| Michael Paul - eating after workouts, etc. | Week 6 of 12, Day 39 of 84
Michael,
You said ...
"After the workout I will have another protein shake, but then it is back to work and I usually don't have enough calories to hit my mark for the day and I am fearful of eating late at night. Does anyone have any ideas on how to over come this?"
A few comments.
(1) after a workout is the BEST time in your day for carbohydrates. A protein shake simply won't cut it. I know that the supplement companies would like us to believe that slugging down protein shakes is the key to muscle with fat gain, etc, but the reality is that your body will use very little protein for building muscle tissue after a heavy workout. Certain types of protein, such as branched-chain amino acids, are useful, but only a few grams. Calorie for calorie, carbohydrates are the key to recovering from workouts. Your muscles are depleted (they contain a form of energy called glycogen that is used up during training) and therefore require carbohydrate to refill their "tanks". I would strongly recommend switching from a protein shake to a shake with more carbohydrates post training.
(2) as for consuming meals throughout the day, that is definitely the challenge that faces everyone. When I reached 6.5% body fat and dropped 30 pounds in 12 weeks, I was working mandatory 60 hour work weeks at my main company, spending 15 - 20 hours a week running a business, plus training and helping my son with homework, helping my wife raise our daughter, etc. There are plenty of aids out there for this type of lifestyle. While I'm not a huge fan of shakes and replacement bars, if you are on your toes at your business then you don't have time to fool around. This is where purchasing some meal replacement bars or investing in a shaker cup and some powdered shakes will work. Keep in mind that fruit makes for a fast carbohydrate and you can get canned chicken, tuna, etc, but nothing should keep you from popping out a bar and munching on it when you have to.
(3) not sure why you're concerned with eating at night. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume its due to the idea that we burn less energy at night and therefore don't need as many calories - in fact, I think quite a few people promote cutting carbs or meals at night to drop fat. I can assure you that this is a complete, utter myth and is not supported by science - it's just not true. The common sense argument goes like this:
I'm not doing anything at night. I'm going to be sleeping soon. I don't need calories. People always eat big meals, that's why obesity is so rampant. I should not eat much before bed.
Here's the reality - if you are running a restaurant, you are probably active throughout the night. What is ironic is that many people who cut carbs or calories out at night actually work desk jobs at computers during the day - while they have a huge fear of consuming baked potatoes after 6pm, they have no qualms about a cup of oatmeal at 10am. Unfortunately, the common sense argument breaks down when you examine the facts ... the fact is, you will burn more calories during a night of sleep than you will in 2 hours of sitting at a desk. Your body goes into a catabolic state during sleep - there is no fuel, you are fasting (that is why in the morning, we "break" the "fast" - breakfast). If you refuse to eat at night, you only make the situation worse. Night is when your body recovers. You don't build muscle while training, you build it when recovering, and a lot of that happens at night. You also don't burn most of your fat while training. Cardio and weight training provide the metabolic environment to burn fat, and pack quite a few calories in those sessions, but your body uses more fuel from fat when you are at rest and sleeping than any other time during the day.
So the reality is that if I have person A who eats 2000 calories but doesn't eat at night, and I have person B who eats 2000 calories but DOES eat at night, both A and B might lose 2 pounds in a week. However, person A probably lost 2 pounds of fat or more likely 1.5 pounds of fat and 0.5 pounds of muscle because they're training hard but at night, when their body is trying to recover and repair muscle, there's no FUEL. Believe it or not, your body needs CARBS to burn fat - it kickstarts the process. If you're sound asleep and there's no carbs in your bloodstream because you don't eat them after 6pm, guess what? Your body will MAKE carbs. Where does it make them from? PROTEIN. That's right ... it is a scientifically proven fact that you will convert protein to sugars to fuel fat burning and recovery. That means less protein available to build muscle! Person B, on the other hand, gave their body the fuel they needed. In that same week, they actually lost 2.5 pounds of fat but gained 0.5 pound of muscle - in other words, both lost 2 pounds, but the timing was important enough that one person lost an additional pound of fat because they provided the fuel at the right time.
That was just a hypothetical situation, but it illustrates the point. You should have no fear of eating at night, in fact, I would say that the THREE MOST IMPORTANT MEALS are:
(1) post training
(2) right before bed
(3) first thing in the morning
Why? 1 - to recover from the workout, mainly carbohydrates. 2 - to provide the fuel needed to recover during sleep, namely slow release proteins (milk, casein, protein blends, vegetable proteins) and slow-release carbohydrates (oatmeal, barley, lentils, whole grain cereal, etc). 3 - to break your fast as quickly as possible to get your body to stop being catabolic and start being anabolic (i.e. building rather than breaking down).
That first meal should probably be some type of fruit, too. In order to help supply sugar, in addition to converting protein, your liver has a reserve of sugars that it releases into the bloodstream. If the liver is depleted, then the carbs you ingest will go towards replenishing this storage before they are routed to fill your muscles. Fructose, the sugar found in fruit, is preferentially stored by the liver - meaning the liver would rather get its fuel from fructose than other carbohydrates and sugar. So a nice breakfast with fruit will provide slow energy to kickstart your day, and also help replenish your liver so the rest of the day is spent filling your muscles and fueling your activity.
WOW - I know, long answer. In a nutshell:
(a) you probably want carbs after your workout, not just protein
(b) try meal replacemment shakes and bars, fruit, tuna in the pouch, or other conveinent "on the go" food sources (heck, I've seen people get low salt jerky for their protein)
(c) don't be afraid of eating at night
Jeremy
posted by Jeremy on 5/8/2003 8:18:03 AM | | Recovery, killer training, and beautiful women | Week 6 of 12, Day 38 of 84
Wow! Where do I begin?
I had a great recovery from a missed workout tonight. Did my 20-minute HIIT (2.45 miles capping out at 10mph) followed by chest and triceps, so I salvaged a red. Unfortunately, the pretzel monster paid me a visit and while my calories were, for the most part, under control, guess what? Not to plan, so I trade a red and yeller for three yellows. Time to clean up, pick up, and move on.
Chest was INCREDIBLE. Hilights:
220 pounds x 2 sets x 6 reps flat bench, personal best for full range of motion
85 pounds x 1 set x 6 reps decline dumbbell, 5 pounds shy of personal best
150 pounds x 2 sets x 6 reps reverse grip bench
And, another personal best: 115 pound skull crushers! Ack!
Actually, I did crush my skull ... I was dizzy from training and lurched forward and impaled the top of my head on the edge of a weight plate ... nice little dent and scar there. It'll add character to my otherwise shiny, unblemished pate.
Now for the beautiful girls ... got some pictures from the weekend when the ladies had their "tea party". Turns out that big brother had some fun, too. Without further ado:
Could I be a luckier dad?
Thank you, God, for your rich blessings. Thank you, Jesus, for my salvation ... that I can look forward to an eternity with my wonderful family! PRAISE GOD! I'm WALKING ON CLOUDS TONIGHT.
Come Lord fill me.
God loves you all, and so do I.
Jeremy
posted by Jeremy on 5/7/2003 8:50:08 PM | | Squats and whatnots | Week 6 of 12, Day 38 of 84 cont...
Last night was the time to squat. I started out with 20 minutes of HIIT. I'm up to 6 - 9 mph for my standard cycles and 10 mph for the "high point" ... I was very satisfied, as I remember barely being able to finish in the 5.5 - 8.5 range just 6 weeks ago, and this workout was relatively easy. The tough love came when I had to step directly from the treadmill over to my squat cage. My workout looked like this:
Squat: 2 sets x 6 reps @ 255 pounds
Front squat: 1 set x 6 reps @ 175 pounds
Leg extensions: 2 sets x 6 reps @ 210 pounds
Stiff-legged dead-lifts: 2 sets x 6 reps @ 255 pounds
Lunge: 1 set x 6 reps @ 75 pound (dumbells)
Leg curl: 1 set x 6 reps @ 95 pounds
Smith machine lunge: 1 set x 6 reps @ 135 pounds
WHEW! Talk about a workout. But I did manage to complete all sets of all reps. The hardest part for squatting wasn't my legs at all - it was my shoulders! I have trouble sometimes getting into position and maintaining retraction, I probably do too much of a high bar squat and need to move more towards a lower bar squat. It'll take some time and some wrist flexibility to get the hang of it. My limiting factor in the past was my ankle flexibility, but that seems to be taken car eof for the most part with my stretching, etc.
Okay, busy days - a lot of work to do, so I'm keeping this short. God bless you all!
I had a terrific conversation with Mr. Kleck last night, and part of our discussion touched on the topic of sugar ... so, without further ado ...
SUGAR: FRIEND OR FOE? © 2001 - 2003 Jeremy Likness
Sugar has received a bad reputation lately. Many people go out of their way to avoid sugar in the diet, without understanding how sugar affects health. Artificial sweeteners are a common substitute for sugars, but are these synthetic chemicals truly safe? For many people, sugar-free and fat-free food is an artificial "crutch" - comforted in the knowledge that their food contains no sugar or fat, they over consume this "safe" food. In the end, sugar may not turn out to be the enemy that many people claim it is.
There are a few reasons why sugar has a bad reputation. For one, refined sugars provide easy food for oral bacteria, and can promote cavities and the accumulation of plaque. Many people still believe that simple and complex carbohydrates behave differently. The old theory was that a simple carbohydrate, or single molecule (monosaccharide - "simple sugar") would be ingested rapidly, while a complex carbohydrate, or chained molecule (polysaccharide - "complex sugar") would require more energy to "break down" and use. This belief still exists today, and is wrong. In reality, the digestive system is very complex and there is more to consider than just the number of molecules chained together in a food - one must consider enzymes, where the food is processed in the body, and what changes take place to the food before the body utilizes it. With recent methods for testing the time it takes for a food to enter the bloodstream, we have learned that "evil sugars" such as fructose from fruit may absorb very slowly while "safe complex carbohydrates" such as baked potatoes enter the bloodstream faster than table sugar!
Would you believe it if I told you that all carbohydrates are technically sugar? That is right. Before your body will use the carbohydrate in table sugar, a baked potato, or a green bean, it must break this carbohydrate down to glucose, the form of sugar that your body can "burn" for energy. Glucose is also stored as glycogen in the muscle cells. So, since all carbohydrates eventually end up as a sugar, the mere fact that they begin as sugars is irrelevant. So what is relevant? According to many recent articles and studies, the issue is the glycemic index of sugars.
Why is the glycemic index of concern? There are a few reasons why this might concern someone. Some studies imply a link between the glycemic index of a food and insulin. Insulin is a hormone that triggers a number of processes in the body. One important role of insulin is to direct the storage of fat. Insulin is of concern to diabetics, who lack the ability to properly process or produce insulin, and to those interested in losing fat, because of the role it plays in fat storage. When you consume a food, the body processes it. The carbohydrate is converted to glucose and released to the bloodstream. If blood sugar rises too quickly, it can become toxic to your brain. Therefore, your liver will convert the glucose to triglycerides (fat) in order to stabilize blood sugar levels. In addition, it is theorized that a rapid increase in blood sugar will trigger a rise in insulin. Insulin directs cells to take in nutrients - preferably muscle cells, which will stored glucose as glycogen to fuel contractions - but if your triglycerides are also high, insulin can drive them into your adipose tissue (fat cells) for storage. In plain terms, you gain fat.
Another concern some people express is the "ease" at which sugars are converted to fat. I read one "system" for getting into shape that did not offer scientific evidence, but claimed that in working with extremely lean body builders, the author figured out that sugars cause fat to be stored quickly and easily. Other books simply state that sugar is quickly and easily converted to fat. Again, we have to understand our biological systems to analyze those statements. How does a sugar get stored as a fat? The liver processes the glucose molecule and turns it into a triglyceride, or fat molecule. This, again, complicates matters: whether or not you eat table sugar or a green bean, guess what? By the time your liver sees it, it has been broken down to a glucose molecule. The notion that your liver somehow knows that the glucose molecule came from a green bean versus a grain of table sugar is absurd!
The only real way the sugar may be more readily stored as fat is if it impacts blood sugar or creates some environment that would promote the conversion of glucose to triglycerides. Theoretically, a huge surge in blood sugar due to a rapidly ingested carbohydrate would cause the liver to convert most of that sugar to fat, regardless of whether or not you required it for energy. So, once again, we are back at the glycemic index and how much consuming a particular food really impacts your blood sugar levels.
Looking at the glycemic index, refined sugars are indeed dangerous - they have some of the highest indexes on the list. Many manufacturers use a "complex carbohydrate" called maltodextrin to sweeten shakes. They can state "no sugar" or "low sugar" on the nutrition label because maltodextrin is a complex carbohydrate, but it will impact blood sugar more than table sugar (table sugar is sucrose, which, by the way, is not a simple sugar - it is two molecules, glucose and fructose, bonded together). How do natural sugars fare? Fructose, the type of sugar commonly found in fruit; lactose, the sugar found in milk; and honey, the sugar produced from nectar by bees, all fare very well. In fact, if you are simply concerned about blood sugar, these three sugars will affect it less than brown rice, whole wheat bread, and baked potatoes!
We've determined that simply avoiding a sugar because it is a sugar has no real scientific foundation. One problem with sugars, however, is that many products add an extremely high amount of sugar to sweetener the products. This, in turn, causes the product to be higher in calories. Because consuming more calories means you must expend more calories to reduce or manage your weight, this can be of concern. The alternative to using a natural or refined sugar is to use a reduced calorie sweetener. There are four major reduced calorie sweeteners on the market today. These are Acesulfame Potassium (Acesulfame-K), Aspartame, Saccharin, and Sucralose. Are these products the answer to your woes?
Acesulfame-K was discovered in 1967. It is 200 times sweeter than table sugar (sucrose). According to studies, this sweetener is not absorbed in the body but passes through unchanged. How many studies? Around 90 studies have been conducted on this sweetener, with no documented health risks. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), however, reports that the product can break down to acetoacetamide. This chemical has been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Administration of 1% and 5% acetoacetamide in the diet for three months caused benign thyroid tumors in rats.
Aspartame was discovered in 1965. It is a low-calorie sweetener that is also 200 times sweeter than sucrose. Aspartame is made from two amino acids (the building blocks of protein): L-phenylalanine and L-aspartic acid. More than 200 studies have been performed and the only documented health risks are to people who suffer from phenylketonuria (PKU), who cannot metabolize the L-phenylalanine. This is why there is a PKU warning on any product that contains aspartame. While there are no conclusive, formal, documented cases of adverse health affects, many people report headaches after consuming products that contain aspartame. Other adverse affects that consumers have reported (but have not been independently verified) include seizures, dizziness, tremors, migraines, memory loss, slurring of speech, confusion, fatigue, depression, nausea, and worse. Because children lack a "barrier" of protection that prevents the wrong nutrients from entering the brain (which adults have), some doctors have recently suggested that aspartame should not be given to children.
Saccharin was discovered 100 years ago. It is a low calorie sweetener. It is one of the most studied ingredients in the food supply. More than 30 human studies have been conducted with saccharin, and no adverse health effects have been reported. In 1997, a study using rodents reported a rise in bladder tumors, although this may be related to an increase in sodium and other products that were contained in the experimental diet. The CSPI reports several studies that may indicate a rise in tumor activity that correlates to saccharin intake.
Sucralose is a non-caloric sweetener made from sugar. It was discovered in 1976. A sugar molecule is modified to replace a hydroxyl (water) group with a chloride (chlorine) group. This creates a product on average 600 times sweeter than table sugar, which theoretically will pass through the body without being metabolized. Over 100 studies have been conducted using sucralose in order to approve it as a food additive. Some of those studies demonstrated shrinkage of up to 40% in the thymus glands, and an enlargement of the kidneys and liver. Some recent studies suggest that sucralose may break down into the chemical 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical that has not been adequately tested in humans.
So are these sweeteners really worth it? While there are many anecdotal reports of negative side effects, none of these have been confirmed through scientific investigation. In contrast, there is no anecdotal evidence whatsoever linking consumption of natural sugars such as fructose, honey, lactose, etc. with cancers, tumors, headaches, or other problems other than diabetes. Many diabetics use the glycemic index to control their food intake, and virtually all natural (unrefined) sugars fall within acceptable ranges for consumption based on those guidelines.
Do sugar free foods really help to control calories? I know many people who will avoid sugar like the plague, then purchase a box of sugar-free brownies and eat the entire box. What are they trying to achieve? Sugar-free may imply "reduced calorie" but when you over consume reduced calorie foods, you still create a problem! Do sugar-free brownies fit into a lifestyle, or are these a quick fix?
Adding 1 teaspoon of natural sugar to a bowl of oatmeal will add 4 grams of sugar or 16 calories and barely impact the rate at which that food is digested and released to the bloodstream (remember, your liver won't know if the glucose molecule it is processing came from the oatmeal or the teaspoon of sugar). Adding 1 teaspoon of an artificial sweetener won't add any calories - but will introduce a new realm of "possible" side effects that may or may not exist. On the other hand, if you avoid healthy food choices such as fruit due to the sugar content, you also miss out on thousands of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that don't exist in any tablet or pill on the market - and have documented health BENEFITS rather than risks! Oranges can reduce the risk of stroke. Bananas promote heart health by providing a tremendous amount of natural potassium. The list goes on and on.
What sugars are considered natural? The web site http://www.holisticmed.com/ offers this list of natural, safe sweeteners: stevia (and herbal extract that is naturally sweet with no calories), barley malt, evaporated cane juice (refined sugar is derived from cane juice, but is extremely processed with many of the natural enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and fiber removed), fruit juice (fructose is a terrific, healthy sugar), rice syrup, honey, and sugar alcohols. Sugar alcohols have a "sweet" taste but are processed by the body as alcohol. This means that they are typically burned for energy and have a minimal impact on insulin and blood sugar, according to the latest studies. They are not known to be toxic like non-sugar alcohols.
I also recommend a product called Sucanat® which you can read about here:
http://www.wholesomesweeteners.com/manufact/sucanat.htm - this product contains pure, evaporated cane juice.
There is some confusion about what high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) actually is. You will find that the majority of processed foods contain this as a main ingredient. It is difficult to find bread in the supermarket that isn't made with HFCS, and most sodas, treats, and non-natural juices contain this as well. HFCS is much sweeter than table sugar, which is one reason for its popularity in the food industry. HFCS can be misleading to consumers who are aware of natural sugars and the glycemic index. Knowing that fructose is a natural fruit sugar and low on the glycemic index, they may assume the HFCS falls under the same category. HFCS is actually hydrolyzed cornstarch, which means that cornstarch is mixed with enzymes and broken down. A chemical in the cornstarch converts some of the sugar in glucose form to fructose. The end result only contains 14% fructose - the rest is dextrose and other sugars and carbohydrates (so it is hardly "high" fructose, it is only "higher" in fructose than other corn products). HFCS has a glycemic index of 89, which is only slightly less than that of table sugar (92). In contrast, milk sugar (lactose) is 65 and natural fructose is 32, or almost 1/3 that of HFCS.
Sugar is certainly not your enemy. Consume a protein and a whole, unprocessed carbohydrate with every meal, and add healthy fats to your diet. If these meals happen to contain some natural honey or cane juice, don't sweat it! Eat 4 - 5 servings of fruit and or vegetables each day - there are far too many healthy compounds in these foods to pass them up out of fear of the natural sugar contained within. Make your own choice about artificial sweeteners, but keep in mind that you can easily control your portion sizes and use natural sweeteners instead. Are the potential risks worth the small benefit you may or may not be receiving from artificial sweeteners? Learn to let sugar work with you, not against you!
posted by Jeremy on 5/7/2003 7:11:40 AM | | Red alert! | Week 6 of 12, Day 37 of 84
Well, I went red yesterday.
It was a culmination of various events. In short, it was stress. I have an enormous volume of work between my certification (where the deadline is rapidly approaching) and several projects at my job. These caught up with me and I simply had a very stressful day. I did not do a great job of preparing food, so I found myself caught without a meal. I did not go out and have McDonald's or anything extreme (turns out it was mesquite chicken on whole grain bread) but it still was not in my plan and not what I consider approved by my own regimens. Furthermore, the stress left me feeling miserable and weak ... I had a leg workout which I'm looking to hit some personal bests, and I was still stiff and sore from the weekend, so I opted to take a break and hit it hard tonight, instead. It worked out in the end because my daughter has her new twin size "big girl bed" that I spent a good deal of time putting together for her.
At any rate, there's no excuses ... it's a red day, today will be green, time to move on. I am still extremely busy so I won't be posting often this week ... but I'll poke my nose in when I can. I look forward to Zach's wedding this weekend, it should be a blast. My weekend was wonderful, despite a lot of homework and dialing into the office, my highlight was the mother/daughter "tea party" my wife and daughter went to. I have a picture I'll post later in the week. I can't tell you how cute it was to see my daughter in a beautiful dress with a faux pearl necklace, a "lady's hat", and her Winnie the Pooh tea set and little purse telling me, "Daddy, I'm going to a party for girls. No mans allowed."
Keep it green everyone ... I'm having a fruit day to detox and get back on track, and I plan on posting about some 255 pound full range squats tomorrow ... take care and God bless!
I CAN, I CAN'T © 2001 - 2003 Jeremy Likness.
You've heard it before. "Never say I can't." Think positive. It is almost a cliché, right? But how do the things we say, feel, and believe truly affect our lives? Every day you have internal conversations with yourself, and the way that you conduct those conversations will have a tremendous impact on your success. There is much more to positive thinking than "can, can't."
One common question I receive is, "What do you do for maintenance?" It always takes me by surprise because the concept is alien to me. Maintenance? Granted, when I started this lifestyle, I would have loved to have some "vacation" waiting for me at the end, and I was certainly thinking about how I would "relax things" when I achieved my peak physique. Along the journey, however, I learned a true lesson in life: there is never any "maintenance".
Consider this: the average adult loses several pounds of muscle as they age. This has been studied in thousands of individuals over decades and as a person reaches their golden years, they begin to lose muscle mass. So what is maintenance? Is it losing muscle mass? I don't think so. Even gaining enough muscle mass to counter-act the natural loss is "progress" in my book - you must train hard, intensely, and consume the right foods in order to just "maintain" your lean mass. The net result is maintenance of your physique, but the training style is far from "maintenance."
The same thing applies to training in general, even for younger individuals. It is well known that the body is quick to adapt to training. This is why the periodization model of training has been proven to be so effective: it constantly changes parameters of training to prevent the body from adapting. Because the body is so good at becoming efficient, the longer someone trains, the less gains they are likely to make and the more intense their training must become. The converse to this is that because of the high intensity of training, most must rest more to recover as their training advances. Lee Haney once mentioned that he would be happy to put on 1 pound of muscle in a year. Once again, there is no such thing as maintenance - even doing the same workout will eventually produce fewer results, and send you backwards instead of keeping you at the same place!
What does this have to do with the "I can, I can't" syndrome? The question I always have in return is, "Why do you want maintenance?" Inevitably, people become tired of living a certain lifestyle. Whether it is due to boredom, overtraining, or some other reason, it happens. My own father asked me just recently, "Are you still training? It's okay if you aren't - working out is something you do for awhile and then take a break from." The problem is that if you are too focused on a specific goal such as "body fat" or "weight" then it becomes easy to hit that goal and slip into maintenance mode. If your goal, on the other hand, is total health, then it must become a lifestyle change because there is no maintenance. You don't reach good health just to fall back out of it.
The people who yearn for the maintenance mode wake up and tell themselves, "I should go workout." This is an inner dialogue and while it may not seem significant, it is. "I should go workout." This implies a sense of "urgency" - it is not a desire, but a need being fulfilled. There may be a negative consequence if the action is not performed, so it should be done. Instead of positive reinforcement, this borders on negativity. After weeks of doing something I "should do," I, too, would probably want to hit some magical "maintenance" phase so I wouldn't have to do it anymore.
The alternative to this is to workout because you want to. "I want to go workout." This is a subtle change to the inner dialogue, but it makes a tremendous difference. Now, there is no implied consequence for not doing it. It's not a finger wagging in your face, telling you to do something. It is an inner desire - the action is tied directly to a reward. If you want to do something, there is typically a reward involved - whether it is the satisfaction of accomplishment, the great feeling of good health, or some other positive emotion that springs from the activity.
This reminds me of vegetables. Vegetables? When I started to eat healthy, I knew that I should be eating more vegetables. I did not really like vegetables, and the few that I did eat came packaged with a ton of sodium in a can. I yearned for my "free day" and my "breaks" between programs so that I didn't have to eat vegetables. I still sucked them down because I knew I should eat them, but I did not want to eat them.
Somewhere along the journey, I began to enjoy the journey and realize it was about much more than the destination. It suddenly was not just about losing fat - although that was certainly a bonus. It was about living life. It felt good to be in shape. I could tie my shoes and not fall out of breath! I could play basketball with my son! We had a great time and being healthy just felt great. I made a conscious decision to tie the sensation of good health into the activities that blessed me with it. One such activity was eating vegetables. While I was still eating them because I should, and not because I wanted to, I constantly reminded myself that they were part of what helped me become so healthy.
As time progressed, I began to truly appreciate the benefits of vegetables. I studied their composition and learned about phytochemicals and other components that promote good health. I realized that these were something I'd need to eat for the rest of my life, so I'd better enjoy them. I took some steps towards this. First, I moved towards frozen veggies from canned veggies but added my own seasoning and steamed them until they were mush. Then, I simply steamed them less, to acquire a taste for the crisp, raw flavor, and I seasoned them less. With raw vegetables, I started by dipping them in salad dressing. I reduced the amount that I "dipped" and the amount of times that I dipped and eventually acquired a taste for raw vegetables.
I did not by any means reprogram my entire set of tastes. For some odd reason, I still cannot eat raw tomatoes or mushrooms, and I still want to plug my nose when I eat Brussels sprouts. But, for the most part, I enjoy vegetables. I eat them now because I want to ... not because I should. And that means they are not a burden to me or something I need to take a break from - in fact, when I have a "splurge" meal, I often find myself enjoying a nice plate of roasted asparagus because I want to.
The same inner dialogue can take place with your training as well. You don't enjoy cardio? Neither did I. I hated it. I did it because I knew I should, but not because I wanted to. Then, a funny thing happened. I had a fight with a hill in my neighborhood. It was one of those straight "up and down" hills that I couldn't quite make it to the top of. Every time I went out to jog, I set my sights on that hill, and every time, it would defeat me. I had all but given up one day when I realized that I was following the same pattern over and over again - I would start to go up that hill, then I'd feel the nausea kick in, then instead of pushing myself to my limits, I would just talk myself into stopping.
While cardio was still something I did because I should, that hill was something I wanted to conquer. So I detached my mind from that feeling I got and instead decided to see what my body was made out of. I felt disconnected from my legs and arms as they slowly pushed me up that hill, but when I neared the top, I knew I had it in me. I refused to let my mind distract me ("Oh, Jeremy, wouldn't it be nicer to just stop and walk right now?") - I ignored that inner, negative dialogue and pushed through. I conquered it.
The feeling of ecstasy at having accomplished this little task on my own was incredible. I savored it, and then an interesting thing happened - I began to crave it. So the next time I did cardio, I thought about how I could push myself more than I expected. In the past 18 months, this is how every cardio session has been. I don't feel satisfied unless I know I pushed myself to the limit - if I have anything left at the end then I am disappointed. As I step onto my treadmill, however, I realize that things are different now. I'm not stepping on because I should; I'm stepping on because I want to.
Do you truly believe that you have the power to change? Doubt can do many things. I had doubt. I told myself I wanted to become lean. Here, "want" was not powerful enough. Why? I did not think that I should become lean, I just wanted to. But I was only hoping and grasping - a part of me did not think it was truly possible. This creates a negative feedback loop. When you only want to succeed, then subtle decisions affect the outcome. For example, if you are underneath several pounds of iron in the gym and getting ready to push out another rep, but your arms ache so bad you can barely grip the weight, what are you going to do? If you only want to succeed, but don't truly believe that you can, you might decide that the pain is not worth it. So instead of pushing that last rep, you decide to terminate the set and rack the weights. It's okay, it was just one rep, and it wouldn't have been worth it anyway, right?
What am I asking for? I just mentioned moving from "should" to "want" and now I have an issue with "want"! That's right. For certain decisions in your life, it's not enough to want them. You must make them happen. Yes! It's not a possibility, but a certainty. Instead of wanting to obtain your peak physique, understand that you will. When you have made the decision to stop wanting and start creating, then you will cross yet another barrier. When you are underneath that same set of weights, you'll realize that racking them is not an option. Why? Because you will earn your peak physique, so you must get that last rep in. It IS worth it, because by pushing 110% each and every time, you will reach your goal.
This is what changed my fate. I hoped to reach it, I wanted it, but it just wasn't there. When I started changing my perspective, when I focused on my inner dialogue and changed it, this is when I experienced success. I didn't train because I was supposed to; I trained because I wanted to. I didn't eat healthy because I should; I ate healthy because I wanted to. And I wasn't hoping to build my peak physique; I was doing it. So when I looked in the mirror, I didn't think about what I could become, I thought about what I was becoming. I'd look at my stomach and see the abs I would create, not the ones that I wished I would have. Only that thin line between "want and will" made the difference between "maintenance" and success for me.
I want you to avoid negatives, like "I can't", because you can. I want you to think positive. But I don't want this to just be a mere cliché. The words hold no meaning when they are not backed by action. The things you say, feel, and yes, even your own, private thoughts are what sculpt your reality. Every day you have internal conversations with yourself. Instead of letting the doubt creep in, focus on that dialogue and change it. Simply rephrasing your thoughts as "I want to" or "I will" rather than "I should" or "I hope" can make a tremendous difference - in fact, just changing the way you think may be the one last step for you to your peak physique.
posted by Jeremy on 5/6/2003 7:01:23 AM | | Happy FRIIIIDDDDAAAAYYYYYYYYYY | Week 5 of 12, Day 33 of 84
Ack. I lost my last post ... hit a wrong key! Let's try this again.
I'm keeping it green as promised. Today, I look forward to my coffee. Last night, I did shoulders. I'm working my way. Most I've ever done for Arnolds was I believe 60 and heaviest military press was 130 and I'm at 57.5 and 125 so I'm getting close to meeting and then breaking my personal records there!
Michael Paul - GREAT job, way to keep it green!
Michael Wallace - Where have you been?
Sarah - GREAT way to recover. Fat loss begins and ends in the mind ... you have the right attitude, that is what will create your success. Off to a fantastic start!
Kristi - In my opinion, if you are doing a proper squat and this is manageable for your back, you should be able to perform a dead-lift as well. I don't know your history, so I can't make recommendations, but if the back is a concern, then possibly a limited range stiff-legged dead-lift will work as well. Basically, you need to keep your chest up and out as if an imaginary hook were pulling on it, and have someone watch your first exercise to let you know when your lower back loses its slight concavity (this is called lordosis) ... basically, you need to stop when it is flat and before it starts to round. The bar should also travel very close to your legs, brushing against them, and you should maintain scapular retraction (shoulder blades slightly retracted or pulled together) to the best of your ability.
Alternate exercises include hamstring kickbacks, which is great (ankle weights, or ankle in a special machine with a low pulley, or just looped inside a resistance band, then kick your leg back) and hamstring curls, while more of an isolation movement, will definitely make inroads. Keep in mind that doing lunges does put strain on your lower back - it's your abdominal muscles (including obliques) and spinal erectae (lower back muscles) that keep your balance while performing this exercise!
Marie - Looking FAN-TAS-TIC!!!!!!! Thanks for ALL of your kind e-mails, dear. I apologize for not replying to most ... but after this window of opportunity first thing in the morning, my days get hectic! Keep 'em coming, you brighten my day.
Zach - I had my fair share of puking in high school. I was on the track team, I was a quarter mile sprinter. We'd run sprints in practice, and get nauseous, and the coach would push us. When we finally dragged ourselves to the side and puked, he'd walk up and say, "GOOD JOB!!! NOW WIPE OFF YOUR MOUTH, GET SOME WATER, AND GET BACK ON MY TRACK COZ I AIN'T DONE WITCHA YET!" (He was a former military drill sergeant). Well, I admire you, sir. I'm not sure I'm ready to push until I puke. I'll push cardio until I'm dizzy and weights until my body is shaking and my arms don't move, but I haven't reached the puke limit yet. More power to ya, bro!
Emma - very interesting. I think it's the mark of someone who really cares about to nutrition to examine more than just the textbooks and scientific journals. Even clinical trials and studies are very limited - they often only manipulate a few parameters and then put the blinders on. A great example is this stupid cholesterol scare that the world is in. A famous study done in the 70s linked high cholesterol in the diet to high cholesterol in the blood, and we are still suffering from that misinterpretation today. While the American Heart Association recently increased the cholesterol limits and allowed for more eggs, people still can't get over that study. Basically, it followed thousands of nurses over several decades. It found that nurses with high cholesterol in the diet also had high cholesterol in their blood, and then the egg became a great victim. However, in the 90s, these studies were re-investigated and it turns out that they were interpreted incorrectly. It turns out that nurses with high SATURATED FATS in their diet also had high cholesterol. A diet high in saturated fats is also typically high in cholesterol. When they took the groups with high cholesterol in the diet and further divided them - either in high saturated fat intake versus moderate to low, or in normal weight versus overweight, it turns out that being overweight and having higher saturated fats in the diet has more of an impact on blood cholesterol than cholesterol in the diet. In fact, people who are maintaining weight or dropping weight, and who eat high cholesterol (i.e. lots of eggs) but also a lot of whole foods and unsaturated fats, actually have lower cholesterol than people who are on a low cholesterol diet but overeat fat and carbs!
I really, really like the studies done by Weston A. Price. Price was a dentist who, in the late 1800's and early 1900's traveled the world. His focus was to examine the dental records of people, but his research has a lasting impact on health overall. Price examined literally dozens of cultures that were almost completely segregated from the modern world - these were tribes living deep in the rain forests or groups of people living high in the mountains and cut off from modernization. His studies found, for example, that the same genetics, etc, would produce perfect teeth in certain people who did not even brush their teeth or floss, but the instant these cultures were introduced to processed foods, their dental health rapidly deteroriated. He has a lot of pictures to show families where certain members were in the tribe, and others had contact with processed foods, etc, and the difference is striking.
What is more intriguing to me is that I came across his research while researching the vegetarian diet. I've always been convinced that meat is not bad for us, but a lot of MODERN meat is - i.e. highly processed, introduced to antibiotics, etc. While there have been studies on heavy meat eaters and vegetarians, there haven't really been studies on people who eat meat occassionally, which I think is the key. John Berardi in a seminar in Toronto gave some intriguing information - for example, there are studies that link the consumption of red meat with more muscle growth. These studies, however, analyzed the equivalent of only a few ounces of red meat a week, indicating that there is certainly not a need to eat it every day. Anyway, back to Weston A Price, a few of the things he found were that there are very, very few examples of truly vegetarian societies in non-industrialized cultures. Most subside on some type of meat at least some period of time throughout the year. What he also found that intrigued me the most was that there were cultures of predominantly meat eats - they ate mainly meat and milk - who were also fairly healthy. Overall, he found that cultures that were either predominantly meat-eating or predominantly vegan were less healthy than the cultures that were mainly vegetarian but consumed some fish, poultry, and even red meat based on season and availability.
Sharon - I have to laugh, my son feels the same way. He thinks my multi-vitamins and other things I take have some mystical, magical power. I constantly have to remind him that sound nutrition and hard, but smart, work in the gym are the keys to gaining muscle ... the supplements only support health, recovery, and possibly a slight edge in the muscle department.
Dianna - stay strong! You know, it's very ironic. Because I each such a whole foods, non-processed diet, I don't get tempted at all by donuts and cakes, etc. They just take like chemicals to me. In fact, I was reading the ingredients list for a cake they purchased for our vice president, and there was so much in latin and so many food colorings, I thought it was a formula for making a bomb. It's the baked corn chips and pretzels that get me ... but I've stayed strong this week. Once you have the focus and put your fitness blinders on, those donuts will become a thing of the past!
Val - way to keep it green! What makes you wonder about protein? It's interesting because I find in the fitness world, everyone thinks they need a ton of protein and is concerned about adequate levels, when most are probably getting more than enough. On the flipside, in the "sedentary" world, the USRDA for protein barely scratches the surface and doesn't let people get nearly enough! Keep it Green!
Jason - wow, so you just didn't post it. That sounds like a great approach for veggies! You are rockin' in the veggie department!
Soy - I don't think soy is a miracle but I don't think it's a poison either. I'll give a quick primer. Soy is a plant, a bean. Soy contains isoflavones, which are chemicals that mimic hormones. Why would a plant produce these? In the wild, this is a defense mechanism - those chemicals affect the maturation of creatures in the wild so they can't reproduce, thus protecting the plant. Fortunately, these chemicals work differently in animals than humans, etc. Many plants have some sort of class of chemicals that do this, its just that soy contains many that are similar to human hormones and some of these have actually shown health benefits.
Soy has been used for centuries in Asia. What many people don't know is that it is not a main staple of foods but typically used as a garnish or with special meals. The traditional process of preparing soy also involves fermentation, which typically destroys many of the unhealthy isoflavones that have been discovered.
Now - my take on soy. There have been studies showing a tremendous health benefit, and studies that have shown possible negative health impact. The studies that are negative typically involve infants or children who are raised on a predominantly soy diet. I think infants or children raised on ANY type of restrictive diet will have ill health effects. Variety is key. So, I think soy is GREAT - I drink soy milk on occassion, my wife loves to cook edamame, or soy, and we eat roasted soy nuts. They key, I think, like all else, is to enjoy in moderation. I do not make soy my main protein staple. I think this is the mistake that many vegetarians make - they know they need protein, so they substitute dairy with soy and then drink soy powder and eat soy bars and get soy soy soy. I think a more balanced approach will be to have black beans and black eyed peas and lentils and other rich, vegetarian sources of protein, along with soy.
I think all of the points you shared with soy are good and valid, with the exception of the "Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score". The three main tests used for protein availability are PER (Protein Efficiency Ratio), NPU (Net Protein Utilization), and BV (Biological Value). These tests, including the Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score, all have their pros and cons. Some are based on animal studies, which don't directly correlate to human processing of proteins. Some are based on nitrogen turnover which doesn't always directly correspond to the protein availability. In a nutshell, these are often used to sell products. The whey products are going to use the scales that rank them at the top, and the soy products are going to use other scales. If you are getting a variety of protein sources, including soy, then you'll be doing fine - I would never hone in on any specific protein, whey included.
Dano - 6 1/2 hours of spinning sounds like dizzy fun, bro.
Sue - have fun. I, too, enjoy a nice bottle, er, glass of wine. For some reason alcohol never leaves me hungover ... but if I eat foods with artificial ingredients, I'll have a headache until noon the next day!
Sanieh - so with your sore bum, are you trying to say you're a pain in the arse? LOL. It's GREAT to hear your progress. That is EXACTLY what happened with Doreen - leaner face, fewer allergies, higher energy. I enjoyed the higher energy, but my face stays fairly lean anyway (it's actually quite annoying - my face and arms body fat will stay at 7% even when my gut wants to get to 20% LOL).
Everyone else - keep it green!
Finally, and odd thought for the day. Has any Smashing Pumpkin's fan ever considered "Tonight, Tonight" in lieu of accepting Christ as your savior? It's probably not the intent of the song, it could just as easily be read as a poetic request for love-making, but with those thoughts in mind, check these lyrics out:
Time is never time at all
You can never ever leave without leaving a piece of youth
And our lives are forever changed
We will never be the same
The more you change, the less you feel
Believe, believe in me, believe, believe
That life can change, that you're not stuck in vain
We're not the same, we're different tonight
Tonight, so bright
Tonight
And you know you're never sure
But you're sure you could be right
If you held yourself up to the light
And the embers never fade in the city by the lake
The place where you were re?born
Believe, believe in me, believe, believe
In the resolute urgency of now
And if you believe there's not a chance tonight
Tonight, so bright
Tonight
We'll crucify the insincere tonight
We'll make things right, we'll feel it all tonight
We'll find a way to offer up the night tonight
The indescribable moments of your life tonight
The impossible is possible tonight
Believe in me as I believe in you tonight
posted by Jeremy on 5/2/2003 7:42:16 AM |
|
|
Question of the Day
Articles
Fitness Experts
Weight Loss Products
Exercise Guide
Weight Loss Vault
Action, Word!
Summertime Shoutouts
Wrapping Up Arms
Contact
Affiliate Program
Terms and Conditions
Help! (Getting Started)
Strength and Muscle — Weight-lifting and iron game articles.