The Final Nail in the Cardio Coffin

Article posted on T-Nation by Rachel Cosgrove

Feeling soft around the midsection? Can't see your abs anymore? Feel the need to get lean in a hurry?

Slacking off on your diet and workouts can do that to you. In my case, training for an Ironman triathlon can do that, too.

What? Yeah, you heard me right. This is exactly how I felt after training for and completing in my first Ironman.

My body was soft, with no definition, and had definitely changed due to spending the majority of my training in the steady-state aerobic zone – the same "fat burning zone" many books and magazine still talk about.

I was in great shape as far as my endurance and cardiovascular system were concerned, but I had less noticeable muscle tone and didn't have the definition I was used to having in my abs and arms.

Put it this way: I didn't even want to wear a crop top at my race because I didn't have abs, to show. In fact, I felt like I had rolls for the first time ever! My body had started to look like that of a flabby endurance athlete.

I'd lost some muscle and looked soft and flabby, but I was still happy with my performance and thrilled that I accomplished my goal.

No crop top, 'cause there's nothing to show off.

All of my training was done to get ready to complete an Ironman, and all of my nutrition was eaten to fuel me for the workouts. At the time, my goal wasn't to lose fat, but I was still amazed at how little fat I lost.

I worked my way up to doing twenty hours of endurance training a week. I also kept track of every calorie I ate; making sure my nutrition was right on track. I thought I'd be able to eat whatever I wanted, but I couldn't. I had to watch myself to keep from gaining any weight, and I still maintained about 2,000 to 2,500 calories a day.

Some of the workouts included eight or nine-hour sessions where I'd go for a 10-mile run, then jump on my bike for a 70-mile ride, and finish with another 4-mile run. I also continued to lift weights twice a week, in an effort to maintain some muscle tone, but also to stay injury-free and somewhat strong.

My body quickly adapted and I was able to increase my mileage until I could go for a 16-mile run or a 112-mile bike ride like it was "just another workout." It was amazing to see how the body adapts to demands and how far you can push yourself.

Unfortunately, this was also exactly why I didn't lose much fat – my body was adapting to what I was doing. My goal was to get my body super-efficient at running 20 miles and riding a bike for 100 miles, so when it came time for my race, I'd be able to do it.

However, the more your body adapts the fewer calories you burn. So, I was doing more and more exercise without burning as many calories, and therefore I wasn't losing any fat.

But They Call It The "Fat Burning Zone"

During a steady-state workout (when you move at the same pace for a certain amount of time), your body does burn a higher percentage of calories from fat. This is where that "fat burning zone" myth comes from. On the surface, it sounds like you're burning more fat calories.

The outdated chart and categories that people still, unfortunately, rely on.

There are two big problems with this.

1. As I explained earlier, you burn fewer total calories as your body adapts. So even if you're burning a higher percentage of fat, you aren't burning as many calories overall. It's like winning 80% of a Lotto jackpot. It sounds good until you realize that the jackpot is just fifty bucks.
2. Your body actually becomes efficient at storing fat. Since you're now burning fat as your primary source of fuel, your body adapts and becomes very good at storing fat. Blame it on a dumb self-preservation mechanism built into the body's operating system.

374 Hours of Training = 5 Pounds Lost

In seven months of training, I calculated that I worked out for 374 hours – that's an average of over thirteen hours a week! If I burned just ten calories a minute, it adds up to 224,400 calories. Doing the math (at 3,500 calories per pound), 224,400 calories should equal sixty four pounds lost!

Needless to say, I did not lose 64 pounds. Over those seven months, training an average thirteen to fourteen hours a week, I lost all of five pounds. That... was... it.

Now, we've heard many of the fitness experts tell us that, "steady-state aerobics is not effective for fat loss, and we've heard the scientific research that interval training is more effective.

But, still, I thought it would've been more effective than this! A lousy five pounds after doing 374 hours of training, while keeping tabs on what I'm eating! It's enough to make a girl give up the gym and take refuge in a box of Krispy Kremes.

Well, almost.

What more could we ask for? Maybe some common sense?

Fortunately, I now have first-hand experience that steady-state aerobics is absolutely, completely, utterly ineffective for fat loss. After working my way up to twenty training hours a week, I can tell you that long, steady-state endurance is not the answer for a defined, lean physique and it's a waste of time if your goal is fat loss.

It's only the answer if your goal is to complete an endurance event.

Learn to Love Intensity, Not Duration

Let's review some of the research:

• December 2006, Canadian researchers reported that just two weeks of interval training boosted women's ability to burn fat during exercise by 36%.
• In January 2007, a six-month study was published showing that adding aerobic exercise had no additional effect on body composition, over diet alone.
• In June of 2007, a twelve-month study was published which had the subjects doing six hours of aerobic exercise per week, training six days a week, for one year. The average weight loss was only three pounds for that one-year period.
• According to a British study, levels of Human Growth Hormone, which assists in building muscle and burning fat, skyrocketed 530% in subjects after just thirty seconds of sprinting as fast as they could on a stationary bike.
• Australian fitness researchers had eighteen women perform twenty minutes of interval training on a stationary bike – eight-seconds of sprinting followed by twelve seconds of recovery – throughout the workout, three days a week.

The women lost an average of five-and-a-half pounds over fifteen weeks, without dieting. Similar groups performing forty minutes of moderate cycling, three days a week, actuallygained a pound of fat over the same period. Two of the heavier women who did intervals dropped eighteen pounds.

• In a side-by-side comparison, researchers at McMaster University in Ontario measured fitness gains in eight interval exercisers – using twenty to thirty minute cycling workouts that included four to six thirty-second sprints – against eight volunteers who pedaled at a lower intensity for 90 to 120 minutes.

After two weeks, the interval group was every bit as fit as those who worked out three to four times as long.

Undoing the Aerobic Damage

After completing my Ironman, I made fat loss my primary goal for eight weeks. I eliminatedall steady-state endurance exercise. No running, biking, swimming, or anything else in the steady-state.

My workouts consisted of high intensity for short bursts, whether it was with weights or doing a metabolic interval session. I lifted weights three days a week, and I performed interval-training workouts on the other days.

I made sure the interval workouts weren't on a treadmill or a bike. I only used bodyweight-exercise circuits, along with kettlebell circuits, as my cardio workouts.

These metabolic cardio workouts would crank my heart rate up for two minutes, I'd recover, and then repeat. Doing these interval circuits, along with strength training, took up a total of five to six hours a week, nothing like the twenty to thirty hours of Ironman training!

What happened? Like magic, my abs came back!

I dropped fifteen pounds of fat in an eight-week period and my body returned to being strong, defined, and lean. I no longer looked like a flabby endurance athlete, and I did it in a quarter of the time, compared to the aerobic training.

Rumor has it that Justin Timberlake wrote a hit song after seeing this photo.

It Works, But Why?

One reason intervals are more effective is that they target more of your muscle. During endurance exercise, you use a lot of slow-twitch muscle fibers and too few fast-twitch muscle fibers. It's those fast-twitch muscle fibers that give you firm muscles and fast-tracked results.

Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoy heading out for a run or a bike ride occasionally, but I don't do it for fat loss. I do it because I enjoy it. Think about it. If you do a thirty minute walk at a steady-state, moderate pace, you'll shed about 150 calories.

If you mixed in eight thirty-second sprints, you'll burn closer to 200 calories. But the biggest factor is that after an interval session, your metabolism can stay elevated for a full day and you'll end up burning two to three times the total calories you'd expect to burn from lower intensity exercise.

Like that's not enough, intervals can also help to reverse the aging process. Fast-twitch fibers are the first to go when we age, largely because neurons stop communicating with them. Research has shown that you can increase neuron firing rates after just one week of training. With more muscles firing, you have more energy for life.

It is time to bury the myth of using long, slow steady-state cardio to burn up fat, for good. No more spending hours and hours on a treadmill, elliptical, or bike. I've worked with many figure competitors to get them lean and defined using interval-style workouts, with a full-body strength training routine, and they've had great success.

Body built by Cosgrove, strength training, and intervals.

R.I.P. Aerobics

Get off the treadmill, stop spinning your wheels, and push yourself in the gym if you want to lose some serious fat. Take it from me, I finally learned first hand. It's time to put the last nail in the coffin of using aerobics for fat loss, bury it for good, and do some high intensity, interval dancing on its overdue grave.

About the Author

Rachel Cosgrove is a fitness professional who specializes in getting women of all ages into the best shape of their lives. She owns and operates Results Fitness with her husband in Santa Clarita, Ca. She has a BS in Exercises Physiology and earned her CSCS from the National Strength and Conditioning Association.

She has competed in fitness competitions, triathlons, and powerlifting. She has also been featured in Women's Health Magazine, Muscle and Fitness Hers, Shape Magazine,Fitness Magazine, Men's Health, Men's Fitness, and Oxygen. For more information on Rachel visit www.RachelCosgrove.com.

Get Strong! Stay Strong! (and quit doing cardio!)

Chris

Why Women SHOULD'NT Run

Copied from DangerouslyHardcore.com website

Here’s another article re-edit/rerelease. This one was originally published on EliteFTS.com, and we’re presenting this updated and polished-up version today in case you missed it the first time around.

I’m not sympathetic.

When I look at the fat guy in the gym wasting his time doing forearm curls to lose weight, I feel no sympathy. When a big tough meathead gets stapled to the bench by 365 pounds—after trying and failing with 315—I don’t feel any sympathetic pangs there, either. Even when I see a girl spend a half hour bouncing back and forth between the yes-no machines—the adductor and abductor units—only to have trouble walking the next day, I can’t muster even an iota of pathos.

Nobody told these people to do these things.

Then, however, I watch my friend Jessica running on the treadmill—day after day, year after year—like a madwoman, and going nowhere. Her body seems to get softer with every mile, and the softer she gets, the more she runs. For her, I feel sympathy, because the world has convinced her that running is the way to stay “slim and toned.”

There’s a Jessica in every gym. Spotting them is easy. They’re the women who run for an hour or more every day on the treadmill, setting new distance and/or time goals every week and month. Maybe they’re just interested in their treadmill workouts, maybe they’re training for their fifth fund-raising marathon, or maybe they’re even competing against runners in Finland via some Nike device. Doesn’t matter to me, because years of seeing my friend on the treadmill has exposed the results, which I’m not going to sugarcoat:

She’s still fat. Actually, she’s gotten fatter.

I’ve tried to rescue her from the clutches of cardio in the past, but my efforts didn’t work until a month ago, when she called to tell me that a blood test had confirmed her doctor’s suspicion: She had hypothyroidism, meaning her body no longer made enough thyroid hormone.

Her metabolism had slowed to a snail’s pace, and the fat was accumulating. This was her body rebelling. When Jessica asked for my advice, I told her to do two things: To schedule a second test for two weeks later, and to stop all the goddamned running until then.

I’m not here to pick on women or make fun of them. There are men out there who do the same thing, thinking cardio will wipe away the effects of their regular weekend beer binges. It’s more of a problem with women, though, and I’m targeting them for three very good reasons:

1.  They’re often intensely recruited for fund-raisers like Team-In-Training, lured by the promises of slim, trim bodies and good health resulting from the months of cardio training leading to marathons—in addition to doing something for charity.

2.  Some physique coaches prescribe 20-plus hours per week of pre-contest cardio for women, which essentially amounts to a part-time job.

3.  Steady-state activities like this devastate the female metabolism. This happens with men, too, but in different ways.

I hate a lot of things about the fitness industry, but over-prescribed cardio would have to be at the very top of my list. I’m not talking about walking here, nor am I referring to appropriate HIIT cardio. This is about running, cycling, stair-climbing, or elliptical cardio done for hours at or above 65 percent of your max heart rate. The anaerobic threshold factors into this, obviously, but I’m painting gym cardio in very broad strokes here so everyone will understand what I’m railing against.

Trashing steady-state cardio isn’t exactly a novel idea, and the better physique gurus figured at least a portion of this out years ago, when they started applying the no-steady-state-cardio rule to contest preparation. They failed, however, to point out the most detrimental effect of this type of training—one that applies specifically to women:

Studies—both clinical and observational—make a compelling case that too much cardio can impair the production of the thyroid hormone T3, its effectiveness and metabolism[1-11], particularly when accompanied by caloric restriction, an all too common practice. This is why many first or second-time figure and bikini competitors explode in weight when they return to their normal diets, and it’s why the Jessicas of the world can run for hours every week with negative results.

T3 is the body’s preeminent regulator of metabolism, by the way it throttles the efficiency of cells[12-19]. It also acts in various ways to increase heat production[20-21]. As I pointed out in previous articles, this is one reason why using static equations to perform calories-in, calories-out weight loss calculations doesn’t work.

When T3 levels are normal, the body burns enough energy to stay warm, and muscles function at moderate efficiency. When there’s too much thyroid hormone (hyperthyroidism), the body goes into a state where weight gain is almost impossible. Too little T3 (hypothyroidism), and the body accumulates body fat with ease, almost regardless of physical activity level. Women inadvertently put themselves into a hypothyroid condition when they perform so much steady-state cardio.

In the quest to lose body fat, T3 levels can offer both success and miserable failure because of the way it influences other fat-regulating hormones[22-31]. Women additionally get all the other negative effects of this, which I’ll cover below. Don’t be surprised here. This is a simple, sensible adaptation of a body that’s equipped to bear the full brunt of reproduction.

Think about it this way: Your body is a responsive, adaptive machine that has evolved for survival. If you’re running on a regular basis, your body senses this excessive energy expenditure, and adjusts to compensate. Remember, no matter which way we hope the body works, its endgame is always survival. If you waste energy running, your body will react by slowing your metabolism to conserve energy. Decreasing energy output is biologically savvy for your body. Your body wants to survive longer while you do what it views as a stressful, useless activity. Decreasing T3 production increases efficiency and adjusts your metabolism to preserve energy immediately.

Nothing exemplifies this increasing efficiency better than the way the body starts burning fuel. Training consistently at 65 percent or more of your max heart rate adapts your body to save as much body fat as possible. After regular training, fat cells stop releasing fat the way they once did during moderate-intensity activities[32-33]. Energy from body fat stores also decreases by 30 percent[34-35]. To this end, your body sets into motion a series of reactions that make it difficult for muscle to burn fat at all[36-41]. Instead of burning body fat, your body takes extraordinary measures to retain it.

Still believe cardio is the fast track to fat loss?

That’s not all. You can still lose muscle mass. Too much steady-state cardio actually triggers the loss of muscle[42-45]. This seems to be a twofold mechanism, with heightened and sustained cortisol levels triggering muscle loss[46-56], which upregulates myostatin, a potent destroyer of muscle tissue[57]. Say goodbye to bone density, too, because it declines with that decreasing muscle mass and strength[58-64].

And long term health? Out the window, as well. Your percentage of muscle mass is an independent indicator of health[65]. You’ll lose muscle, lose bone, and lose health. Awesome, right?

When sewn together, these phenomena coordinate a symphony of fat gain for most female competitors after figure contests. After a month—or three—of 20-plus hours of cardio per week, fat burning hits astonishing lows, and fat cells await an onslaught of calories to store[66-72]. The worst thing imaginable in this state would be to eat whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted. The combination of elevated insulin and cortisol would make you fat, and it would also create new fat cells so you could become even fatter[73-80].

I won’t name names, but I’ve seen amazing displays of gluttony from some small, trim women. Entire pizzas disappear, leaving only the flotsam of toppings that fell during the feeding frenzy. Appetizers, meals, cocktails and desserts—4000 calories worth—vanish at the Cheesecake Factory. There are no leftovers, and there are no crumbs. Some women catch this in time and stop the devastation, but others quickly swell, realizing that this supposed off-season look has become their every-season look.

And guess what they do to fix it? Double sessions of cardio.

This “cardio craze” is a form of insanity, and it’s on my hit list. I’m determined to kill it. There are better ways to lose fat, and there are better ways to look good. Your bikini body is not at the end of a marathon, and you won’t find it on a treadmill. In fact, it’s quite the opposite if you’re using steady-state cardio to get there. The show may be over, and the finish line crossed, but the damage to your metabolism has just begun.

Don’t want to stop running? Fine. Then stop complaining about how the fat won’t come off your hips, thighs, and ass. You’re keeping it there.

And as for Jessica, my friend whose dilemma sparked this article? She took my suggestion and cut out the cardio. Two weeks later, her T3 count was normal. Go figure. 

Very well put.  Ive never been a fan of running esp for fat loss.
Get Strong! Stay Strong!
Chris

Physical Therapy as Good as Surgery for Arthritis

An Excerpt from Dr Mercola's website:

Arthroscopic knee surgery for osteoarthritis is one of the most unnecessary surgeries performed today, as it works no better than a placebo surgery.

Proof of this is a double blind placebo controlled multi-center (including Harvard’s Mass General hospital) study published in one of the most well-respected medical journals on the planet, the New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM)¹ over 10 years ago.

Despite this monumental finding, some 510,000 people in the United States undergo arthroscopic knee surgery every year.² And at a price of anywhere from $4,500 to $7,000 per procedure, that adds up to billions of dollars every year spent on this surgery.

Osteoarthritis of the knee is one of the primary reasons patients receive arthroscopic surgery. This is a degenerative joint disease in which the cartilage that covers the ends of the bones in your joint deteriorates, causing bone to rub against bone.

Arthroscopic knee surgery is also commonly performed to repair a torn meniscus, the crescent-shaped fibrocartilaginous structure that acts like a cushion in your knee.

Many might think that this problem, surely, would warrant surgery. But recent research³ shows that physical therapy can be just as good as surgery for a torn meniscus, adding support to the idea that when it comes to knee pain, whether caused by osteoarthritis or torn cartilage, surgery is one of the least effective treatments available...

Physical Therapy as Good as Surgery for Torn Cartilage and Arthritis

The featured study, also published in NEJM,⁴ claims to be one of the most rigorous studies yet comparing treatments for knee pain caused by either torn meniscus or arthritis. According to the Washington Post:⁵

“Researchers at seven major universities and orthopedic surgery centers around the U.S. assigned 351 people with arthritis and meniscus tears to get either surgery or physical therapy. The therapy was nine sessions on average plus exercises to do at home, which experts say is key to success.

After six months, both groups had similar rates of functional improvement. Pain scores also were similar.

Thirty percent of patients assigned to physical therapy wound up having surgery before the six months was up, often because they felt therapy wasn’t helping them. Yet they ended up the same as those who got surgery right away, as well as the rest of the physical therapy group who stuck with it and avoided having an operation.”

Another study⁶ published in 2007 also found that exercise was just as effective as surgery for people with a chronic pain in the front part of their knee, known aschronic patellofemoral syndrome (PFPS), which is also frequently treated with arthroscopic surgery.

The study compared arthroscopy with exercise in 56 patients with PFPS. One group of participants was treated with knee arthroscopy and an eight-week home exercise program, while a second group received only the exercise program. At the end of nine months, patients in both groups experienced similar reductions in pain and improvements in knee mobility.

A follow-up conducted two years later still found no differences in outcomes between the two groups.

In an editorial about the featured study,⁷ Australian preventive medicine expert Rachelle Buchbinder of Monash University in Melbourne urges the medical community to change its practice and use physical therapy as the first line of treatment, reserving surgery for the minority who do not experience improvement from the therapy.

“Currently, millions of people are being exposed to potential risks associated with a treatment that may or may not offer specific benefit, and the costs are substantial,” she writes. “These results should change practice. They should also lead to reflection on the need for levels of high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of surgical procedures similar to those currently expected for nonoperative therapy.”

Placebo Surgery Works as Well for Osteoarthritis as Arthroscopic Surgery

Buchbinder points out the importance of sham surgery to determine the true value of operative treatments. Unfortunately, many surgeons are reluctant to take on such research. Many doctors consider them unethical because patients could undergo risks with no benefits. But it has been done. The study I mentioned at the start of the article that was published in 2002,⁸ evaluated arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis. A total of 180 participants were randomly assigned to either have the real operation or sham placebo surgery in which surgeons simply made cuts in their knees.

Those in the placebo group received a drug that put them to sleep. Unlike those getting the real operation, they did not have general anesthesia to avoid unwarranted health risks and complications. In the end, the real surgery turned out to be no better at all, compared to the sham procedure. According to the authors:

“At no point did either of the intervention groups report less pain or better function than the placebo group. For example, mean scores on the Knee-Specific Pain Scale were similar in the placebo, lavage, and débridement groups... at one year [and] at two years... Furthermore, the 95 percent confidence intervals for the differences between the placebo group and the intervention groups exclude any clinically meaningful difference. In this controlled trial involving patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or arthroscopic débridement were no better than those after a placebo procedure.”

Natural Tips for Pain Relief and Cartilage Loss

Cartilage loss in your knees, one of the hallmarks of osteoarthritis, is associated with low levels of vitamin D. So if you're struggling with joint pain due to osteoarthritis, get your vitamin D levels tested, then optimize them using appropriate sun exposure or a safe tanning bed. If neither of these options are available, supplementation with oral vitamin D3 along with vitamin K2 can be considered.

Sun exposure is your best option though, because when your skin produces two types of sulfur in response to sun exposure: cholesterol sulfate, and vitamin D3 sulfate. Sulfur plays a vital role in the structure and biological activity of both proteins and enzymes. If you don't have sufficient amounts of sulfur in your body, this deficiency can cascade into a number of health problems, including impacting your joints and connective tissues.

In addition to making sure you're getting high amounts of sulfur-rich foods in your diet, such as organic and/or grass-fed/pastured beef and poultry, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a senior scientist at MIT, recommends soaking your body in magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt) baths to compensate and counteract sulfur deficiency. She uses about 1/4 cup in a tub of water, twice a week. It's particularly useful if you have joint problems or arthritis.

Methylsulfonylmethane, commonly known by its acronym, MSM, is another alternative that may be helpful. MSM is an organic form of sulfur and a potent antioxidant, naturally found in many plants, and is available in supplement form. As for glucosamine and chondroitin, two animal products marketed as food supplements for the relief of joint pain, the results from studies evaluating these supplements have been mixed, and many do not appear to be getting any significant relief from either of them.

Pain Relieving Supplements

For joint pain, I recommend avoiding anti-inflammatory drugs like non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and analgesics, like Tylenol, which are often recommended to osteoarthritis patients. Chronic use of these types of medications is associated with significant side effects such as kidney and/or liver damage. Safer, and very effective, options to help relieve joint pain include:

• Astaxanthin: An anti-inflammatory antioxidant that affects a wide range of inflammation mediators, but in a gentler, less concentrated manner and without the negative side effects associated with steroidal and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. And it works for a high percentage of people. In one study, more than 80 percent of arthritis sufferers improvedwith astaxanthin.
• Eggshell membrane: The eggshell membrane is the unique protective barrier between the egg white and the mineralized eggshell. The membrane contains elastin, a protein that supports cartilage health, and collagen, a fibrous protein that supports cartilage and connective tissue strength and elasticity.
It also contains transforming growth factor-b, a protein that supports tissue rejuvenation, along with other amino acids and structural components that support the stability and flexibility of your joints by providing them with the building blocks needed to build cartilage.
• Hyaluronic acid (HA): Hyaluronic acid is a key component of your cartilage, responsible for moving nutrients into your cells and moving waste out. One of its most important biological functions is the retention of water… second only to providing nutrients and removing waste from cells that lack a direct blood supply, such as cartilage cells.
Unfortunately, the process of normal aging reduces the amount of HA synthesized by your body. Oral hyaluronic acid supplementation may effectively help most people cushion their joints after just 2 to 4 months.
• Boswellia: Also known as boswellin or "Indian frankincense," this Indian herb is one treatment I've found to be particularly useful against arthritic inflammation and associated pain. With sustained use, boswellia may help maintain steady blood flow to your joints, supporting your joint tissues' ability to boost flexibility and strength.
• Turmeric / curcumin: A study in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine found that taking turmeric extracts each day for six weeks was just as effective as ibuprofen for relieving knee osteoarthritis pain. This is most likely related to the anti-inflammatory effects of curcumin -- the pigment that gives the turmeric spice its yellow-orange color.
• Animal-based omega-3 fats: These are excellent for arthritis because omega-3s are well known to help reduce inflammation. Look for a high-quality, animal-based source such as krill oil.

See entire post at www.drmercola.com
Get Strong! Stay Strong!
Chris

Top Ten Foods for Body Composition

From CharlesPoliquin.com

Nineteen years ago the magazine Muscle Media 2000 put out a list called the Top Ten Best Foods for Body Builders. One food on the list I’d suggest you stay away from entirely due to its toxicity, and at least three foods I’ve suggested you avoid in my blog if your goal is body composition.

Muscle Media does get it right in some cases: Four foods on the list I would recommend for anyone interested in building muscle, getting lean, or achieving optimal athletic performance. Let’s review the list, consider the author’s reason for applauding each food, and see how nearly 20 years of research changes things.

#1: Egg Whites
Whole eggs are on my list of best foods for fat loss because, as the Muscle Media author wrote, they are “made up of pure protein—protein that’s considered nearly perfect because of its sublime blend of amino acids.” Eggs also contain a nice dose of choline, which protects the liver from accumulating fat. Consuming more choline elevates levels of the energizing neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which can also increase growth hormone.

Incorrectly feared due to their cholesterol content, recent research shows eggs don’t elevate serum cholesterol. The author of the Muscle Media article had issue with the “fat-laden, cholesterol-rich yolk,” and cautioned readers to avoid it. In fact, the body uses the cholesterol to produce testosterone and other androgenic hormones, which support body composition.

Take Away: Eat whole eggs a few days a week for an excellent protein source and extra choline. Also, the fats in the yolks lower the glycemic response of the eggs, allowing for better glucose and insulin management. Avoid relying solely on eggs for your protein—eat a wide variety of animal proteins for best health, muscle development, and optimal body composition.

#2: Sweet Potatoes/Yams
There is nothing wrong with sweet potatoes and yams in general. The typical sweet potato contains a small amount of protein and fat, and about 24 grams of relatively slow-digesting carbohydrates. Eating them baked or steamed is not a bad idea, but consider that one sweet potato contains about 150 calories, and if you add butter, oil, or other ingredients to it, that number goes up. Get a better calorie bang for your buck from animal protein. Then, replace sweet potatoes with green vegetables, colored peppers, eggplant, mushrooms, hearts of palm, spaghetti squash, and water chestnuts for a vegetable that is better for body composition.

Take Away: Eat sweet potatoes for a flavorful sweet treat, or a refuel day. Unless you are ripped and need to put some muscle mass, don’t make them a staple in your diet and be sure to avoid eating them with added sugar or other such ingredients that you see around the holidays like marshmallows.

#3: Broccoli
I completely agree that broccoli and the related cruciferous vegetables are excellent body composition foods. They contain a compound that helps the body clear excess estrogen, and they provide a nice dose of fiber, a ton of antioxidants, and are very slowly digested.

The Muscle Media author likes broccoli for its cancer fighting properties and high nutritional value. He points out that the typical serving contains 155 percent of the RDA for vitamin C, roughly half the calcium of a cup of milk, and substantial quantities of folate, vitamin B6, manganese, potassium, and beta carotene.

Take Away: Eat broccoli regularly—but not chronically at every meal!—and round out your cruciferous veggie intake with cauliflower, bok choy, kale, collards, arugula, and radishes for optimal body composition.

#4: Tuna
The French nickname for tuna is “la poubelle de la mer,” which means “garbage can of the sea.” All tuna has toxic levels of mercury and should be completely avoided for health and body composition. Tuna does contain omega-3 fats and a lot of protein, but the toxicity level sends it straight to the list of worst foods for body composition and health.

It’s amusing that tuna—a “worst” food makes the MM2K “best” list, whereas cold water fish (herring, mackerel, orange roughy, salmon, and catfish), which is my number one best foods for fat loss, makes the MM2K “worst” list of foods for body builders! This highlights the need for specific, correct, research-based nutritional information for optimal body composition and health.

Take Away: Avoid tuna completely, but include small cold water fish in your diet for a nice dose of omega-3 fats. Opt for salmon, mackerel, white fish, sardines, mackerel, and anchovies, and round out omega-3 intake by taking DHA-rich fish oil.

#5: Oatmeal
If you are serious about body composition, eliminating all grains, including oats, is a good choice for two reasons. First, although oats do not contain gluten, they are often contaminated by gluten, making them allergenic for people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. Even if you are completely fine eating gluten, oats themselves can be inflammatory for some people.

Second, they are a grain and they elevate insulin much more than any protein, nut, or lower glycemic vegetable. Better body composition and blood sugar results will come from avoiding ALL GRAINS.

Third, of all foods, according to Dr. William Davis, oatmeal is the top acidifying food after wheat. Increasing acid load takes a toll on the human body. From osteopenia to muscle atrophy, acid load has been associated as being one of the culprits.

Take Away: Simply, oats and oatmeal just cause too many sensitivity and blood sugar issues to be on any list of “best” foods for body composition. In fact, no grain would be on my top ten list, however, if you choose to eat carbs, choose instead the seed quinoa because it contains a better amino acid profile. Besides quinoa is a seed, not a grain, and has been shown to raise IGF-1 levels.

#6: Bananas
The Muscle Media author likes bananas because they are convenient, available year-round, and nutritious—all good reasons, but not good enough for a list of “best” foods for body builders. There are so many BETTER fruits for body composition such as the antioxidant-rich array of berries (blueberry, strawberry, raspberry, blackberry), cherries, kiwis, and grapes. All of these fruits have been shown to blunt the insulin response of high-carb foods, and many of them have been called “anti-obesity” foods by food scientists.

In contrast, bananas have a moderately high fructose content (about 7 grams per banana), more calories, and higher glycemic index than berries and other “fat loss” fruits. Bananas have also been shown to increase serotonin, which makes it a terrible pre-workout food. Yet, many fitness/muscle building publications still put them in their pre-workout meals.

Take Away: If you love bananas, eat them occasionally post workout. Instead of relying on them as your “go-to” fat loss fruit, eat a wide variety of in-season fruits, with a focus on antioxidant-rich ones. The best time to take them is as a post-workout feed.

#7: Turkey Breast
The key when eating turkey, as the Muscle Media author points out, is that it needs to be high quality. Ground turkey may have organ meats, other meats, skin, and who knows what else in it. Plus, non-organic turkey will be pumped full of growth hormones, antibiotics, and other nasty things that you need to avoid.

Take Away: Include organic turkey in your diet in moderation. Vary your protein source regularly, opting for cold-water small fish and organic, pastured or wild meat. Avoid all non-organic meat.

#8: Whole Wheat Pasta
“Contrary to popular belief, pasta is not fattening. Fat Italian opera singers got that way because they heap mountains of cheese and fat-willed sauces on their pasta,” writes the Muscle Media author inanely. The idiocy of this statement aside, whole wheat pasta is a processed food that is made from a grain.

It is energy dense, elevates blood sugar, spikes insulin, and should be avoided if body composition is your goal. What very few people know is that pasta has a fake low glycemic index, when measured at the two hour mark. Pasta wrecks havoc on insulin levels 6.5 hours after its ingestion.

Take Away: There is no nutritional benefit from pasta that you couldn’t get from quality protein, “smart” fats, and produce. Avoid pasta and other grains if your goal is to get lean and build muscle.

#9: Carrots
Really, carrots? It’s fine to eat carrots occasionally, but they wouldn’t make my ten “best” list of foods for anything other than to turn you orange. The Muscle Media author likes carrots because they are sweet and have a lot of vitamin A and C, however, there are many more nutritious veggies than the carrot. See that list provided under the sweet potato entry for better veggie choices for body builders.

Take Away: Eating carrots in a salad or on occasion is fine, but don’t rely on them as your go to vegetable. Also, opt for whole carrots rather than diced, shaved, or juiced because this processing speeds digestion and raises the glycemic response to eating them. Raw carrots are relatively low-glycemic—the University of Sydney estimates they have a glycemic index of about 20, but cooking them raises that number to about 40.

#10: Legumes (lentils, peas, and beans)
Legumes are a great protein and fiber source, and best body composition results come from eating a wide variety daily. The Muscle Media author correctly points about that they make up the “absolute best source of plant protein” but he doesn’t like peanuts and chick peas due to their higher fat content.

Chick peas provide a minor amount of “good” fat, and supplementing the diet with chick peas has been shown to improve cholesterol level and glycemic control in one study. In another study of a population of Australians, eating chick peas daily was shown to blunt hunger. So, there’s nothing wrong with chick peas, and peanuts contain antioxidants such as resveratrol. Plus, studies show regularly eating peanuts along with other nuts can promote health and body composition.

Take Away: Eat a wide variety of beans, peas, and lentils regularly for a great protein source and nice dose of fiber. Opt for whole versions rather than processed or mashed for the best body composition results. It’s not that organic peanut butter or hummus are bad for you, they will simply require less energy to digest, and may contain added oils or other ingredients. Obviously, avoid eating any one type of legume daily because this can lead to food intolerances.