Home / Articles / Q & A / Appetite for Construction - Jun 21 2002

Appetite for Construction
Jun 21 2002

By Dr. John M Berardi, Ph.D.
First published at www.t-mag.com.

Printer friendly version

New Research

To start out my column this week, I'd like to briefly discuss some interesting new research I recently saw presented at a small and informal seminar given at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

Coffee Drinkers Beware!

While there were several interesting topics presented, including a lecture given by a MD/PhD and research superstar Wim Saris who confirmed all of my incessant ramblings about the value of protein and amino acids with glucose and maltodextrin in a post-workout drink, the topic I found most interesting was the research presented on caffeine/coffee and insulin sensitivity.

For a while now I've been cautioning my clients and T-mag readers about the ill effects caffeine and typical thermogenic agents have on insulin sensitivity. Well, at the University of Guelph they've been investigating this issue intensively and here's what they found:

1) Caffeine intake (in all of its forms) decreases whole body glucose disposal (carbohydrate uptake) by 15-30%.

2) Caffeine intake decreases skeletal muscle glucose disposal by 50%.

3) When consumed with a standard carbohydrate breakfast, caffeine decreases insulin sensitivity, leading to large increases in blood insulin. But even in the face of this insulin surge, blood glucose doesn't disappear at a normal rate. When the body can't take up carbohydrates properly (as when drinking coffee), it releases loads of insulin to help out. However, the coffee actually prevents the insulin from doing this job and you end up with high insulin and glucose. That, my friends, is the serum profile of the obese, type II diabetic.

4) Caffeine decreases insulin sensitivity for at least three hours (this is the duration of the longest study they've performed), but the true duration of the effect isn't known. I speculate that it's at least five hours, the half life of caffeine.

In this case, many people are probably walking around all day with impaired insulin sensitivity. If you're a coffee drinker you should realize that you're living your life like a diabetic except during the times that it could actually be diagnosed. When you go to the doc to see why you're so fat or you feel like crap (if you have any glucose or insulin tolerance problems), what do you have to do? You have to fast overnight and avoid coffee! So 99% of your waking life you're functionally diabetic and that 1% of the time when it really matters and can be diagnosed, you're not. No wonder experts suggest that 50% of North Americans are diabetics who aren't diagnosed as such.

5) In one study, four groups were used to evaluate the effect of caffeine and glycemic index on insulin sensitivity.

o The first group got decaf and a low-GI breakfast. They saw a normal blood glucose and insulin response.
o The second group got decaf and a high-GI breakfast. They saw a bigger insulin and glucose response in the blood.
o However, when the low GI group got regular coffee with breakfast, their blood profile was worse than that of those who got the high-glycemic breakfast and decaf. Therefore coffee/caffeine can turn a low glycemic meal into a high glycemic meal!
o Finally, the group that drank coffee and had the high-glycemic meal ended up looking like diabetics.

6) One interesting hypothesis generated at the seminar was as follows: In terms of insulin sensitivity, caffeine alone is worse than coffee and obviously (as seen above) coffee is worse than nothing. However, some people believe that certain substances in coffee (specific quinides) can actually increase glucose disposal and improve insulin sensitivity. While the quinide content of coffee isn't strong enough to counter the effects of the caffeine, the quinides in decaf coffee may actually increase glucose and insulin tolerance. This hypothesis still needs to be tested and proper doses have yet to be discussed; however, keep your eyes out for this research in the near future.

So the final word on coffee and caffeine is this - stay the heck away from it! The only way to minimize the damage it causes may be to drink your coffee with a very low carbohydrate meal and eat only low carb meals for the next few hours after your coffee intake. I know, I know, it now sucks to be a coffee drinker! But giving up your java may bring you some great health and physique benefits.

Rice and Nuts: Bad Foods?

Q: I notice you don't mention rice in the "good carbs" list you provided in one of your Lean Eatin' articles. How come? And what about peanuts? You say to eat mixed nuts, but to avoid peanuts. What's up with that, homey?

A: While peanuts are good sources of monounsaturated fatty acids, they do present problems for enough people to exercise caution. At least 1 to 3% of the US population (that's about three million people) is estimated to have peanut allergies. If you're among this group you probably already know it since Skippy undoubtedly has sent you to the emergency room.

While I don't have a lot of support for my caution, I'm cautious about hyper-allergenic foods for the remainder of the population (i.e. milk, peanuts, etc). I speculate that food allergy isn't an all or nothing thing. There's probably a spectrum to food allergy, meaning that certain foods may not cause anaphylactic reactions, but may lead to "sub-clinical" problems, meaning physiological stress.

In normal peanut allergy, the body produces an immune response to some of the components of the peanut. This response leads to an intense physiological stressor (anaphylaxis - the throat swells shut). However, if my speculation is true, then many individuals may experience some type of milder "stress" as a result of the allergen.

As you well know, whenever the body is suffering from stress - whether training stress, job stress, or digestive stress - cortisol levels rise. Chronic elevation of cortisol is linked to muscle growth impairment, increased fat gain, and risk for many disease states.

Due to the high likelihood of peanut allergy (however mild it may present) and the stress that's associated with it, it's wise to just avoid peanuts and other allergenic foods altogether. Although I realize that peanut butter has been a dietary staple of my iron brotherhood for generations, there are certainly better sources of dietary protein out there as well as alternate sources of dietary fat.

As far as your rice question, my rationale is this: Simply put, I avoid recommending very carbohydrate-dense foods, despite what the glycemic or insulin indices tell us. While rice and pastas are reasonable on these lists, these foods provide a very large amount of carbohydrate in a small serving size and they are low in fiber. This makes it easy to overeat on these foods by randomly selecting portion sizes. But even if you do moderate your servings, these foods may end up leaving you unsatisfied due to the low volume to calorie ratio.

Boys Have A Penis - Girls Have a Vagina

Q: Do females need fewer calories than males? Or do we just assume that since most females are smaller and have less muscle than males? Does the female body treat carbs and fats any differently? My girlfriend has a hard time figuring out her calories and the Massive Eating and Growth Surge guidelines seem way to high. Any tips for the ladies?

A: When in comes to weight training and dieting, women sure are unique creatures. But just because this has been recognized, doesn't mean that it's been characterized. Simply put, there's a lack in the exercise and nutrition research looking at the caloric and exercise needs of females.

Over the years, it's become obvious that when on hyper-caloric diets, women tend to store more fat. This may be due to the fact that women can't dissipate extra calories as heat (upregulated metabolic rate) to the same extent that their male counterparts can. This means that when overeating, they tend to gain more fat and less muscle than men do.

In addition, women get double whammied because when dieting, they tend to down-regulate metabolism and thyroid activity very quickly. So they have a hard time losing a lot of body fat without a combination of severe energy restriction and huge energy expenditure.

So why is this? Well, some people think that women have evolved to be "thrifty" with their energy. And this makes sense because they are the sacred vessels that have been appointed to create and carry future generations. Think about it this way: Back in the dawn of human activity, the principle of "survival of the fittest" ruled. And during those days, food was scarce and seasonal. The women who could survive long periods of food deprivation were the ones to procreate and pass on their genes. The genes of the women who couldn't survive were wiped out.

But what determined survival? It could have been the ability to store energy efficiently so that when food was plentiful, they would pack it all away (as stored fat) for when the food wasn't so plentiful. In addition, survival meant that when food was scarce, these women held on to their body weight in the face of energy restriction.

Nowadays, food is always plentiful - too plentiful - so this mechanism is no longer needed, but it lingers in our genes. The genes don't know any better.

Getting away from the evolutionary theories, there are some data showing that not only are women disadvantaged when it comes to losing fat and gaining muscle, there are some interesting regional differences (anatomically speaking) in this regard. I recently read an interesting study by Nindl et al. in which the researchers took a group of women and subjected them to 24 weeks of plyometric, aerobic, and weight training. These women maintained a maintenance or slightly hypocaloric diet throughout this time. So what did they find?

There was an interesting distribution of the fat loss as follows:

• There was a total fat loss of six pounds.
• About half of the fat loss came from the trunk (abs, chest, back, etc.)
• The other half of the fat loss came from the arms.
• No fat was lost from the legs whatsoever.

There was also an interesting distribution of muscle gain as follows:

• There was a total lean body mass gain of two pounds.
• Most of this weight gain (1.5 pounds) came in the legs.
• The other half pound came in the trunk.
• No muscle was gained in the arms.

If you think about this study in depth, you'll realize the trunk and arms lost about 11.6% and 30% of their original fat content (respectively) while the legs lost nothing. Now that's some wacky spot reduction. Unfortunately, we're not in control of what spots to reduce.

In addition, the women in this study gained muscle only in their legs with very little gain elsewhere, indicating that the body parts have a mind of their own. Now if we could figure this phenomenon out, that would be a breakthrough in nutrition and exercise science. But since men are still trying (unsuccessfully) to figure out women in general, it may take some time.

One interesting analysis reported in this paper was that men and women tend to have a unique hierarchy of fat mobilization. Men lose fat in their abdomen/trunk first, then their arms and then their legs. Women lose fat in their arms first, then their abdomen/trunk, then their legs.

Now it should be clear why women have difficulty when using male energy formulas and when trying to determine how to look best in their sexy little thongs. So what can they do to fight a few thousand years of evolution?

Well, for starters, they can shave a few calories off my Massive Eating and Don't Diet calculations. Those calculators were created based on normative data collected on male athletes. Research can't tell us exactly how many fewer calories they need but if you figure that the average guy is 180 at 15% body fat and the average woman is 130 at 25% body fat, the women have 28% less body weight than the men while having 36% less lean weight. This means that women have, on average, 8% less "metabolic power."

Therefore, when using the Massive Eating and Don't Diet calculations, subtract 8% right off the top. While this accounts for "muscle mass" differences, it does nothing to account for "storage thrift." I typically think that using an additional 10% reduction is reasonable. So, a woman should eat between 15 to 20% fewer calories than my Massive Eating guidelines suggest.

But it's not so easy when eating to lose fat mass. As I mentioned earlier, women tend to experience large reductions in metabolic rate with energy restriction. Therefore, by simply hacking away at their daily food intake, they lose metabolic power and the fat loss stops in its tracks. So, when dieting to lose fat I recommend that women use exercise preferentially over dieting while men use dieting over exercise.

Practically speaking, I suggest that women subtract 15 to 20% from the Don't Diet calculations and then use exercise to shift the energy balance equation in favor of fat loss. As the diet progresses, exercise duration and frequency should increase and calories should only drop as an extreme last resort.

In the end, women and men have a different genetic agenda. By respecting that (or should I say "disrespecting" the woman's genetic program to store fat), women can begin to take control of their fat loss.

Now, as far as that regional fat loss stuff (the stubborn leg fat) - we'll talk about that another day.

40 Days and 40 Nights?

Q: I keep hearing about the health benefits of fasting and how a short fast can "detoxify" the body. I know some old-timer bodybuilders would use short fasts sometimes, too. What do you think of short term fasting?

A: I think that short-term fasting makes me hungry - stark, ravenous, prison-camp hungry. That's right, I've tried fasting before and let me tell you, when your nickname is "Massive Eating Berardi," fasting ain't easy.

So why did I do it? Well, I'm fascinated by physiology and have always been a physiological daredevil. Some might even call me the Evil Knievel of physiological manipulations. In fact, many of the most hardcore T-men would go fetal if I discussed some of my abuses.

So, when some holistic, papaya-juice drinking, granola-head friends of mine told me about their regular foray into juice fasting and how amazing it made them feel, I stood - metaphorically speaking, of course - at the edge of the grand canyon, ready to jump.

So why and how would one fast? Well, forgive me as I go Eastern medicine and philosophy on ya, but here comes some touchy-feely stuff. According to the fasting experts, juice fasting is the most effective way to detoxify the mind, body, spirit, and emotions, while promoting energization and relaxation. These individuals believe that the average person's unhealthy, highly processed, and highly toxic diet (their words) contributes to many symptoms of toxicity and ill health - including their physical and mental/emotional health.

In response to this, they believe that the abstinence from food for periods of seven or more days can rejuvenate, purify, and heal the body and bring about greater spiritual awareness. But rather than complete abstinence from nutrition, it's recommended that one consume easily digestible juices and a whole lot of water. In one holistic practitioner's words:

"Fresh juices are easily assimilated and require minimum digestion, while they supply many nutrients and stimulate our body to clear its wastes. Juice fasting is also safer than water fasting, because it supports the body nutritionally while cleansing and probably even produces a better detoxification and quicker recovery."

Personally, I'm always intensely curious and maintain a healthy skepticism about health and dietary practices that seem to have been around for thousands of years yet have shaky sounding physiological bases and next to no research support. Certainly, fasting fits into this category.

When evaluating the merits of such practices, there are two ways to proceed. The first is to simply give them a try and evaluate the outcome. And many individuals who have followed short-term juice fasts are strong supporters of the outcomes. However, there are weaknesses to their testimonies since they often enter into a fast as strong believers of the practice - so, of course, they see some benefit. In research we call this the placebo effect.

The second way to proceed is to deconstruct the practice into its component parts (i.e. physical, mental, emotional, spiritual "regeneration"), evaluate them individually and in relation to the whole organism, and generate a priori hypothesis (a pre-measurement guess) as to whether fasting will offer any benefit or not. While this latter method has its weaknesses (the body doesn't work as independent parts but as an integrated whole), that's the nature of empirical research as well as the nature of this column. So here we go.

In my humble opinion, when evaluating the fasting pamphlets and the words of fasting practitioners, there are a few glaring weaknesses. While these weaknesses are certainly not fatal flaws (i.e. not enough to invalidate their claims), they are enough to give one pause.

One of the weaknesses I mention lies in the fact that fasting has a tradition steeped in philosophical and religious rite. Voluntary abstinence from food has been a tradition in most religions and has been used for such things as penitence, preparation for ceremony, purification, mourning, sacrifice, union with God, and the enhancement of knowledge and powers. Even Jesus Christ was a believer in fasting.

Unfortunately for the credibility of the historical argument, many of these same individuals often believe that drinking their own urine is a reasonable thing to do! From the historical perspective, it's easy to understand how fasting would be vociferously advocated since it's played such a large part in the tradition of people's belief structures. As we all well know, religious and philosophical belief structures are the most vehemently adhered to, often in the face of reason and logic (Catholics, see The Crusades).

However, this alone isn't enough to discredit the practice. Perhaps fasting became such an integral part of the culture because of the consistent physical benefits it offered. One integral part of the Biblical fasting ritual included "going to the waters," a euphemism for going to a river or lake, inserting a hollow reed into the rectum and irrigating to "flush the evils" from the bowels. This is the precursor to the modern day naturopathic practice of colon flushing.

Therefore, the fasting ritual did include some physiological manipulation. When it's recognized that people believed that "Satan" or "evil" was manifest physically in the form of illness, it's understandable that physical ailments and treatments were associated intimately with the spiritual and the religious. So we can't discredit fasting on these grounds.

Current research in rats and in humans has been showing that caloric restriction increases longevity due to an increase in tissue turnover, altered liver and gastrointestinal structure and function, and a modification of the redox (oxidation-reduction or the oxidant-antioxidant) state of the body. So perhaps there is something to this fasting phenomenon? Unfortunately, short-term fasting is just too short in duration to promote many of the structural and functional changes its proponents claim that occur.

On a side note, I'd like to quickly address the caloric restriction thing. While the caloric restriction proponents are singing the praises of low-calorie diets, part of the benefit of such programs is that these individuals make better food selections when eating their low-calorie diets. So the secret may be in the food choices, not in the lack of food.

Furthermore, many of the changes seen with caloric restriction are also seen with regular strength and endurance exercise. While caloric restriction may be needed to enhance health and longevity in sedentary individuals who have no regard for smart food decisions, for us iron heads that spend our lives dedicated to training and proper nutrition another approach is warranted. If your goals are to maximize muscle mass while being healthy, perhaps the key to longevity lies partly in eating a lot of food but making good food choices (see my "Lean Eatin'" articles - parts 1 and 2). In addition, our regular program of exercise will bring complementary benefits to enhance the positive effects of our smart food decisions.

This discussion is relevant to even short programs of fasting since fasting is justified most often in the condemnation of the average person's food choices. However, if you follow an excellent dietary regimen, many of the "toxicities" and ailments that fasting is supposed to help are nonexistent to begin with.

Another major weakness of the pro-fasters is the same complaint I have against many chiropractic practitioners. The pro-fasters claim that fasting can and will have opposing effects. For example, I've had chiropractors tell me, in colorful language, that the adjustment will either make me feel better, worse, or no different. Gee, thanks for the prognosis, doc! After my root canal my dentist can at least tell me that I'm going to feel like shit.

While they say that fasting is rejuvenating and promotes positive health and big increases in energy, here are some contradictory claims from their materials:

The tongues of most people will develop a thick white or yellow fur coating, which can be scraped or brushed off.

Bad breath and displeasing tastes in the mouth or foul-smelling urine or stools may occur.

Skin odor or skin eruptions such as small spots or painful boils, may also appear, depending on the state of toxicity.

Digestive upset, mucusy stools, flatulence, or even nausea and vomiting may occur during fasting.

Some people experience insomnia or bad dreams as their body releases poisons during the night.

The general energy level is usually good during fasting, although there can be ups and downs.

Every two or three days, as the body goes into a deeper level of dumping wastes, the energy may go down.

Great, so my energy may go up, down, or stay the same. My skin may break out in painful boils, may get better or stay the same. My digestive system will spill out noxious fluid and be upset, may get better or stay the same. Talk about noncommittal!

Again, while these contradictions aren't fatal flaws, when the most forceful proponents of fasting don't seem to have a clue as to what fasting does, it makes me wonder why the heck I would trust in their advice.

So at this point, I've covered some of the weaknesses of the fasting argument. But what about the benefits? A simple internet search will provide thousands of testimonies as to the tremendous benefits of a short term juicing fast. However, these benefits aren't necessarily physiological in nature. These case studies often describe the mental and emotional benefits before physiological ones. But I certainly won't discredit these benefits simply because we can't measure them. Like I said earlier, there are thousands of years of tradition that point to fasting as a way of enlightenment, and I can see how this could occur.

When dieting for bodybuilding shows, the body is deprived of adequate caloric intake. It slows down and becomes much less physically active. In the absence of physical activity and nervous activity, there's much more time for calm and relaxed thought. This may be where the spiritual stuff comes into play.

So, to tie this discussion together, it's important to realize that the proponents of fasting claim there are spiritual, mental, emotional, and health benefits to fasting. The mental stuff I can see, but the physical stuff is questionable. The dramatic claims for benefit tend to be emphasized in those who are sedentary and follow unhealthy eating patterns. These aren't the same individuals who are reading T-mag, training regularly and intensely, and eating as per my recommendations.

So here are the questions a T-mag reader might ask and the answers I'd give:

Are there any muscle building or fat-loss benefits with healthy fasting?

No.

Are there any benefits to fasting when my diet is already very complete and I'm making excellent food choices?

Probably not.

Are there any spiritual or mental benefits with healthy fasting?

Maybe.

Are there any benefits to fasting for my sedentary, overweight, Krispy Kreme eatin' mother-in-law?

Yes. (Now be nice and try not to convince her to drink her own urine!)

Diet Vacation

Q: Ian King and others recommend taking an "off" week after so many weeks of near continuous training. Generally speaking, what should my diet be like in my off week? Part of me wants to eat more to help with recovery; the other part of me says to eat less to make up for the fact that I'm not expending as much energy. Your thoughts?

A: Perhaps you can try fasting during your off weeks. You might recover better, you might feel the same or your might not recover at all!

Okay, I'm just kidding.

In all seriousness, I believe that regular off weeks are integral to your progress and that what you choose should depend on whether your primary goal is to get bigger, to recover or to get leaner. I understand many of you want to be bigger and leaner, but in order to achieve success, you had better prefer one of those two. In addition, your psychological state should play a role in your decision. Below I'll address each of these situations.

Getting Bigger and Recovering

If your goal is hypertrophy or recovery from a sport-specific program, your goal should be to eat as per your normal diet for non-training days. If you're smart, you should already be eating more calories on training days than non-training days. So during your non-training weeks, simply follow the same diet you ate on the non-training days. You can't supercharge recovery by eating more. All that extra energy will either be stored as fat or be burned off as extra energy. The decrease in energy expenditure will allow that normal caloric load to help with repair and replenishment.

Getting Leaner

If trying to get ripped, it's fine to take weeks off from training. Just be sure to factor in the lower energy expenditure by lowering your energy intake.

Psychological State

Often, intense athletes and weightlifters will follow very regimented training and nutrition programs. While they may take regular breaks from training to help with physiological recovery, the value of psychological recovery isn't discussed often enough. A week off can be very effective in rejuvenating training desire. As far as diet goes, however, athletes often plug away with the same old eating plans, making the diets boring and dull, thus increasing the likelihood to "cheat" more often than necessary.

If dietary staleness creeps in from time to time, the off week from training might be a great time to take a break from your standard nutritional program as well. Sometimes I'll personally just take a week off training and spend that week eating for pleasure rather than eating like it's my job. Rather than seven or eight meals, I'll stick to three good, satisfying meals per day (choosing a lot of very healthy foods but not being afraid to have some meals that would normally be considered "bad") and throwing in an occasional tasty treat here and there. I usually end up eating about the same or fewer calories than I would have during a regular training week anyway, so my mind benefits, my muscles recover, and my body comp doesn't suffer.

So, choose your goal and eat appropriately!