites. So like calcium-
d-glucurate. They’ll use what they basically call “pushers”, which are
large injections of detoxing compounds, and they use mainly botan-
ical liver detoxifiers that don’t mess up the androgen sites like milk this-
tle, which will actually decrease steroid absorption.
WL: I also know that milk thistle has an anti-inflammatory effect,
inhibiting the conversion of arachidonic acid to active prostiglandins.
This also would be a negative for muscle growth.
CP: Yeah, milk thistle is not popular. Guys definitely stick with
other botanicals. They also use botanicals to increase free testosterone
during the detox or clean-up phase.
WL: There’s also a test that they have to identify if the testosterone
in your body is natural or synthetic.
CP: They’ve been able to do that since 1994.
WL: Yeah, I know they developed it, but I haven’t heard they’ve
implemented it yet.
CP: I think they will implement it this year. But they’ve had the tech-
nology forever. Now they’re saying they can test for GH but I’m not
sure what’s going on with that.
B O D Y O F S C I E N C E S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 4 1www.bodyofscience.com
The gut is your second brain. Some people getdepression because they have a gut pathogen.
4 2 S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 B O D Y O F S C I E N C E www.bodyofscience.com
WL: I’ve been wondering that myself. I
k now t he y’ve s p ent a lot of mone y
working on that. They keep saying they
have something.
CP: The Australians have been pushing
for it. And they’ve had the technology for
a while.
WL: I spoke with a reporter not long
ago who assured me this year we were
going to see this test used. So what do
you think? Do you think a lot of people will
be taking the chance? I know I wouldn’t
risk it knowing the test might happen
this year.
CP: If they actually do test for GH,
they could theoretically catch 80% of
the Track & Field world. Especially in the
field events and the Shorts, anything under
200 meters, they will catch a shitload
of people.
WL: I know you don’t want that printed.
CP: That you can because it’s way more use
(pauses) than people realize. There’s a lot
of people being treated for dwarfism in Track
& Field.
WL: So you drug test people when they
come to work with you? You won’t work with
an athlete if they’re using gear?
CP: I’ve got too much money in there
(referring to his state-of-the-art training
facility). So what I do is run a saliva test,
which is as good as blood work. They do
it four times a day for 24 hours. This
way I can test testosterone, DHEA, and
I look at the ratio between all the hormones.
And the lab that I use, there is an HPLC
here, there is a RIA in Georgetown, and they
do an RIA at Georgetown so every sample is
tested twice with two different methods.
And they test 16 hormones, 4 times a day.
And we look at the ratio, so I can tell who
is using.
WL:What’s your reasoning for doing this? Is
it that you don’t want to work with people
using so that you can use your technolo-
gies? Or is it a legal concern?
CP: I think it can be done without steroids.
And the other thing too is a scandal would
ruin my business. I have to do the testing
here to protect myself. Plus, if there is a
problem with the hormones, I can correct
those through natural means. So if a guy
has too much cortisol for his training, we can
bring it down. If it’s too low, we can give
him liquor shoot to raise it so that he has
more energy. It is not uncommon to see
people with very depressed DHEA levels.
That’s mainly from over-training. And if
there is one thing I do a lot, it’s botanicals to
raise testosterone.
WL: So what about some other professional
sports. What about football and hockey?
CP: The NFL has very rigid doping controls.
In the NHL, they don’t give a shit. In the
NHL, you could put a jar of Dianabol in the
locker room, and nobody would be
interested. It’s not part of the culture. You’d
think that it was a sport that could probably
use it because they don’t test for it, but they
don’t care.
WL: That’s interesting to hear, especially
with the aggressive nature of hockey.
CP: I think in the NHL, if you ran doping
control unannounced, you’d maybe catch
four athletes. Alcohol and golf are more
interesting to them. It might be somewhat of
the “forbidden fruit” theory. If you ban it,
people will be more interested. In hockey,
they can do whatever they want, and they
don’t give a shit.
WL: So the athlete that comes to you and
says,‘I’ve got a chance to do the Olympics or
something big and I’m considering steroids,
but I really don’t want to go that route.What
can you do for me?’
CP: First, I’d take you in and do your hor-
mone profile and food sensitivity to see if
everything is normal. If they’re not perfectly
normal, then we work on fixing it, say
increasing free testosterone with botanicals.
We’ll look at your nutrition, and you’d be
surprised as to how many clients I work
with that don’t understand a lot about
nutrition. I have this one client. Her
breakfast consists of one egg, and then
she goes and trains. Obviously, genetics is a
big part. You’d be surprised as to how
common cheese puffs are among athletes.
I work with this one woman who is in the
4-person relay for sprinting. She basically
had the 7-Eleven Diet: microwave hotdogs,
cheese puffs, anything you can buy at
7-Eleven, she ate. I fixed her diet and
instantly, she started making progress. I
have a rule with my female athletes. They
have to have 50g of protein by lunch
everyday. It’s not enormous, but boom! It
makes a difference! (pauses) And also we’ve
noticed no decline in performance when
cheese puffs are dropped from the diet. In the
U.S., there are so many great athletes. One
of the reasons why we tend to do so well is
the mag nitude of the base pool of
great athletes.
WL: So you think overall, we’re not as dis-
ciplined as we could be?
CP: Nowhere near the potential. Nowhere
n e a r. I re m e m b e r w h e n I c o a c h e d
the Olympic boxing team and won Gold,
we used to look at athletes on the American-
side, and we used to laugh, ‘Imagine if we
had those guys to work with’. I remember
Hershal Walker in the ’92 Olympics,
this guy only ate French fries.We all stayed at
the Club Med, and that’s all he ate for
14 days. And the guy has an incredible
physique! I had another athlete that does
biathlon, which is basically Canadian
drive-by shooting. It’s a cross between
cross-country skiing and target shooting.
This woman ate a very strict diet, but on
the two days she won the Olympic Gold,
her pre-race meals were double-cheese-
burgers, French fries, and a Fresca. And I
asked her, ‘I’ve knows you for years,
and you’re like a granola head. How can
you eat that shit before you go and
compete?’ She said that ‘it’s the food I grew
up on as a kid, and it makes me feel
mentally secure to eat that before a race’.
And I remember the Italian girl who was
Poliquin Performance
In the NHL, you
could put a jar of
Dianabol in the
locker room, and
nobody would
be interested.
her biggest competitor in the biathlon, and
she walked by her while she was eating her
cheeseburger and we almost said it at the
same time, ‘What is she doing eating that
shit?’ I know a number of athletes that do
that.
WL: So when you work with somebody,
how much time do you spend with them?
CP: They typically come every 25 days for
3 days at a time during their off-season.
WL: How much time do they spend at your
facility during the day when you’re there?
CP: 2 hours a day. 1 hour each for 2 visits.
And the rest of the time, they see the doctors
for IV’s or acupunctures, or whatever they’re
doing.
WL: Charles, what do you have at your
facility in terms of services and equipment?
I understand it is one of the best condition-
ing facilities in the country.
CP: Yeah, we’ve got a fully equipped
weight room.We also have two doctors, and
we run every test you can think of. We do
genomic profiles; we run all the hormone
tests. We run urinalysis tests, these energy
metabolism tests, and then with all the infor-
mation we have, we develop your training.
For example, I have this athlete; he had brain
fog when he tried to play in the Stanley Cup.
It turns out he had one of the highest doses
of antibiotics, which destroyed his good
bacteria, and by destroying the bacteria, it
destroyed the neurotransmitters, which
effected brain function. We treated him to
support his neurotransmitters, and replace
the good bacteria. We do a lot of diverse
things here.
WL: So too much antibiotic can actually
affect brain functioning?
CP: Yes, 66% of the neurotransmitters
are made in the gut lining, and 95% of
the serotonin comes from the gut. That’s
where you get sayings like, ‘I’ve got a gut
feeling that this is bad’. The gut is your
second brain. Some people get depression
because they have a gut pathogen. Or lets say
Candita, which is this type of yeast. They
have mood swings and don’t understand
why.You kill the Candita, and you don’t have
mood swings anymore. Your neurotrans-
mitters are made in the intestines.And 66%
of the immune system is in the intestine. If
you have a client that typically has a lot of
cortisol, you’ll find that it compromises the
immune system.
WL: How do you feel about glutamine?
CP: I’ve used a lot of it. I use it with fat
guys as a substitute to replace glycogens after
a workout. I use about 60g post-workout.
WL: How do you feel about glutamine and
general intestinal health? Do you think it’s
overrated?
CP: No. When a guy can’t gain weight, a
quick cure is 80g of glutamine per day for a
few days. It helps them repair the gut lining
so they can absorb food better. I actually
like glutamine. I consider fat as anyone with
more than 10% body fat. Until they get to
10%, I only use whey protein, glycine and
glutamine post workout. If they get over
10%, we start using glutamine.
WL: Will you do no carbs during the whole
2 hour window post workout when you are
using glutamine?
CP: Correct. No carbs if you are fat.
WL: Charles, I know we are running way
over your allotted time, so I’ll end the inter-
view here. I want to thank you for your time!
We’ve got some great stuff here, and I had a
great time talking with you. I know our read-
ers will appreciate what you had to say!
CP: Thank you Bill! Anytime.
www.bodyofscience.com
If you have
a client that
typically has a
lot of cortisol,
you’ll find that it
compromises the
immune system.
B O D Y O F S C I E N C E S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 4 5
set of equations.
Such a theory could potentially unlock
all the secrets of nature and the universe
itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio
Katu, puts it “an equation an inch long that
would allow us to read the mind of God.”
That’s how important unified theories can
be. However, unified theories don’t have to
deal with such heady topics as physics or the
nature of the universe itself, but can be
applied to far more mundane topics, in this
case nutrition.
Regardless of the topic, a unified theory,
as stated above, seeks to explain seemingly
incompatible aspects of various theories.
In this article I attempt to unify seemingly
incompatible or opposing views regarding
nutrition, namely, what is probably the
longest running debate in the nutritional sci-
ences: calories vs. macro nutrients.
One school, I would say the ‘old school’
of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight
gain is all about calories, and “a calorie is a
calorie,” no matter the source (e.g., carbs,
fats, or proteins). They base their position on
various lines of evidence to come to that
conclusion.
The other school, I would call more the
‘new school’ of thought on the issue, would
state that gaining or losing weight is really
about where the calories come from (e.g.,
carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates
weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they
feel, the “calorie is a calorie”mantra of the old
school is wrong. They too come to this con-
clusion using various lines of evidence.
This has been an ongoing debate
between people in the field of nutrition,
biology, physiology, and many other disci-
plines, for decades. The result of which has
led to conflicting advice and a great deal of
confusion by the general public, not to men-
tion many medical professionals and other
groups.
Before I go any further, two key points
that are essential to understand about any
unified theory:
• A good unified theory is simple, con-
cise, and understandable even to lay
people. However, underneath, or behind
that theory, is often a great deal of infor-
mation that can take up many volumes of
books. So, for me to outline all the infor-
mation I have used to come to these con-
clusions, would take a large book, if not
several, and is far beyond the scope of this
article.
• A unified theory is often proposed by
some theorist before it can even be proven
or fully supported by physical evidence.
Over time, different lines of evidence,
whether it be mathematical, physical,
etc., supports the theory and thus solid-
ifies that theory as being correct, or con-
tinued lines of evidence shows the theory
needs to be revised or is simply incorrect.
I feel there is now more than enough evi-
dence, at this point, to give a unified
theory of nutrition and continuing lines
of evidence will continue (with some
possible revisions) to solidify the theory
as fact.
“A calorie is a calorie”The old school of nutrition, which often
includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a
calorie when it comes to gaining or losing
weight. That weight loss or weight gain is
strictly a matter of “calories in, calories out.”
Translated, if you “burn” more calories than
you take in, you will lose weight regardless
of the calorie source and if you eat more
calories than you burn off each day, you
training/nutrition Theory of Nutrition
“Total calories
dictates how
much weight
a person
gains or loses;
macro nutrient
ratios dictates
what a person
gains or loses”
B R I N K ’ S
UNIFIED T H E O R YO F N U T R I T I O NBY WILL BRINK When people hear the term Unified Theory, sometimes called the Grand Unified Theory, or
even “Theory of Everything,”they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory,
capable of defining the nature of the inter-relationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces,
would reconcile seemingly uncompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive
www.bodyofscience.com
will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.
This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact
that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat
approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories
matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one
reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and
so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each
day for gaining weight.
However, the “calories in, calories out” mantra fails to take into
account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and
proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless
pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin,
glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat
production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000
other effects that could be mentioned.
Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the
fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different
effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever
mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different
macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different
effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress,
etc.
Translated, not only is the mantra “a calorie is a calorie” proven
to be false,“all fats are created equal” or “protein is protein” is also
incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs.
saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and
health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their
own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins
can have unique effects.
The “calories don't matter” school of thoughtThis school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large
amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios,
calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style
diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate
intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain that calories don't matter
in such a diet.
Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very
low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old
school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have
on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human
physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!
The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in dif-
ferent amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss,
and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and
they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of
Mr.Get-Off-Your-Ass
www.bodyofscience.com4 6 S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 B O D Y O F S C I E N C E
Theory of Nutrition
“Diets with identical energycontents can have differenteffects on leptin concentrations,energy expenditure, voluntaryfood intake, and nitrogen balance,suggesting that the physiologicadaptations to energy restrictioncan be modified by dietarycomposition."
dieters, is quite clear on that reality.
The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at sup-
pressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calo-
ries and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often
from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people
can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but
the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects
often claimed by proponents of such diets.
Weight loss vs. fat loss!This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two
schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they
appear to the untrained eye.What has become abundantly clear from
the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight
we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie
intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have dif-
ferent effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other
physiological variables...
Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition
which states:
“Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or
loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses”
This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the
differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies
often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes
but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different
amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).
Some studies find, for example, people on a higher protein lower
carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another
group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher
protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or,
some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro
nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual
weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss
is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been
seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low
fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one
might expect.
Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that
examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing dif-
ferent macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human
p h y s i o l o g y e v e n w h e n c a l o r i e i n t a k e s a r e i d e n t i c a l
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).
Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked atthe issue concluded:“Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on
intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic
adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietar y
composition.”(12)
The point being, there are many studies confirming that the
actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what
is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calo-
ries has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you
starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the
“calorie is a calorie” school with the “calories don’t matter” school to
help people make decisions about nutrition?
Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand
the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of
course this does not account for the down right unscientific
and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad
books, TV, the ‘net, and well meaning friends, but that’s another
article altogether).
B O D Y O F S C I E N C E S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 4 7www.bodyofscience.com
Knowing the above informationand keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us tosome important and potentiallyuseful conclusions:• An optimal diet designed to make a
person lose fat and retain as much LBM
as possible is not the same as a diet sim-
ply designed to lose weight.
• A nutrition program designed to create
fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie
version of a nutrition program designed
to gain weight, and visa versa.
• Diets need to be designed with fat loss,
NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but
total calories can’t be ignored.
• This is why the diets I design for people-
or write about-for gaining or losing
weight are not simply higher or lower
calorie versions of the same diet. In
short: diets plans I design for gaining
LBM start with total calories and build
macro nutrient ratios into the number
of calories required. However, diets
designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!)
start with the correct macro nutrient
ratios that depend on variables such as
amount of LBM the person carries vs.
bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc.,
and figure out calories based on the
proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve
fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM.
The actual ratio of macro nutrients can
be quite different for both diets and
even for individuals.
• Diets that give the same macro nutrient
ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or
70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calo-
ries, goals, activity levels, etc., will always
be less than optimal. Optimal macro
nutrient ratios can change with total
calories and other variables.
• Perhaps most important, the unified
theory explains why the focus on weight
loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of
people, including most medical pro-
fessionals, and the media, will always fail
in the long run to deliver the results
people want.
• Finally, the Universal Theory makes it
clear that the optimal diet for losing fat,
or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal,
must account not only for total calories,
but macro nutrient ratios that optimize
metabolic effects and answer the ques-
tions: what effects will this diet have on
appetite? What effects will this diet have
on metabolic rate? What effects will this
diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)?
What effects will this diet have on hor-
mones; both hormones that may
improve or impede my goals? What
effects will this diet have on (fill in the
blank)?
• Simply asking,“how much weight will I
lose?” is the wrong question which will
lead to the wrong answer. To get the
optimal effects from your next diet,
whether looking to gain weight or lose it,
you must ask the right questions to get
meaningful answers.
• Asking the right questions will also help
you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific
poorly thought out diets which make
promises they can’t keep and go against
what we know about human physiology
and the very laws of physics!
People that want to know my thoughts
on the correct way to lose fat should read my
ebook Diet Supplements Revealed, see this
website http://www.aboutsupplements.com.
If you want to know my thoughts on the
best way to set up a diet to gain weight in the
form of muscle while minimizing bodyfat,
consider reading my ebook Muscle Building
Nutrition (AKA Brink’s Bodybuilding Bible)
at this web site: http://www.musclebuild-
ingnutrition.com .
BTW, both ebooks also cover supple-
ments for their respective goals along with
exercise advice.
There are, of course, many additional
questions that can be asked and points that
can be raised as it applies to the above, but
those are some of the key issues that come to
mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are
following to either gain or lose weight does
not address those issues and or questions,
then you can count on being among the
millions of disappointed people who don’t
receive the optimal results they had hoped
for and have made yet another nutrition
“guru” laugh all the way to the bank at your
expense.
Any diet that claims calories don’t mat-
ter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they
have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any
diet that tells you any one food source is evil,
it’s a scam. Any diet that tells you it will
work for all people, all the time, no matter
the circumstances, throw it out or give it to
someone you don’t like!
References:
1. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2000
Dec;40(4):336-42
2. Neuroscience 2002;112(2):243-60.
3. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001
Nov;281(5):E1095-100.
4.Arthritis Rheum 1998 Mar;41(3):406-13.
5. Mol Cell Biochem 2003 Feb;244(1-2):95-
104.
6.Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001 Feb;33(2):183-8.
7. Sports Med 2000 Sep;30(3):155-70.
8.Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Mar;
32(3):706-17.
9.Med.Sci.Sport.Exerc.31:1108-1110, 1999.
10. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Feb;
32(2):291-6.
11. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003 Feb;
18(2):258-64.
4 8 S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 B O D Y O F S C I E N C E www.bodyofscience.com
People that want to knowmy thoughts
on the correctway to lose fat
should read my ebook DietSupplements
Revealed
Will is the author of the best selling ebook “Diet Supplements Revealed”, as well as the best selling print
book “Priming The Anabolic Environment”, which can be found at any bookstore, Amazon.com or
Barnes & Noble. He is also a monthly columnist for MuscleMag International, a regular contributing
writer to numerous other top fitness publications, and is considered by many to be one of the world’s
leading gurus on supplements and training.
Theory of Nutrition
800.239.3951MAXLIFE4U.COM • MAXIMUMTHERAPY.ORG • WHOLESALEHORMONE.COM
• Human Growth Hormone (Generic also available)• Testosterone Replacement Therapy
(Cypionate, Propionate, Enanthate, Suspension)• Maximum Personal Enhancement• Nandrolone Deconate• Winstrol - Stanozolol• Anavar - Oxandrin• Arimidex - HCG• Viagra - Cialis - Levitra
Introducing the world’s strongest injectable fat burner!
L-CARNITINEAll orders are private and confidential.
CALL TOLL FREE or log onto one of our websites:
• Human Growth Hormone (Generic also available)• Testosterone Replacement Therapy
(Cypionate, Propionate, Enanthate, Suspension)• Maximum Personal Enhancement• Nandrolone Deconate• Winstrol - Stanozolol• Anavar - Oxandrin• Arimidex - HCG• Viagra - Cialis - Levitra
Introducing the world’s strongest injectable fat burner!
L-CARNITINEAll orders are private and confidential.
CALL TOLL FREE or log onto one of our websites:
800.239.3951MAXLIFE4U.COM • MAXIMUMTHERAPY.ORG • WHOLESALEHORMONE.COM