In Defense of Carbs

            Recently, there has been more and more buzz surrounding the avoidance of carbohydrate as a healthy way to structure one’s eating habits.  There are a lot of misconceptions about what carbs are, what they do, how they’re utilized by the body, and their impact on health and body composition.  Unfortunately, as with most things that end up being discussed in the media to any significant degree, there is an overreaction in one direction or another.  Let’s clear up these ideas and hopefully get some people back to following sensible dietary habits.

Carbohydrates and General Health

            For some reason, what tends to happen in the world of specialized dietary practices is propagation of those practices to the general population.  I can’t explain why, but numerous special diets that are really intended to tackle a specific problem are eventually adopted by everyone as a “healthy eating practice.”  One of the biggest examples right now is the advertisement of many foods as gluten-free.  So many people seem to think eating gluten-free foods is somehow healthier for your average person.  There is literally nothing wrong with consuming gluten, unless, of course, you have a gluten allergy, or some other unique circumstance that would dictate the need for reduction or elimination of gluten from the diet.  Well, low carbohydrate diets started out the same way: a means of combating epilepsy.  A substantial amount of research has been done on low carb diets applied to this specific population.  For some reason, for which I’ve never seen a firm explanation, low carbohydrate diets do seem to stop or reduce seizures in some individuals.  So, if you are avoiding carbs to keep your seizures under control, then by all means.  If you’re part of the vast majority of the population that doesn’t have regular problems with seizures, then you have no reason to avoid carbohydrates.

            Carbohydrates tend to find themselves next to numerous micronutrients and phytochemicals which are positively associated with health.  For example, fiber (soluble and insoluble) and B vitamins (thiamin, niacin, riboflavin, and folic acid) are both found in substantial amounts in grain products, which tend to be rich in carbohydrate.  How about fruits, which contain an innumerable variety of vitamins and minerals?  In my opinion, avoiding an entire subgroup of nutritious foods like this is never optimal for your average, healthy individual.  Removing an entire source of numerous micronutrients is asking for deficiencies.  Additionally, carbohydrates themselves have an important role in the body at a minimum: brain function.  Your brain cannot operate at full capacity without some glucose, which is what carbs are broken into before entering the bloodstream.  Even if you adapt to a low carbohydrate diet and start producing ketones (a substance derived from fatty acids) as an alternative brain fuel, you still need some small amount of carbohydrate.  The brain never quite adopts ketones as an exclusive fuel source  Carbohydrates are also stored in the liver and muscle tissue as a means of producing energy, especially higher intensity activity.  Your ability to produce energy at a high rate is severely compromised without any available carbohydrate.  Thus, carbs, as well as micronutrients found next to them in some foods, are very useful to the body!

Carbohydrate and Fat Loss

            Alright, here’s the section that half of the people reading this skipped over everything else to find.  Well, this is also one of the areas riddled with the most confusion.  First of all, let’s be clear that there is both fat loss and weight loss.  Fat loss describes the loss of stored body fat; weight loss describes the loss of weight for any reason.  When trying to improve the body composition (i.e. how you look naked) or health, fat loss is what matters.  It does not improve health to reduce the amount of retained water, muscle mass, bone mass, or anything similar.  Although giving up some body water can result in more visible musculature if you’re already pretty lean, it is not possible to maintain a constant state of dehydration for any prolonged period without compromising health and/or performance.

            In the case of carbohydrates, this distinction in loss of body mass is important.  Many people suggest that low carbohydrate dieting is “more effective.”  Well, let’s take a closer look at such claims.  Carbohydrate is a hydrophilic substance.  That’s a fancy way of saying that water molecules are attracted to it.  This largely explains why people see fairly dramatic weight loss the first week or two on a low carbohydrate diet.  You are losing a lot of your body’s stored carbohydrate (several hundred grams worth), and even more water along with that.  This can account for multiple pounds of weight loss seen in the initial stages of dieting.  Although I admit this can be motivating, and hopefully perpetuate continued success, it does nothing for direct improvements in health or looks.  Some people will take this another step further and suggest that low carbohydrate diets are also more effective for fat loss.  This is also patently untrue in the sense that most people imagine it.  In an acute sense, it is indeed true.  That is, you actually metabolize more fat to power activity.  However, in a more chronic sense, there is no substantial difference in fat lost between low and high carbohydrate diets.  Chronic is what we care about: sustained fat loss over a lengthier period of time.

Carbohydrates and Muscular Hypertrophy/Performance

            Let’s take a look at the impact carbohydrate can have on getting someone huge.  When talking about building muscle, the macronutrient that gets all the love is protein.  Well, I’m here to tell you that although sufficient protein is important, there is a point of diminishing returns.  The highest protein intake I have ever seen supported in a study is 2g protein/kg body weight.  For those who are lifting weights and looking to increase muscle mass, a range of about 1.5-2g/kg is frequently suggested.  So, for a 175lb person, that’s about 120-160g of protein per day, which equates to 480-640 calories per day.  That’s a fairly small portion of the required calories for the day if you’re trying to gain mass.  Where are the rest of the calories going to come from?  You definitely want some portion to come from fat, but recommended daily intake typically falls between 15-30% of total calories.  So, if you’re smart, a big portion will be coming from carbohydrates.  Carbohydrates are extremely anabolic because of their insulinogenic (result in increases in insulin production) nature, and also provide the primary type of fuel needed to power sets of resistance training geared toward muscle growth.  Carb intake for the day for an individual looking to increase muscle mass should be about 5-7g/kg.  Again, for our 175lb individual, that would be about 400-560g of carbs per day.

            As well, carbohydrate provides an especially potent boost to performance and muscle growth when consumed before and after a workout.  This is true for both endurance and strength performance alike.  For those competing in endurance events, if you haven’t looked into carbohydrate loading or consumption during a race, I suggest looking into it.  Performance improvements from ingesting sufficient carbohydrate, especially when properly timed, is well documented.  Also, for those interested in getting big and strong, carbohydrate ingested before or after a workout has been shown to increase protein synthesis (manufacturing of new proteins) dramatically.  Most people think protein shakes are the best thing to consume around a workout.  Yes, protein is important, but protein ingested alone doesn’t do much; carbohydrate ingested alone actually does quite a lot.  The two consumed together is the sweet spot, with suggestions ranging from 2-4x more carbs relative to protein.

Go Eat Some Carbs!

            If you haven’t gathered, I think including sufficient carbohydrate in your diet is quite important, especially for more active individuals who can take advantage of the performance benefits.  I am of the mind that excluding any major food group from your diet is not optimal for health.  Different food groups all bring something to the table, and losing out on the nutrition that group provides just doesn’t make sense to me.

            This article isn’t a license to eat a bucket full of noodles.  Even if carbohydrates are important for numerous reasons, many of the forms you find them in are quite calorie dense.  You should be aware of this and moderate accordingly.  However, total elimination is not the answer.  This is Michael Phillips signing off, preparing  to go eat a Chipotle burrito to keep my muscles fueled.

Is CrossFit For You?

Introduction

The fitness industry is filled with so many fads and marketing gimmicks, it can be hard to check the abundance of choices against the facts if you don’t have the time or energy to research.  There are endless pieces of exercise equipment, workout videos, and training philosophies you could be pulled into using without really knowing if it’s suited to your goals and personal characteristics.  

CrossFit is a style of training that has seen a massive surge in popularity recently.  From where I am typing this, there are at least two CrossFit gyms within walking distance.  Although I don’t think CrossFit is necessarily a bad fitness regimen to follow, I also don’t think it’s the holy grail of fitness as some believe.  Just like any training program, you need to make sure it’s the right one for you.

Training Experience

Before embarking on any fitness endeavor, it’s always a good idea to make sure your level of fitness is sufficient in the prerequisite areas.  Do you have some base level of cardiovascular fitness?  Do you have sufficient levels of strength to perform things like high intensity plyometrics safely?  These kinds of questions, among others, are important to ask yourself before participating in CrossFit.

In my opinion, CrossFit is not a suitable training program for a total beginner.  You need to make sure you can perform the prerequisite movements properly before you are forced to perform them in timed circuits, while experiencing high levels of fatigue, or progressions from those basic movements.  For example, if you can’t perform a proper deadlift, then you have no business performing power cleans.  I would advise spending time with someone who can teach you movement proficiency in these basic movement patterns, such as a personal trainer.

My suggestion is that you have at least a year of consistent resistance training under your belt.  This means lifting a minimum 2-3 times per week (Ideally more like 3-5) with very few hiccups along the way.  This would classify you as an intermediate lifter according to most.

Goals

CrossFit is not suited to all goals that people want to accomplish.  Thankfully, one of the goals it is fairly well suited to is fat loss.  The first priority of a training program when trying to lose fat should be maintenance of muscle mass.  Secondary to that, it should be about creating the largest calorie deficit possible.  Since CrossFit contains enough resistance training to maintain muscle mass, it certainly accomplishes the first goal.  Because of the fairly high volume of overall work, it is pretty good at accomplishing the second goal as well.  As well, CrossFit is fine if you just want a well rounded fitness profile.

CrossFit is not very well suited to anything that is more specific, or performance related.  Goals such as increasing muscle mass, increasing maximal strength, preparing for a half marathon, regaining mobility after a surgical procedure, and taking your tennis game up a notch are not best achieved through CrossFit training.  Thus, if you’re any kind of athlete outside of a competitive CrossFit guy, then I do not recommend CrossFit.  Your requirements for the various fitness qualities are too specific to your sport, and position within that sport.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  Because of the concept of specificity of training, not every training program can be good at everything.  CrossFit actually tries to be good at everything, but not great at anything in particular.  As the saying goes: jack of all trades, master of none.

Group Setting

CrossFit gyms typically train people in fairly large group settings.  I’m sure there are exceptions to this, but this is the standard setup.  Thus, group exercise classes have to be an environment you really like.  Some people thrive because of the social aspect, extra accountability, and mutual motivation provided in these environments.  Some people are more intimidated in this type of setting, and much prefer a more solitary approach to training.  Of course, neither is right or wrong, but merely personal preference.  Still, it’s an important consideration before you spend a few hundred dollars a month for a membership to a CrossFit gym.

Another thing to keep in mind is CrossFit culture tends to be quite zealous.  A lot of people have even suggested to me, after trying it for a while, that CrossFit gyms can feel kind of like cults.  If this type of fervent disposition of group members bothers you, then I advise finding a way to try the place out first.  You have to experience your local CrossFit gym to really know whether this is true of that particular group of people.  Generalizations are just that, and not accurate all the time.  

Other Issues

This is the section I’m using to mention a couple of general gripes I have with CrossFit training.  First of all, the lack of consistent progression is an issue in my mind.  I know that CrossFit trainees work very hard, but it’s hard to know if you’re progressing if you change things too frequently.  Haphazardly changing exercise selection, volume, and intensity doesn’t make tracking progress a realistic possibility.  It’s hard to know if something is working if you have no way to measure your progress.  However, this is not as big of an issue with the goals I mentioned CrossFit is best suited for (Fat loss or a well rounded fitness profile), so it usually isn’t going to present a huge issue.

Second, I strongly dislike their use of high repetition Olympic lifting, and Olympic lifts while exhausted.  These movements are highly technical, and have an increased risk of injury relative to many.  Olympic lifting is actually a fairly low injury sport, but competitive weightlifters are very dialed in on their technique, and they don’t perform these exercises with those problematic training variables assigned.  For most people, this poor risk to reward ratio is not something I recommend engaging in.  If you decide to participate in a CrossFit class, then use your best judgement and don’t risk injury to eek out a couple more power cleans.

Finally, I have an issue with their blanket weight recommendations on their main page.  When you look at the workout of the day, sometimes the weights suggested are ridiculously low for most, and sometimes they are practically not achievable by most.  If you plan on trying to execute some of the workouts on your own, then you need to scale their recommendations according to strength and fitness levels.  This doesn’t mean don’t work hard.  However, if you see something that is completely out of reach for you, then don’t hurt yourself trying to do it.

Summary

Just to wrap up, let me summarize the major points about who I think is best suited to try CrossFit, should they be interested:

• Non-specific goals such as fat loss or improved general fitness
• At least a year of consistent resistance training, and an understanding of the basic movement patterns performed in CrossFit
• Comfort in a group setting
• Non-athletes (Unless your sport is CrossFit)
• Good body awareness, such that you can stop an exercise before it becomes injurious

Even with all that in mind, it is almost always better to do some kind of exercise rather than nothing.  If you find that CrossFit is the only training regimen that has truly captured your attention and kept you consistent, then do it!  I realize not everyone is into exercise science, and isn’t worried about following the “perfect” program.  You just want something that makes you work hard, elevates your mood, and improves your health.  Well, if you’ve found what works for you, then stick with it.  Happy training.

Fat Loss Fallacies

Introduction

Out of all the athletes, trainers, and fitness enthusiasts that I’ve met in my life, I can count on one hand the number I have met who didn’t care about fat loss at one time or another.  It is, almost without a doubt, the main driving force behind the increased interest in exercise the world has seen in the last few decades.  Unfortunately, just like any market where the pie is large, there are plenty of people who scam and spread misinformation in an effort to get their piece.  I hope to cut through the BS and point out some commonly perpetuated fallacies on this topic.


Spot Reduction
The pervasiveness of this idea makes me want to put a screwdriver into my eye socket.  You may have also heard people refer to this as “toning.”  I think the reason people seem to hold on to this notion so dearly is because it is very appealing.   Quite simply, a localized, targeted loss of fat on the body is a physiological impossibility.  Fatty acids are mobilized into the bloodstream all throughout the body (5).  Intramuscular fat stores may be the exception to this rule (2), but oxidation of intramuscular fat does virtually nothing to enhance aesthetics.

One of the origins of this myth may be the burning sensation experienced when fatiguing a particular muscle.  This burning sensation is not representative of the amount of fat being oxidized for energy by the muscle, but of the state of acidosis the muscle is entering because of metabolic demand (5).

The exact mechanisms of exactly how much and where we lose fat are not fully understood.  The best suggestion I have found is the relationship to a certain class of adrenergic receptor on the surface of fat cells.  Cell receptors let them respond to signals from elsewhere in the body.  A higher receptor density makes the fat cell respond to adrenal hormones more readily (Most notably adrenaline), and thus more likely to release the energy stored within (3).  Therefore, the theory goes that you will preferentially lose fat from cells with a higher adrenergic receptor density and hold on to fat in cells with a lower adrenergic receptor density.   Sadly, you have absolutely no control over the receptor makeup of your fat cells.


Fat Burning Heart Rate Zone
This myth doesn’t infuriate me like spot reduction, but I still classify it as conventional gym wisdom.  The idea is that you burn a higher proportion of fat if you maintain your heart rate within a specified range.  Actually, this is 100% true.  Once you surpass the lactate threshold, your start relying a lot less on aerobic metabolism to meet energy demands (1).  However, the idea that this maximizes fat loss over the long term is misguided.  By that logic, it would be ideal to sit motionless all day long, as a resting state requires a higher relative proportion of fat oxidation to meet energy needs compared to any exercised state.

The bottom line is that creating a caloric deficit is still the most important factor influencing fat loss (1).  You expend the most calories by working as hard as you can within a given period of time.  The best thing you can do to promote increased usage of fat as an energy substrate is perform frequent bouts of vigorous cardiovascular exercise.  It has been shown that increased levels of aerobic fitness are positively correlated with increased usage of fat as the preferred energy substrate (5).  With that said, this still isn't necessarily the most effective way to actually change body composition.  Furthermore, as your fitness level increases, the “fat burning zone” will actually shift to higher intensities.  That is, individuals that have better cardiovascular fitness primarily power exercise via aerobic means at increasing intensity levels compared to untrained individuals (5).


High Reps
Frequently when trying to lose body fat, trainees will alter their resistance training programs such that intensity drops dramatically and volume goes up.  The idea is that high repetitions sets will better promote fat loss.  This is only half true.

One of the reasons for the change in training parameters reconnects with the idea of spot reduction or muscle toning.  People think this type of training promotes such a physiological phenomenon to take place which, as I’ve already explained, just doesn’t happen in our bodies.  If anything, total exclusion of moderate to heavy lifting for your resistance training program is a terrible idea.  When aiming for fat loss and operating in a caloric deficit, it becomes very important to keep lifting at an intensity sufficient to support muscle hypertrophy.  The hypertrophy stimulus makes muscle loss less likely.  At least some moderate to high intensity lifting should be a part of any fat loss program.  The more trained the individual, the higher the intensity should be.  This is the result of an increased minimal intensity threshold one must meet with increased training age (4).

With that said, some level of high repetition training has its place.   The truth is higher repetition sets result in a greater volume of work performed within the same time epriod.  This means more calories will be burned.  As well, there is a greater cardiovascular demand, potentially resulting in a greater “afterburn” effect post-workout because of elevated oxygen consumption, or EPOC (5).  So, doing some higher repetition work is fine and dandy.  The problem is when it’s done at the complete exclusion of heavier work, and the rationale behind it is different than most people realize.


Conclusion
There is a ton of garbage fitness information out there, especially regarding the concept of fat loss.  Always be weary of BS.  Make sure you don’t take everything at face value.  Do your own research and work hard; you will get the physique you desire.






References
(1) Baechle, T. R., Earle, R. W., & , (2008). Essentials of strength training and conditioning. (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

(2) Bompa, T. O., & Cornacchia, L. (1998). Serious strength training. (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

(3) McDonald, L. (1998). The ketogenic diet, a complete guide for the dieter and practitioner. Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing.

(4) Verkhoshansky, Y. V., & Siff, M. C. (2009). Supertraining. (6th ed.). Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute.

(5) Wilmore, J. H., Costill, D. L., & Kenney, W. L. (2008). Physiology of sport and exercise. (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.