The Hypertrophy Specialist I'll admit it, before last month I'd never heard of Brad Schoenfeld.

It appears he's certainly been around the fitness block. He's published numerous books, appeared on numerous television shows, owns his own personal training facility, is an adjunct professor, and has earned multiple degrees and certifications. Still, I didn't know he existed. That was before I read his October 2010 article in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research entitled, The Mechanisms of Muscle Hypertrophy and Their Application to Resistance Training . This was quite simply the most comprehensive and succinct article on hypertrophy training I've ever read. If you're interested in hypertrophy and don't mind immersing yourself in some highlevel science, then I suggest you find a way to access this article. Anyhow, I was intrigued enough to contact Brad and ask him some questions about training for muscular growth. Forgive me if some of this stuff is a little too science-geeky, especially in the first part of the article, but that's what happened when two hypertrophy geeks get together.

BC: Thanks for agreeing to do this interview, Brad. I'm curious as to how you found the time to compile all of the research that went into your article...was this just something you whipped up on a whim, or was it a work in progress over a period of many years? BS: My pleasure, Bret. The research review on the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy was the culmination of many years of studying and analyzing thousands of research studies on the subject. I'm a self-professed research geek--I spend upwards of about 2 hours a day poring over research on exercise and nutrition, primarily as it relates to body composition. Muscle hypertrophy, in particular, is a topic that is of primary interest to me. I've been a competitive natural bodybuilder myself, and have worked with many high-level physique athletes at the national and professional level. Unfortunately, most physique athletes train very unscientifically. Their training is based on gym lore and mythology, leading to substandard results. It's therefore very rewarding for me to contribute to the body of literature on the topic and hopefully foster a greater attention to scientific training for hypertrophy. BC: Well you did a great job. Let's plow right in. What are the different ways a muscle grows, and what are the primary methods of causing muscles to grow? BS: There are two basic types of hypertrophy, contractile hypertrophy and non-contractile hypertrophy (i.e. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy). Contractile hypertrophy can manifest as either addition of sarcomeres in series or in parallel. In-series hypertrophy is not thought to significantly contribute to hypertrophy in typical training protocols (it's primarily seen after immobilization in a cast, or when persistently exercising at an incline on a treadmill), meaning that adding sarcomeres in parallel is the primary mechanism of contractile hypertrophy for those who lift weights.

[Editor's note: In layman's terms, in-series hypertrophy refers to muscles growing by actually getting longer, like adding segments to a rope. For instance, if you were to hyperextend a limb and place a cast on it to hold it in that position, the stretched muscle would actually grow longer by adding additional sarcomeres. On the other hand, in-parallel growth means exactly that, sarcomeres being added next to each other like sardines being added to a tin.] Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, on the other hand, is an increase in non-contractile elements within a muscle (collagen, glycogen, etc.). One of my mentors, the late Mel Siff, introduced me to the concept of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy years ago and there's a good deal of research supporting its presence. While sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is often called "non-functional," this actually may not be the case. There's evidence that the increased hydration of the cell associated with sarcoplasmic hypertrophy may mediate a hypertrophic response, thus leading to subsequent increases in contractile hypertrophy. [Editor's note: Hydration can cause cell growth because, as the liquid exerts pressure against the cell wall, it's perceived as a threat to cellular integrity and the cell responds by reinforcing it's structure, i.e., growth. This is one of the mechanisms by which creatine is thought to work, as it increases a cell's fluid volume, which may then promote cell growth.] On the other hand, there's little research substantiating that hyperplasia (i.e. splitting of muscle fibers) contributes significantly to hypertrophy in humans. Research shows three primary methods by which resistance training causes hypertrophy: mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress. Each of these factors mediates various processes that ultimately act on myogenic pathways to either increase protein synthesis and/or decrease protein breakdown. Moreover, there's evidence that these factors can have an additive effect on hypertrophy when combined in proper context. BC: When we look at bodybuilders versus powerlifters, how do the muscular adaptations differ between the two types of training? BS: While both bodybuilders and powerlifters tend to display impressive muscularity, the bodybuilders traditionally show the greatest hypertrophy. Studies show that at least some of the increased hypertrophy in bodybuilders is due to an increase in noncontractile elements, presumably due to differences in training methodology. However, as previously noted, the increased sarcoplasmic hypertrophy may ultimately lead to greater increases in contractile hypertrophy. BC: Please talk briefly about mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Should our goal be to maximize one or the other during a workout or to achieve a proper blend of the two stimuli? BS: Simply stated, mechanical tension is the amount of tension developed by muscle fibers in response to a stimulus. This tension can be developed either by static or dynamic muscle activity (i.e., traditional resistance training), or by chronic stretch. It is believed that mechanically induced tension disturbs the integrity of skeletal muscle, causing mechano-chemically transduced molecular and cellular responses in myofibers and satellite cells. Alternatively, metabolic stress results from the buildup of various metabolites (e.g., lactate, hydrogen ion, inorganic phosphate, creatine, etc.), and is generally maximized by anaerobic glycolysis as well as muscle ischemia.

Based on the body of available research as well as years of personal data working with physique athletes, I believe there is a threshold of mechanical tension that needs to be reached during training to elicit muscular gains. Beyond this threshold, metabolic stress becomes increasingly important to maximizing the hypertrophic response. I should also point out that muscle damage is a part of the puzzle here. Specifically, damage to myofibers generates an acute inflammatory response that has been shown to mediate hypertrophic processes, including the release of various growth factors that regulate satellite cell proliferation and differentiation. Given that muscle damage is brought about primarily by eccentric exercise, this reinforces the need to emphasize the eccentric portion of each lift. BC: What are the primary "anabolic" hormones in the body that we should be trying to maximize in our training? BS: The two primary anabolic hormones are IGF-1 and Testosterone. I'm sure everyone knows about the anabolic properties of Testosterone. Interestingly, significant correlations have been found between training-induced elevations in Testosterone and muscle cross sectional area. This suggests that in addition to the importance of chronically elevated Testosterone levels, acute, exercise-induced elevations in Testosterone may also play an important role in muscle hypertrophy. IGF-1 is a peptide hormone with structural similarities to insulin. One of the isoforms of IGF-1, called mechano growth factor (MGF), is preferentially upregulated in response to mechanical signaling and therefore appears to be particularly important to the growth process. IGF-1 has been shown to induce hypertrophy in both an autocrine and paracrine manner, and exerts its effects directly by increasing the rate of protein synthesis in differentiated myofibers as well as through mediating the proliferation and differentiation of satellite cells. Growth hormone (GH) also seems to play a role in hypertrophy, although its mechanisms are less clear than either IGF-1 or Testosterone. Research suggests that GH is primarily involved in the hypertrophic response in a secondary fashion, seemingly by mediating IGF-1 production. Some people dismiss the hypertrophic role of GH based on studies using exogenous GH injections. However, these protocols do not replicate the large spikes in GH seen post-exercise, nor do they take into account the time course of GH elevation in conjunction with myotrauma. Moreover, over 100 molecular isoforms of GH have been identified, yet the vast majority of this research has been carried out solely on one isoform, the 22 kDa isoform. BC: Many strength coaches hate on "pumping" training, saying that there is no evidence that trying to achieve a pump leads to increases in hypertrophy. Are these coaches correct? BS: Before answering the question, it's important to look at the etiology of the muscle "pump." Basically, the pump is caused by a buildup of fluid within the cell, facilitated by the accumulation of metabolic byproducts, which function as osmolytes. [Editor's note: Osmolytes are organic compounds that maintain cell volume and fluid balance.]

Studies show that intracellular hydration (i.e., cell swelling) can mediate hypertrophy both by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing proteolysis. Thus, there is a physiologic basis by which the pump may augment hypertrophy and it would be imprudent to dismiss this potential role. BC: Does this mean that we should solely seek "da pump" during our workouts or should we also be thinking about setting PR's and progressive overload? BS: I certainly wouldn't say that we should "solely" seek a pump during training. Any training protocol, including those targeting hypertrophy, must have progressive overload to bring about adaptation. It's a central tenet of exercise and is by all accounts, immutable. That said, the cell swelling effect of a muscle pump would seem to provide an additive effect to the hypertrophic response and this role should not be dismissed. BC: Is there such thing as "Irrational Hypertrophy," and if so, what is it? [Yet another editor's note: Irrational hypertrophy is the concept that muscle growth simply can't occur when the cell lacks sufficient resources. These resources could simply be lack of calories, lack of protein, or lack of some intermediate metabolic chemical.] BS: I've heard the term "irrational hypertrophy" mentioned in terms of cells lacking the energy systems required to support synthesis and maintenance of new muscle proteins, but this is generally not a limiting factor in hypertrophic training protocols. There is evidence to support the concept of a myonuclear domain, which proposes that the myonucleus regulates mRNA production for a finite sarcoplasmic volume and that any increases in fiber size must be accompanied by a proportional increase in myonuclei (either in size or number of myonuclei). Satellite cell activity is purported to be the primary mechanism regulating myonuclear domain, as satellite cells donate nuclei to the muscle fiber. Conceivably an inability to increase myonuclei could result in "irrational hypertrophy" and it's possible that training methodology could play a role in the process. BC: On a personal note, I've noticed that natural lifters seem to need to hit the muscle groups more frequently than one time per week for optimal hypertrophic results. Many bodybuilders hit their muscle groups one time per week and achieve great results, but they're taking exogenous anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, IGF-1, and insulin. Do you believe that natural bodybuilders should train differently than drug-assisted bodybuilders? BS: There is, of course, no doubt that drug-assisted bodybuilders achieve significant training advantages compared to natural physique athletes. Taking exogenous anabolic hormones drives muscle protein synthesis, decreases catabolic processes, and fosters greater recovery allowing for a much greater volume and frequency of training. Natural lifters must be much more cognizant of optimizing training volume without bringing about overtraining, and accomplishing this balance requires a delicate balance of manipulating training variables within one's abilities.

I don't necessarily agree that natural lifters need to work specific muscles more than once a week, however, at least on an ongoing basis. Anecdotally, I've achieved greatest success both personally and with high-level physique athletes using a periodized approach that alternates training frequency over the course of a 12-week mesocycle. Training for each muscle group varies between one to two times per week, with periods of unloading interspersed throughout the training cycle to minimize overtraining potential. BC: Many bodybuilders utilize Joe Weider's "Instinctive Principle," which is in itself a form of periodization that relies on biofeedback. Mel Siff called this "auto-regulation" and described it as "Cybernetic Periodization." Do you believe that most bodybuilders and powerlifters should stick to a set periodized routine and stick to the formula, or that most should ditch the periodization schemes and learn how to listen to their bodies and train accordingly? BS: I'm a big proponent of periodization for achieving any exercise-related goal. It has been validated by research and I've used it very successfully over the years in hypertrophy programs. That said, periodization in itself doesn't preclude instinctive aspects, and I know Mel considered this a very important topic. There is actually a growing body of research supporting the use of "flexible nonlinear periodization" where subjects are allowed to selfselect training intensities based on how they feel on a particular training day. But while I do think it's important to listen to your body and, if necessary, adjust training intensity on a particular day based on subjective feelings, it can potentially result in trainees adopting a "psychologically lazy" training approach. I would counter that most hard-training athletes can and should adhere to a structured periodized protocol and only need to make adjustments occasionally during the course of a mesocycle. At least that's been my experience with high-level physique competitors. BC: Let's say I want my legs to grow as large as humanly possible. Should I just focus on getting stronger at heavy lower body lifts such as squats, deadlifts, and leg press, or should I incorporate isolation movements such as leg extensions and leg curls? BS: Multi-joint movements such as squats, rows, and presses will activate the greatest amount of muscle mass, so they certainly should be staples in any training routine. However, single joint movements do allow for better targeting of individual muscles and thus can be an important part of a hypertrophy-oriented routine. Realize that during multi-joint movement training, certain muscles will dominate over others, causing imbalanced growth. Employing single joint movements allows one to enhance muscle development in otherwise "underworked" muscles while also improving muscular symmetry (which is as important for physique athletes as overall muscular size, if not more so). BC: Does there seem to be an optimal split in terms of maximizing strength and hypertrophy? Should we be performing full body workouts, lower body and upper body split workouts, pushing and pulling workouts, or body part split routines?

BS: There is a good deal of science behind using split routines in a hypertrophy training protocol. Recent research shows that when performing multi-set routines, greater than 72 hours may be necessary before training the same muscle group to allow for sufficient muscle repair. A split routine has been shown to afford the ability to maintain total weekly training volume with fewer sets performed per training session and greater recovery afforded between sessions. I don't believe there is an "optimal" split, however. Many different combinations can and do work very well. Based on my experience it's best to vary the split over the course of a periodized program. The primary consideration here is to make sure to avoid working the same muscle group when training on successive days as this can impair muscular repair. Now this isn't as simple as it sounds. Realize that the sternal head of the pectorals are heavily involved in shoulder adduction movements (such as lat pulldowns), the short head of the biceps are heavily involved in chest flys, the triceps synergists in shoulder presses, etc. You must pay heed to these kinesiological facts to avoid short-changing the recuperative process and thus impairing muscular gains. BC: Let's say I want to isolate a certain part of a muscle, for example the outer pecs or lower lats. Is this possible or just wishful thinking? Does a comprehensive hypertrophy program focus mostly on the basics or does it include a wide variety of exercises with various vectors and positions of maximal tension? BS: First, there is really no such thing as "isolation" in resistance training. The human body simply doesn't work in a way that allows us to focus solely on one muscle without activating other synergists and stabilizers. The best we can seek to do is to "target" a particular muscle or portion of a muscle to a greater degree vis a vis another muscle. Thus, applied anatomy should be a prime consideration when devising a hypertrophic routine. The most common application of this concept is with muscles that have different attachment sites. Examples include the trapezius (which is divided into upper, middle, and lower regions) and the deltoids (which have anterior, medial, and posterior heads). However, there also are regional differences within various muscles that can impact their response to exercise choice. Specifically, studies show that certain muscles are divided into neuromuscular componentsdistinct regions of muscle each of which is innervated by its own nerve branchwhich potentially can be activated by utilizing different exercises and/or variations of exercises. The sartorius, gracilis, rectus abdominis, biceps femoris and semitendinosus, for example, are all subdivided by one or more fibrous bands or inscriptions, with each compartment innervated by separate nerve branches. Interestingly, both the gracilis and sartorius are composed of relatively short, in series fibers that terminate intrafascicularly, which refutes the belief that muscle fibers always span the entire origin to insertion. The bottom line is that these architectural variances of muscle warrant the need to adopt a multi-planar, multi-angled approach to hypertrophy training utilizing a variety of different exercises over the course of periodized program.

As to the examples you cited, it would be wishful thinking to attempt to target the outer pecs since the fiber composition of the pectoralis major simply doesn't afford this ability. The lower lats, on the other hand, can be targeted to some degree given that the fibers of the lats have multiple attachment sites (i.e., at the spine, scapula, pelvis and humerus). Because of these multiple attachments, the lat fibers are arranged in different directions, from almost perpendicular at the upper region, to almost parallel with the body in the lower region. Since muscles are maximally stressed when an exercise moves directly in line with its fibers, the upper lats receive greater stress when performing wider grip pulldowns while the lower lat fibers are stressed more during closer grip pulldowns. BC: Are machines useful in the development of hypertrophy? What could a machine possibly do that a free weight exercise couldn't? BS: Both machines and free weight movements have a place in a hypertrophy-oriented routine as they complement each other in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. With respect to machines, they have a hypertrophic advantage over free weights in that they allow a lifter greater ability to target specific muscles. Free weight exercises involve the contribution of a significant number of synergists and stabilizer muscles that do not come into play when using machines. Thus, there is greater stress on the target muscle when training on a machine, potentially allowing for greater muscular development of that muscle. Now it's important to point out that the synergists and stabilizers substantially contribute to muscular hypertrophy, so a combination of both modalities is important to maximize the hypertrophic response. BC: Does there appear to be an optimal rep range for maximum hypertrophy? Is this range uniform depending on the muscle/muscle group? Many bodybuilders swear by higher rep ranges for the lower body. BS: Based on the majority of literature and the physiological basis of hypertrophy training, a moderate rep range (65% to 85% of 1RM) seems to be ideal for maximizing the hypertrophic response. This rep range allows for the use of weights that result in significant mechanical tension while also potentiating sufficient muscle damage and metabolic stress to augment myogenesis. I've had excellent success utilizing a step-loading protocol where intensity is systematically increased with this rep range over the course of a mesocycle, followed by a one week unloading cycle of low intensity training. Now this shouldn't be interpreted to mean that an individual whose goal is to maximize hypertrophy should solely train in a moderate rep range. A periodized mesocycle of lower rep sets will help to afford the use of heavier weights during moderate rep training, thereby increasing mechanical tension during the hypertrophy phase of training. And employing a mesocycle of higher rep sets can facilitate increasing the lactate threshold, facilitating a better ability to train through lactate buildup and thus increase the extent of metabolic stress during training.

BC: What about rest time in between sets? Should we wait 30 seconds, a minute, two minutes, or five minutes before performing the next set of an exercise? BS: A moderate rest interval of about one to two minutes between sets appears to be ideal for maximizing hypertrophy. This allows a lifter sufficient recuperation time to recover most of his/her strength for maintaining a high degree of mechanical tension. In addition, it enhances the body's anabolic environment via increased metabolic stress and hypoxia, heightening the potential for increased muscular growth. Shorter rest intervals comprise mechanical tension while longer intervals don't generate much in the way of metabolic stress. BC: Do we need to go to failure on all of our sets or at least some of our sets? BS: The evidence seems to suggest that training to failure is a necessary part of optimizing hypertrophy. Most bodybuilders have intuitively realized this and employ training to failure as an integral part of their routines. Now the question then becomes how often should one go to failure, and the answer to this is less clear. There is compelling evidence that persistent training to failure over time can lead to overtraining and thereby impair results. Given that the threshold for overtraining is dependent on multiple factors and varies from person to person, it is difficult to give a general recommendation on the subject. My best advice here is to periodize and/or limit the number of sets that are taken to failure, basing specifics on individual response over time. Here is where being in tune with one's body is extremely important to optimize a hypertrophy-oriented protocol. BC: Last question Brad, what is something that will inspire me for my workout later on today? Thanks again for taking the time to conduct this interview. BS: The best inspiration that I can give is that if you adopt a scientific approach to increasing muscle mass, you can push past plateaus and optimize your genetic potential. I've never met anyone who can't improve on their physique if they embrace scientific training principles.

TAKE HOME POINTS, AS WE, THE EDITORS, SEE THEM: 1. You can add muscle cells in series, sort of like adding segments to a rope, or in parallel, which is kind of like adding sardines to a tin. Of the two, in parallel is the primary way in which you build muscle. 2. You can also gain muscle size by "non-functional," or saracoplasmic hypertrophy. This refers to things like collagen, glycogen, fluid, and other non-contractile "materials" that fluff up the cell, sort of like adding additional stuffing to a sofa cushion. However, there's evidence to suggest that adding non-contractile elements to the cell actually stresses the cell out, sending it signals to grow. 3. Muscle responds to mechanical stress, like weight lifting (duh!), and also metabolic stress. This metabolic stress refers to the build up of various metabolites like lactate, hydrogen ions, and creatine, all of which are thought to spur the muscle cell to grow further.

4. Furthermore, actual muscle damage seems to lead to more muscle growth, and it's the eccentric, or lowering part of the exercise rep that causes the most damage. The coveted "pump" is actually caused by intracellular hydration, and this hydration may spur the muscle cell to additional growth. In other words, the pump is good. 5. Periodized training, where the non drug-aided trainee works each muscle group once or twice a week, while making periodic adjustments as needed, seems to work the best, at least as far as Brad's personal experience has shown. 6. Multi-joint movements like squats, deadlifts, rows, and presses build the most muscle mass, but targeted training of individual muscles is also an important part of achieving overall symmetry. 7. There is no such thing as "isolation" training; the human body doesn't work that way. However, given that certain muscles are innervated by different nerve branches, it means that muscles should be worked across a wide range of angles and planes. 8. As we all know, free weights have the most bang for your training buck, but machine training is well-suited for targeting specific muscles. 9. Most research shows that working within a range of 65% to 85% of 1RM builds the most muscle. 10. Brad reports that a rest interval of about 1- 2 minutes is optimal for maximizing hypertrophy. Stimulate More Muscle Growth by Christian Thibaudeau

On the surface, stimulating muscle growth is easy: just lift the damn weight! This will work as long as you're progressively increasing the demand placed on the muscle over time (either by adding more weight, doing more reps at a given weight, doing more sets, increasing density, etc.). But it's still interesting to understand the factors that can contribute to making your muscles grow. We know that lifting weights builds muscle, but why? Here are the main factors contributing to stimulating growth: 1) Intramuscular Tension: This refers to how hard a muscle must be contracted during the performance of an exercise. As such, it's directly correlated with the amount of force you have to produce. More force equals great intramuscular tension. A high level of intramuscular tension can influence muscle growth because it leads to a high rate of protein degradation (more tension = faster muscle damage). In that regard, see tension as a punch: the harder you punch someone, the more damage it'll do. However, the more you put into a punch, the fewer swings you can take at your opponent. It's impossible to effectively throw 60 uppercuts in one round of boxing, but it is possible to throw that many jabs.

It's the same thing with weights: the more tension you produce, the less time you can sustain that tension. So while a high level of tension will cause rapid muscle damage, if it's too high (e.g. 1-3 maximal reps) the time spent causing damage to the muscle might not be long enough to elicit a maximal growth response. But still, high tension will stimulate muscle growth. It also has another interesting impact: the recruitment of the high-threshold motor units (fast-twitch fibers). The more force (tension) you produce, the more HTMUs you'll recruit. 2) Time Under Tension: If a high intramuscular tension represents an uppercut, a long time under tension is kinda' like hitting your opponent 60-80 times in a round. The more often you hit your adversary, the more potential damage you can cause. If a set lasts longer, the time spent causing muscle damage is more important and thus can lead to more growth stimulation. The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between the magnitude of the tension and the time that it can be sustained: if you shoot for a very long set, you won't be able to do the set under a lot of tension. So while you might spend a lot of seconds working at causing muscle damage, you're actually not causing a lot of damage per second. You can bitch-slap an opponent a thousand times, but it won't knock him out! Just like with tension increasing the time under tension of a set will lead to more growth stimulation, but only if the tension level stays relatively high. 3) Blood Vessel Occlusion, Metabolite Accumulation, Hormonal Output: You might have heard of "kaatsu" or tourniquet training. It's a training method that relies on lifting light weights (20-30% of your maximum for 15-30 reps) while wearing a special cuff that's tightened up around the proximal end of a limb to restrict blood flow to the muscle.

Studies have shown that despite the light weights being used, the muscle growth response is as big as lifting heavy weights (80% and more). The reason is the blood occlusion, which has been shown to create a deprived oxygen state (since blood flow to the muscle is limited, so is oxygen transport). This leads to an accumulation of lactate which increases the production of both hGH (growth hormone) and IGF-1 (Takareda et al. 2000). The lack of oxygen (hypoxic state) and increase in acidity has also been shown to increase the recruitment of fast-twitch muscle fibers (Shinohara and Moritani, 1992). In fact, oxygen restriction to the muscle increases fast-twitch recruitment, firing rate, and spike amplitude (Yasuda, 2005).

Finally, exercise with restricted oxygen/blood entry in the trained muscle also leads to the production of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), which increase muscle satellite cell activation and proliferation (two key phenomenon involved in the muscle growth process). The good news is that you don't have to use kaatsu training (which can be risky) to create this oxygen/blood flow restriction to the muscle. Sustained muscle tension (as in never allowing a muscle to relax during a set) can make muscle hypoxic even without external occlusion (Bonde-Peteron et al. 1975, Mitchell et al. 1980). A recent study compared several training protocols' effects on oxygen levels during the execution of an exercise. With kaatsu training, oxygen levels were at around 22% of the rested/normal state, compared to 32-35% for normal, heavy training a difference that can explain the efficacy of kaatsu training. However, they also found that performing sets without blocking blood flow, but using a 303 tempo and never allowing the muscles to relax during the set (always flexing as hard as possible during every inch of every rep) with 50-60% of the maximum performed to failure, led to oxygen levels of 23-24%. Lactate, hGH, and IGF-1 levels were also the same as with kaatsu training. The moral of the story is that constant tension exercises can build size and strength despite using relatively light weights and even if muscle damage is fairly low. However, if the muscle is allowed to relax during the set, oxygen and blood will flow into the muscle and you won't reach optimal benefits. So, we could say that muscle growth can be stimulated by: 1. Heavy lifting (4-6 reps), which promotes a high rate of mechanical damage/protein degradation. 2. Relatively high reps (up to 12-15 for the upper body and 15-20 for the lower body), which promote a high mechanical degradation due to the combination of moderate time under tension and intramuscular tension magnitude. 3. Constant tension sets. To do these properly, you must flex the target muscle hard during every inch of every rep. You can never allow the muscle to relax. This means no rest between reps either. This method is best kept for isolation exercises. You could take advantage of all three methods by designing your program according to this template: Exercise 1: Heavy lift (4-6 reps) using a basic, multi-joint exercise Exercise 2: Moderate rep movement (8-10) using another multi-joint exercise Exercise 3: High rep movement (12-15) using a secondary exercise Exercise 4: Constant tension movement (303 tempo, 50-60% of maximum, 8-12 reps) using an isolation exercise A chest workout might look something like this: A. Decline bench press 4-5 x 4-6 reps 90-120 seconds of rest

B. Incline dumbbell press 3 x 8-10 reps 75 seconds of rest C. Cable crossover or lying crossover 3 x 12-15 reps 60 seconds of rest D. Squeeze press (pressing the dumbbells together as you simultaneously lift them) 3 x 8-12 using a 303 tempo 45 seconds of rest

Conclusion It's clear that muscle is stubborn; that it often resists our best efforts to prod it into growth, but perseverance, a little smarts, and varying strategies will win the battle and the war.

6 Lessons Learned From the Master Blaster by Bret Contreras and Brad Schoenfeld 8/14/2012

Joe Weider, a.k.a. "The Master Blaster," remains one of the more controversial figures in the bodybuilding and fitness realm. Still, love him or hate him, his extreme influence in the way gym-goers around the world train can't be denied.

Joe popularized The Weider Principles, a compilation of guidelines and methods to help bodybuilders achieve their maximal potential. While these principles are often dismissed as bro-science, it turns out that many have solid research to back up their use. Here are six of our favorites. 1. Instinctive Training The Instinctive Training Principle dictates that training intensity should be based on how you feel during a given session. In essence, you use a combination of experience and "instinct" to guide your day-to-day workouts.

This helps address the fact that outside influences such as sleep patterns, nutrition, relationship issues, stress, and aches and pains can significantly affect your ability to train at peak levels on a daily basis.

Emerging research seems to support an instinctive training approach. In scientific circles, this strategy has been termed "autoregulatory training" and researchers have evaluated its applicability in various flexible periodization models.

In a recent study (McNamara et al., 2010), sixteen beginner weight-training subjects were divided into two resistance training groups. All the participants performed the same volume of training and the same rep max schemes (10RM, 15RM, and 20RM) twice a week, except one group performed the routine in a regimented fashion while the other group was allowed to choose when to perform the given workouts based on how they felt.

At the end of the 12-week training period, those who were allowed to train instinctively increased leg press strength by 62 kg compared to only a 16 kg increase in the control group.

Now, despite these impressive results on novice subjects, instinctive training is generally better suited to more advanced lifters. To achieve optimal benefits, you must be highly in tune with your mental, physical, and emotional state and how these factors affect training capacity.

This only comes with dedicated training experience. A beginner simply isn't skilled enough in the nuances of training to accurately gauge his daily capacity for peak performance, which can lead to substandard results.

It's also important to understand that instinctive training has a downside. Namely, unless you're highly motivated to train, it becomes tempting to give into laziness. The flexible nature of the strategy provides a ready-made excuse to take things easy, even if you're feeling good.

So be honest with yourself. If you're the type that needs regimentation to keep you on the straight and narrow, then a more traditional periodization program might be a better option.

On the other hand, you can't take this to the other extreme and think it's okay to push through anything short of a broken bone. Remember that the body needs adequate recuperation to regenerate its resources. Otherwise, you'll rapidly become overtrained and progress will ultimately hit a wall.

So regardless of subjective feelings, make sure to include regular unloading cycles throughout your training program.

2. Continuous Tension The Continuous Tension Principle states that muscles respond favorably when they're placed under continuous tension with no resting phases during the repetition. Maintaining continuous tension can be achieved in several ways: By avoiding rest periods at the top or bottom of a movement. By minimizing momentum (excessive momentum can cause a considerable deceleration phase at the top of a movement, characterized by decreased muscle activation). By avoiding the top range of motion during certain movements.

As it turns out, research supports that lifting under conditions of continuous tension can provide a potent stimulus for muscular hypertrophy, even when relatively light loads are used (Tanimoto et al., 2008). The true benefit behind this principle probably has less to do with reduced momentum and more to do with an acute restriction of circulation to the working muscles.

Repetitive muscular contractions cause a compression of blood vessels, impeding both inflow and outflow during exercise and creating a hypoxic intramuscular environment. There's evidence that the hypoxic effect mediates a hypertrophic response, conceivably by the buildup of metabolites and reduction in pH levels associated with such training.

In combination, these factors are believed to enhance muscular growth through various mechanisms including increased fiber recruitment, acute elevations in anabolic hormones, alterations in myokines, production of reactive oxygen species, and/or cell swelling (the pump).

Here's our take. When performing the big basic lifts such as squats, deadlifts, bench presses, and chin-ups, focus on lifting big weights, using good form, and setting PR's. Go ahead and rest at the top or bottom of the movement if need-be, take advantage of increased momentum when appropriate, and make sure you go deep and lockout (use a full range of motion).

However, for more targeted movements, consider using the continuous tension principle. Think of a piston continuously moving up and down with no built-in rest periods that's what you want your reps to look like.

For many exercises, another Weider principle known as the Partial Rep Principle merges well with the continuous principle as some movements lead to a complete drop-off of joint torque and muscle activation in the targeted region.

For example, the top of a chest fly or dumbbell pullover fails to place adequate tension on the targeted musculature. Therefore, partial reps that only rise two-thirds of the way up may be ideal for these movements as it allows for more consistent tension on the muscles.

When performing movements such as chest flies, pullovers, hip thrusts, and certain types of curls and triceps extensions, focus on keeping continuous tension on the muscle. Don't rely on momentum, don't be afraid to limit range of motion, and simply squeeze your muscles against resistance.

3. Muscle Priority The Muscle Priority Principle maintains that you should work your weak points first in a workout. Weider reasoned that since energy levels and mental focus are highest at this time, prioritizing training allows the use of greater intensity and effort on the muscles that need it most.

Although this principle runs counter to the commonly held notion that large muscle groups should be trained before smaller muscle groups, recent research seems to support Weider's hypothesis.

Studies consistently show that strength gains in exercises performed early in a workout are significantly greater than those performed at the end of the routine (Simao et al., 2010; Dias et al., 2010).

In a recent review of the topic, researchers concluded that, given the magnitude of strength decrements over the course of a workout, it's beneficial to structure exercise order based on the muscles in greatest need of improvement, regardless of whether they involve large or small muscle group movements (Simo et al. 2012).

Bottom line: if your biceps lag behind your triceps, don't hesitate to start off your workout with some curls; if your legs look like upside down bowling pins, by all means perform calf raises at the onset.

Many bodybuilders perform an incline movement first during every chest workout, and some hit their rear delts before heavy overhead pressing on their shoulder days. Don't blindly stick to the "heaviest compound movement first" mantra if you have a glaring imbalance. If you possess a noticeable strength or muscle discrepancy, prioritize that weak link by hitting it right off the bat.

4. Flushing

The Flushing Principle entails training a muscle group with multiple exercises in a session. The idea here is to flush the working muscle with blood so that nutrient delivery is maximized to facilitate optimal remodeling of fibers. In other words, train for the pump!

It's debatable whether the enhanced nutrient delivery from flushing affects muscle remodeling; however, the associated cellular swelling from repeated bouts of reactive hyperemia very well may promote hypertrophic adaptations.

Research consistently shows that a hydrated cell increases protein synthesis while attenuating protein breakdown (Haussinger et al. 1994; Ritz et al., 2003). These effects are mediated by sensors in the muscle fiber that respond to increases in cell volume by initiating anabolic processes as a means to reinforce its ultrastructure (Low et al., 1997). The upshot: better muscular development.

Here's our take. Progressive overload is critical. You want to make sure you're getting stronger over time on the big, basic lifts. However, once you've performed your heavy compound movement for the day, you should definitely consider choosing some exercises that flush as much blood into the muscle as possible, particularly if hypertrophy is your primary goal.

Every good lifter intuitively learns how to pump up their muscles, and this strategy seems to be unique according to the lifter. Some like performing high-rep bottom range push-ups or dips supersetted with flies or crossovers to pump up their pecs, others swear by "delt-blasters" consisting of multiple tri-sets of 10 rep rear delt raises, followed immediately by 10 rep lateral raises, followed immediately by 10 rep front raises to pump up the delts.

For the glutes, maybe multiple sets of moderate rep hip thrusts with very short rest times do the trick. There could be a particular machine at your gym that produces some serious engorging of muscle.

Learn which methods best achieve a pump for each respective muscle group and be sure to incorporate them at the end of your workout after you've performed a couple of heavy exercises focusing on progressive overload. 5. Muscle Confusion The Muscle Confusion Principle states that exercise selection should be continuously varied over time. Weider proposed that such an approach maximizes muscular development by not allowing the neuromuscular system to adapt to a given movement. In effect, the body is continuously challenged by new stressors, thereby spurring increased growth.

One problem with repeatedly performing the same routine day-in-day-out is that it impedes exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) by the so-called "repeated bout effect." While excessive tissue damage can be deleterious to training, research suggests a "sweet spot" exists whereby a moderate amount of EIMD potentiates a supercompensatory response that ultimately enhances muscular growth (Schoenfeld, 2012).

It's believed that the hypertrophic effects of EIMD are mediated by various myokines, which are growth factors that exert acute anabolic effects locally within muscle. EIMD also increases the activation of satellite cells, which aid in muscular repair as well as donating additional nuclei to fibers so more muscle proteins can be synthesized. Performing a variety of different movements staves off the repeated bout effect so that these responses are maximized.

Changing exercises also helps to ensure complete stimulation of all fibers in a given muscle. Contrary to what some believe, muscles don't necessarily contract along the entire length of the fiber, rather, the majority of muscles are subdivided by one or more fibrous bands that terminate intrafascicularly, thereby creating distinct compartments within the muscle (Heron & Richmond, 1993).

These compartments are often innervated by separate nerve branches, indicating that, portions of a muscle, depending on the exercise, will display greater muscle activation than others (Wickiewicz et al., 1983; Woodley & Mercer, 2005).

The long and short heads of the biceps brachii, for example, display architectural subdivisions that are innervated by private branches of the primary neurons (Segal et al., 2001). The upshot is that elbow flexion targets motor units in the lateral aspect of the long head, supination targets motor units in the medial portion, and combinations of flexion and supination target motor units in the central region (ter Haar Romeny et al., 1982; ter Haar Romeny et al., 1984).

Moreover, the short head displays greater muscle activity in the latter part of an arm curl (i.e., greater elbow flexion) while the long head is more active in the early phase of movement (Brown et al., 1993). As you can see, variety is definitely a good thing as it pertains to muscle hypertrophy!

Now before you start thinking that P90X is the key to muscle-building nirvana, understand that you can't simply string together a hodgepodge of disconnected movements for the sake of variety and expect to optimize gains. Rather, the idea is to design your program so that training is systematically carried out from different angles and planes of movement.

Thought should be given as to how exercises interact with one another from an applied anatomical standpoint. A combination of both mass-building multi-joint moves and targeted single-joint exercises synergistically affect symmetrical muscular development, as does training with multiple modalities (i.e., barbells, dumbbells, cables, etc.).

The bottom line is that if you're not getting stronger over time at the big, basic movement patterns, your muscular shape probably won't change much. You can hit the pecs from every possible angle with every exercise imaginable, but if you're still benching 135 pounds for 3 sets of 10, your muscular development will likely be inferior.

For this reason, use plenty of variety, but make sure you're always performing variations of squats, deadlifts, and presses. There are thousands of tweaks you can make with these lifts to "confuse" the muscles while still sticking to the best movement patterns.

For example, for bench pressing variety you could perform bench press, close grip bench press, board press, floor press, rack press, incline press, or decline press. Many of these can be done with dumbbells too, and you can vary set and rep schemes as well. Vary your workouts in an intelligent manner, but never shy too far away from proven methods.

6. Cheating The cheating principle dictates that allowing for a little bit of "English" to use slightly heavier weight or squeeze out another couple reps at the end of the set is worthwhile from a hypertrophy-training standpoint.

Many online arguments have explored whether or not cheating during exercises is worthwhile. Brand new research has taken a close look at this topic, and it was shown that there's a sweet spot for technical form and subsequent joint torque requirements and hypertrophy stimulus during the lateral raise exercise (Arandjelovi, published ahead of print).

According to the author:

"A moderate increase in the load and the use of momentum allows the torque to be increased even further. In contrast, excessive use of momentum results in lower demands on the target muscles, while an excessive increase of the load reduces the total hypertrophy stimulus by virtue of the decreased number of repetitions which can be performed successfully and thus the dramatically shortened time under tension."

Here's our take. You don't want to cheat or use excessive momentum when performing exercises that involve inherent risk to a particular joint, such as squats, deadlifts, or military presses. However, certain exercises such as barbell curls and lateral raises lend themselves well to moderate momentum, or "cheating." Just don't cheat too much or you decrease the load on the target muscle and expose the body to increased risk of injury.

Why Bodybuilders are More Jacked Than Powerlifters by Bret Contreras and Brad Schoenfeld 5/24/2011

We all know that there are some freaky looking powerlifters. That said, powerlifters aren't as muscular as bodybuilders. Name your favorite jacked powerlifter, and we'll show you a bodybuilder who dwarfs him in terms of muscularity.

Granted, many powerlifters carry too much body fat to accurately assess their level of muscularity. For example, here are pictures of Donnie Thompson, Ryan Kennelly, and Benedikt Magnusson. As of mid-2011, these guys are the owners of the world's strongest squat and powerlifting total, strongest bench press, and strongest deadlift, respectively.

Clearly these guys are beasts, but they're definitely not the most muscular guys on the planet. But if they dropped down to reasonable bodyfat levels they'd likely lose a lot of muscle in the process.

One of the most muscular powerlifters who consistently displays excellent conditioning is Konstantin Konstantinovs.

He's certainly a freak, but put him next to Ronnie Coleman and suddenly his muscularity isn't as impressive.

In late 2010, Stan Efferding won the World's Strongest Bodybuilder competition. Stan owns the highest raw powerlifting total in the world, but he's not the most muscular bodybuilder.

Fact is, if you examine pictures of Stan and other powerlifting bodybuilders like Johnnie Jackson and Ben White, you'll notice that all three of these athletes possess mediocre lower body development by bodybuilding standards.

In 1993, Tom Platz, owner of perhaps the biggest wheels in bodybuilding history, entered into a squatting competition with Fred Hatfield (aka "Dr. Squat"), the first guy to squat 1,000 pounds.

Although Tom's legs were much bigger than Fred's, Fred kicked his butt in a one-rep max, hoisting 855 pounds to Tom's 765 pounds. But when they took some plates off the bar and decreased the weight to 525 pounds for a test of lower-body endurance, Tom dusted Fred, performing 23 reps compared to Fred's 11.

Fred Hatfield, and Tom Platz

Bottom line is, bodybuilders seem better at high reps with a smooth cadence, whereas powerlifters seem more adept at low reps performed explosively.

Mr. Olympia Jay Cutler wrote some very honest and forthright commentary on strength and muscular size in his Muscular Developmentcolumn in 2010. He listed his all-time best lifts along with his current strength. He used to train with much heavier weights several years back, but he's more muscular now than he was back when he was much stronger. While he still goes heavy, these days he focuses more on quality than quantity.

What Explains the Muscular Differences Between Bodybuilders and Powerlifters? Many lifters, trainers, and coaches believe that "muscles only know tension." This view is overly simplistic. In reality, a number of factors must be taken into account. What degree of tension? What duration of tension? What frequency of tension? What kind of tension? Certainly passive tension isn't as effective as active tension in packing on lean mass.

Many believe that the continuous quest for increased maximal strength is the key to developing massive muscles. But while increased strength is definitely related to increased muscle cross sectional area (CSA), there are multiple adaptations that can boost strength without increasing muscle hypertrophy (Schoenfeld, 2010).

In Neuromechanics of Human Movement, Roger Enoka (Enoka, 2008) lists eight potential neurological areas for non-hypertrophy related strength gains: Enhanced output from supraspinal centers as suggested by findings with imagined contractions Reduced coactivation of antagonist muscles Greater activation of agonist and synergist muscles Enhanced coupling of spinal interneurons that produces cross-education Changes in descending drive that reduce the bilateral deficit Shared input to motor neurons that increases motor unit synchronization

Greater muscle activation (EMG) Heightened excitability and altered connections into motor neurons

Of all of these adaptations, basic coordination between the muscles is the single greatest contributor to non-hypertrophy related strength gains. Along with neurological adaptations, adaptations involving increased stiffness in the tissues that connect from bone to bone (including tendons, extracellular matrix, etc.) can lead to increased force transmission from muscle to bone, and play a significant role in increased strength gains.

Pennation angle. The angle formed by the individual muscle fibers with a muscle's line of action significantly impacts strength irrespective of muscle hypertrophy. Specifically, increased pennation angles appear to have a negative correlation with muscle strength as pennation angle increases, a muscle's force-generating capacity decreases (Kawakami et al. 1995). Interestingly, studies show that bodybuilders have greater pennation angles than power lifters, potentially due to their training methods (Ikegawa et al. 2008).

Similarly, there are multiple ways in which muscles can grow larger without significantly affecting maximal strength. One such way this can occur is by an increase in non-contractile elements in the muscle cell. Non-contractile hypertrophy includes increases in collagen, glycogen, and other cellular subunits, a phenomenon commonly referred to as "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" (Siff and Verkhoshansky, 1999).

Since force production is generated by the sarcomeres, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will have no effect on your 1RM. However, the increased bulk provided by the non-contractile elements will nevertheless produce a tangible impact on muscle size.

An increase in the size of slow-twitch Type I fibers can also affect hypertrophy without having much effect on maximal muscular strength. Type I fibers are endurance-oriented fibers that have limited ability to produce high levels of force (McCardle et al. 2010). However, contrary to what some believe, Type I fibers do increase in size when subjected to a resistance training stimulus, although their hypertrophic capacity is about 50% less than that of fast twitch fibers (Kosek et al. 2006; Staron et al. 1989).

Interestingly, bodybuilders have been shown to have a greater Type 1 cross-sectional area than powerlifters (Tesch and Larsson, 1982). This may well help to explain why Tom Platz displayed greater muscular endurance than Fred Hatfield but wasn't as strong on an absolute basis.

If maximum strength were the end-all-be-all for muscular hypertrophy then powerlifters would be the biggest human beings on the planet, and bodybuilders would employ maximal singles instead of chasing the pump. Simply put, stronger does not necessarily equal bigger, and bigger does not necessarily equal stronger.

What then, makes bodybuilders more muscular than powerlifters?

It's Not Genetics

People naturally gravitate toward what they're good at. In the world of strength training, those with a greater predisposition for strength will be more inclined to become powerlifters (or train like a powerlifter), while those with a greater predisposition for size will be more inclined to become bodybuilders (or train like bodybuilders).

Powerlifting has more to do with leverages, the nervous system, and technique refinement, while bodybuilding has more to do with aesthetics, symmetry, muscularity, and conditioning.

Strength is dependent on plenty of factors, but tendon insertions play a huge role in the ability to exert maximal force. Let's use a biceps curl as an example. Say you're curling a 60-pound dumbbell and you're halfway up at 90 degrees and moving very slowly. To figure out a general estimate of muscle force requirements of the biceps (we'll ignore the other elbow flexors for simplicity), you divide the moment of the resistance arm by the length of the muscle arm.

This means that you multiply the resistance (60 pounds) by the resistance arm (say 15 inches from the elbow to the dumbbell) and then divide it by the muscle arm (say 1 inch from the elbow to the biceps insertion). This gives us 900 inch-pounds (a measure of torque). In this example, the biceps must produce 900 inch-pounds of force.

What happens if the individual's biceps tendon inserts 2 inches away from the fulcrum? Now you divide by 2 instead of 1, which means that the biceps now only has to produce 450 inch-pounds of force to hold a 60-pound dumbbell at a 90-degree elbow angle.

This demonstrates just how advantageous tendon insertions are to external force production two guys could have equal strength in their biceps but one can lift twice the amount of weight due to advantageous leverages. Torso, arm, femur, and tibia lengths and proportions all play a large role in the display of strength as well.

Obviously the sample size of professional powerlifters and bodybuilders will be skewed. There's also more money involved in bodybuilding. An individual like Ronnie Coleman, who could've excelled at either, might have a proclivity toward bodybuilding due to the larger purses and endorsement opportunities.

Still, this doesn't explain why bodybuilders are more muscular than powerlifters. And one glaring observation is important to consider when powerlifters start training like bodybuilders, they nearly always gain more muscle!

It's Not Chemical Assistance

Layne Norton

Sure, pro bodybuilders take large amounts of performance enhancing drugs, but so do powerlifters. Perhaps professional bodybuilders take higher doses and use a wider array of compounds (such as growth hormone, insulin, IGF-1, T-3, and clenbuterol), but many claim to use moderate doses and stick to the basics, so whether this indeed plays any role is unknown.

A better comparison would be to compare the physiques of natural bodybuilders with those of natural powerlifters. In this case, it's no comparison at all. WNBF bodybuilders such as Layne Norton dwarf WNPF powerlifters such as John Lyras from a hypertrophy standpoint.

Answer It's How They Train!

Bodybuilders are masters of packing on muscle. While everybody responds uniquely to various exercises, loads, volumes, frequencies, intensities, densities, and durations, there are certain rules that apply to bodybuilding.

If your goal were to maximize muscle development, you'd be a fool to ignore them. While mechanical tension appears to be paramount in hypertrophy stimulation, here are several possible candidates that could explain the superior musculature of bodybuilders over powerlifters.

Higher Reps and Chasing the Pump

Powerlifters generally train in a low rep range (1-5 reps) while bodybuilders tend to favor a moderate rep range (6-12). The adaptations associated with these rep ranges may explain at least part of the hypertrophic differences between these two classes of athletes (Schoenfeld, 2010).

Performing higher reps would theoretically result in a greater hypertrophy of Type 1 fibers. As previously noted, Type 1 fibers are endurance-oriented and thus respond best to longer times under tension. The low-rep training employed by powerlifters simply doesn't allow enough time under tension for significant development of these fibers (Tesch et al. 1984).

Moderate rep training promotes a greater muscle pump. While the pump is often thought of as a short-term training effect, it may result in greater muscle development. Studies show that cellular swelling causes both an increase in protein synthesis and a decrease in protein breakdown (Grant et al., 2000; Stoll et al., 1992; Millar et al., 1997).

It's theorized that an increase in water within the muscle cell consistent with the mechanisms associated with "the pump" is perceived as a threat to its integrity.

In response, the cell initiates a signaling cascade that ultimately causes the muscle to grow larger to protect the ultra-structure. In addition, greater occlusion and hypoxia may be associated with higher rep pump-style training, which can induce growth through increases in growth factor production and possibly satellite cell fusion (Vierck et al., 2000).

Moreover, as previously discussed, training in a moderate rep range promotes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy an increase in noncontractile elements (McDougall, Sale, Elder, & Sutton, 1982; Tesch, 1988). While this in itself manifests as an increased muscle size, it may also promote additional increases in contractile hypertrophy.

Glycogen is hydrophilic (water loving). Each gram of glycogen attracts three grams of water into the muscle cell (Chan et al. 1982). This increased hydration may thus lead to greater myofibrillar growth through cell swelling mechanisms, providing doubleduty for increasing hypertrophic gains.

It's also important to take into account the higher levels of poundage (weight x reps) and time under tension (TUT) performed by bodybuilders in comparison to powerlifters. Let's say a bodybuilder performs a bench press routine consisting of 225 x 12, 275 x 10, 315 x 8, and 335 x 6, while a powerlifter does 315 x 5, 365 x 3, 405 x 1, and 415 x 1. Under this scenario, the bodybuilder lifted 9,980 total pounds while the powerlifter lifted 3,490 total pounds.

Assuming 2 seconds per repetition, the bodybuilder accumulated 72 seconds under tension while the powerlifter accumulated 20 seconds under tension a significant difference!

In a recent study, high reps to failure were shown to be better than low reps to failure for myofibrillar, sarcoplasmic, and mixed protein synthesis (Burd et al. 2010). Although interesting, more research is required as acute protein synthesis doesn't necessarily correlate to greater hypertrophy over time (Mayhew et al. 2009) and previous studies have found very high rep protocols to be suboptimal for increasing muscle growth (Campos et al. 2002).

More total reps also equates to more eccentric contractions, which have been shown to create more muscular damage. There's a large body of evidence suggesting that muscular damage is associated with increased muscle growth, although research is still inconclusive in this area (Brentano et al. 2011; Komulainen et al. 2000; Zanchi et al. 2010).

Targeted Training (Sometimes Called "Isolation Training") Bodybuilders incorporate a large variety of exercises into their routines, including many single-joint movements. This is in direct contrast to powerlifters, who generally stick with a few basic multi-joint lifts.

Large muscles such as the quads, pecs, delts, and lats are made up of many thousands of threadlike fibers that have multiple different attachment sites. These fibers are sometimes compartmentalized and/or supplied by different nerves (Antonio, 200). Thus, muscles don't always get worked evenly throughout their entire length during exercises (Bloomer & Ives, 2000); a certain exercise may stress a region closer to the origin or closer to the insertion.

Only by training from multiple angles with a variety of exercises can you fully stimulate all of these fibers, and thus maximize their development. Employing some machine-based training, which reduces stabilizer involvement allowing targeting different aspects of a muscle, can further maximize muscle development. Machines can be beneficial by creating favorable strength curves with cams and other technology that helps keep constant tension on the muscles. Constant tension can lead to greater mechanical signaling and a better pump, which can assist in muscular growth.

Manner of Execution

Bret's EMG experiments found that a 225-pound bodybuilding-style bench press (wider grip, elbows flared, bar lowered to mid chest) activated more pectoralis major fibers than a 225-pound powerlifting-style bench press (narrower grip, elbows slightly tucked, bar lowered to lower chest) (Contreras, 2010).

Often, maximum attempts at squats and deadlifts yielded lower EMG activation than submaximal lifts. This is due to the body instinctively contorting itself to lift heavier weights, and the contortions often involve invoking assistance from passive structures such as ligaments. For example, a powerlifter might round his upper back excessively to "hang" on his ligamentous structure, which increases passive assistance while simultaneously decreasing active muscle requirements.

Bodybuilders have been saying for years that it's not just about the amount or resistance used, it's also about the manner of execution. Professional bodybuilders typically control the weight and use a smooth tempo, whereas many powerlifters allow some form deterioration when approaching a max.

Furthermore, many bodybuilders avoid the lockout position to keep constant tension on the targeted muscle. For example, let's say a bodybuilder is performing dumbbell incline presses. He might go 5/6ths the way up and then reverse the weight and head back down. During a pec fly the bodybuilder may only go 2/3rds the way up. In this manner, the tension is kept on the pecs to facilitate a better pump.

Mind-Muscle Connection

Bodybuilders often preach about the "mind-muscle connection." Research has shown that activation training can increase the relative EMG activity during an exercise (Snyder and Leech, 2009).

For example, a two-month focus on glute activation could cause an individual to use more glute muscle during a compound exercises such as a squat or lunge, and possibly decrease the involvement of synergists such as the hamstrings (Wagner et al. 2010). Bodybuilders purposely target an intended muscle and manipulate their form to maximize the tension on that muscle.

On the other hand, all powerlifters care about is lifting maximal poundages. Thus, they try to involve as many muscles as possible to generate optimum force. For example, during the bench press, a powerlifter attempts to maximize leg drive along with pec, lats, anterior delts, and triceps contribute to lift the heaviest weights possible. They're more concerned with optimal mechanics than muscle activation.

While the powerlifting method is great for total body stimulation, the bodybuilding method really hammers a particular area and might induce more damage and a greater pump while reducing overload to the CNS.

Instinctive Training Bodybuilders incorporate a wide variety into their workouts and often don't have a "set plan" when they enter the gym. Many have a general idea about what they want to accomplish, but typically leave room for spontaneity based on biofeedback. This variety and loose-structure could theoretically lead to greater muscle growth over time due to decreased likelihood of injury.

The lifter who can come to the gym week in, week out for many years and perform productive, pain-free workouts will accumulate more lean mass than the lifter who is always banged up, training through pain, and suffering from tears and ruptures.

Since absolute strength is paramount to a powerlifter, many times a powerlifter will ignore glaring biofeedback telling them to back off. For example, perhaps the pecs feel a bit strained on bench day, or the low back feels dodgy on deadlift day. The powerlifter will usually stick to the plan and push through it, while the bodybuilder will work around it.

Since the bodybuilder thinks in terms of "working muscles" instead of building lifts, often he'll listen to the body's warning signals and find a movement that doesn't set off red flags. Perhaps he finds that he's able to perform high rep incline presses with no pain to substitute for the bench press, and high rep back extensions and chest supported rows to substitute for deadlifts.

Powerlifters by nature are obsessed with maximal strength on the big three lifts, whereas most bodybuilders view strength as a means to build muscle and don't really care how much they can squat, bench, or deadlift.

Intensification Methods

Occasionally, bodybuilders will employ intensification methods to take a set to the limit such as training to failure, negatives, drop sets, rest-pause, burnouts, supersets, tri-sets, and quad-sets. When performed sparingly, these methods can deliver additional hypertrophy stimulating signals that can theoretically lead to greater muscle growth over time, though they should be periodized properly to avoid overtraining (Willardson et al. 2010).

Shorter Intra-Set Rest Times

Bodybuilders generally take fairly short rest periods between sets around a minute or two on average, whereas powerlifters often take up to five minutes of rest between heavy sets. Shorter rest intervals have been associated with an increased anabolic hormonal response, particularly testosterone and growth hormone (Kraemer et al. 1990).

Although it's unclear whether the acute hormonal effects of resistance exercise contribute to greater muscle growth (Ahtiainen et al. 2005), several studies have reported a significant correlation with the magnitude of growth in both type I and type II muscle fibers (McCall et al. 1999; Hkkinen et al. 2001).

At the very least, shorter rest times will increase training session density, increase "the pump," and increase hormonal milieu. The improved anabolic milieu should facilitate an improved environment for increasing muscle protein synthesis and possibly satellite cell activity, though studies in this area are inconclusive (West et al. 2009; West et al. 2010; Ronnestad et al. 2011).

Training Split

Bodybuilders tend to arrange their training sessions around targeting one or two muscle groups with multiple sets of several different exercises. Bodybuilders will then wait several days, and often up to a week, to work that same muscle group. Recent research shows that it takes up to seven days to fully recuperate from performing multiple sets of the same muscle group (Ahtiainen et al. 2011), and there's evidence to show that exercising too often could result in decreased hypertrophy (Logan and Abernethy, 1996).

Clearly more research needs to be conducted when you consider that bodybuilders who are trying to improve the appearance of a particular body part and bring up a "weak point" usually increase training frequency up to 2-3 times per week with great success.

The Power Bodybuilder?

Can we simultaneously train for both powerlifting and bodybuilding and thereby achieve a win/win situation? In other words, by incorporating a bit of both can you maximize strength and size?

The authors of this article believe that you can't.

You see, signals to muscles are very specific, and by mixing signals you send conflicting messages that will affect the body's response. Johnnie Jackson has achieved success as a powerlifter and a bodybuilder, but to maximize his leg development he trains like a bodybuilder. Now in no way does this imply that you shouldn't periodize your routine and incorporate periods of heavier weight and lower repetition ranges quite the opposite it's a highly beneficial strategy.

For example, suppose that you can deadlift 405 for 3 sets of 8 repetitions and your deadlift 1RM is 515. Let's say that you spend five weeks performing heavy sets of 3 reps or lower, and you raise your 1RM to 585 lbs. Now you go back to performing 3 sets of 8 reps, but you find that you're able to use 425 for 3 sets of 8. This will definitely assist with muscular hypertrophy as you're generating more muscular tension within the same target rep range.

However, you should not obsess with powerlifting totals and try to blend too much powerlifting techniques into your hypertrophy training if increased muscularity is your primary goal.

It seems quite clear that if your goal is to maximize muscular development it's important to never stray too far away from proven bodybuilding principles.

Progressions for Hypertrophy and Fat Loss by Chad Waterbury

There are many essential elements that should be included in any effective training program. Obviously, you've got to be smart when choosing movements. I usually favor compound movements, but single-joint movements have their place. Regardless of your movement selection, though, it's imperative to have a progression plan in place. It's very difficult to make any substantial progress unless you know how to force your body to do what it's not used to doing. A training program is only as good as the planned progression that's included in the program. The problem is, a progression plan often isn't included. As a guy who writes programs, I can understand why a coach might not prescribe a progression plan. Here are a few reasons. 1. Individuality In a perfect world, I would know exactly how your body is going to adapt to the training parameters. But I don't know. And even if I did know, that progression plan might be too much or too little for someone else. 2. Lack of Experience There are many coaches writing internet programs, but I sometimes wonder how many clients these coaches actually train. I often surmise that internet programs are designed for nothing more than the internet. 3. Laziness It's not easy to prescribe various progression plans. You must have a pretty good understanding of how a person will generally adapt to each phase. It's much easier for a coach to simply tell you to do "X" amount of sets and reps with hopes that the rest will take care of itself. The simplest progression recommendation is to add more weight to the bar. This works well for beginners, and for the first few weeks of a training program, but eventually it'll stop working. And maybe you have plenty of strength but you need to boost your work capacity. Or maybe you're a guy who responds best to increasing reps, while your buddy responds best to lifting heavier loads. Or maybe you're in a fat loss phase. In that case, constantly adding weight to the bar turns out to be a lesson in futility. So I'm here to outline my most effective progression plans for hypertrophy and fat loss. The purpose of this article is to help you understand which methods should be used and why. There are many factors to consider, ones that you probably aren't aware of. Let's get started!

Goal 1 Increase Muscle Mass (Hypertrophy Training) Let's see, I probably only had a 95% chance of getting this one right. Is there anyone who reads Testosterone that doesn't want bigger muscles?

When training for hypertrophy you must ingest more calories than you expend each day. This above-maintenance nutritional plan allows you to get away with more extreme types of progression because your body is fed with plenty of nutrients. In other words, you're in a phase where overtraining is less likely to occur. Therefore, I recommend the three most intense progressions.

Load progression Increasing the load with each training session is one of the most effective, albeit demanding, types of progression. It takes the biggest toll on your joints and nervous system. The key is to increase the load in small increments. This forces your muscles to do more work, but it doesn't overwhelm your brain, muscles, and joints. Many coaches, including myself, often recommend increasing the load 2% when you repeat a training session. But many people are anything but ecstatic about this approach. Let's say you did five sets of five reps (5x5) for the lying triceps extension with 40 pound dumbbells on Monday. The following Monday you pull out a calculator and realize that you need to increase the load 0.8 pounds. (I probably don't need to go much further for you to realize the problems with the 2% approach, but I will.) You're immediately faced with a formidable challenge because your gym has a dumbbell set that only jumps in five-pound increments. So you're relegated to a 12% load progression instead of 2%. And this is one of the many reasons why I favor compound movements. Had you chosen a close-grip bench press with 225 pounds to train your triceps, that 2% progression becomes 4.5 pounds. Without a leap of faith, you can presume that increasing the load five pounds is a relatively accurate and effective progression. When working with the 2% progression, if you're ever faced with a 7.5 pound load increase, always round down instead of up (increase the load 5 pounds instead of 10 pounds). I like the 2% progression, but its applicability is limited to compound movements when the load is measured in hundreds of pounds. Anything less and you'll end up banging your head against the wall. Platemates (small magnetic weights) that attach to dumbbells and barbells help, but it doesn't eradicate the problem. Which brings us to the next progression.

Rep progression I like the rep progression for single-joint exercises with lighter loads. With a rep progression you aren't forced to work with miniscule load progressions, but you can still overload your muscles. There are two ways to make the most of the rep progression. First, if you follow traditional set/rep parameters such as 5x5, you can simply add a rep to each set when you repeat the training session. Depending on how close the first session was to failure you might not be able to add a rep to every set. For example, if on Monday you performed 5x5, the following Monday you might only get six reps on the first three sets. Hell, the fifth set might only be four reps. That's fine, too. All that matters is that the total number of reps is higher. 5x5, of course, equals 25 total reps. 6, 6, 6, 5, 4 equals 27 total reps. Stay with the rep progression until you can complete two more reps with each set (5x7). At that point, increase the load to the next available increment and start the process over with a new set/rep range that you can manage with the heavier load.

The second way to use rep progression is based on a target number of reps. Let's say you want to do 25 total reps with a load that you could lift 4 to 6 times while fresh. The next time you perform the training session, increase the total reps by 2 or 3. Continue with this progression until you reach 35 total reps. At that point, increase the load and start over. I favor this approach because I feel lifters get too hung up on a target number of reps per set. What they should really be focusing on is the total number of reps per lift per training session.

Frequency progression Increasing the number of training sessions for a specific movement is the most effective progression I've ever used for hypertrophy. But the frequency progression is not for everyone. First, you must have the luxury of training more often. Second, you've got to understand planes of movement. For the sake of simplicity, I break down movements into: upper body pulling and pushing in the horizontal plane, upper body pulling and pushing in the vertical plane, and a squat or deadlift. If you don't know which muscles are emphasized in which movement, this information is probably too advanced for you. But if you do understand that a wide-grip pull-up primarily trains your lats and upper back muscles, keep reading. The frequency progression is not complicated, unless you make it so. If you're struggling with pull-ups, and if you want a bigger upper back, you should increase the frequency of pull-ups. If you simply added more volume you'd just augment your recovery time. Start the first week with three sessions for pull-ups. The next week add a fourth. The third week add a fifth. The fourth week increase your pull-up sessions to six. Hold the frequency of six pull-up sessions per week for the fifth week. On the sixth week, perform one pull-up session before returning to anywhere between three and six on the seventh week. Here's how the frequency progression looks for the pull-up. Week 1: Monday, Wednesday, Friday Week 2: Monday A.M., P.M., Wednesday, Friday Week 3: Monday A.M., P.M., Wednesday, Friday A.M., P.M.. Week 4: Monday A.M., P.M., Wednesday A.M., P.M., Friday A.M., P.M.. Week 5: Monday A.M., P.M., Wednesday A.M., P.M., Friday A.M., P.M.. Week 6: Wednesday Week 7: pick up with your schedule on any week between 1 and 4 Take note that I didn't increase the number of training days per week; I increased the number of total sessions by implementing morning and evening workouts. I've found that twice-daily workouts work better for hypertrophy training compared to increasing the frequency to six days in a row. Each morning and evening workout should be separated by at least six hours.

On week 7, you have a few options. If your upper back is still lagging you can jump back into training it six times per week. Just be sure to unload every fourth week and only perform one training session for the pull-up. The other option is to revert back to three, four, or five sessions per week. Again, you'll unload every fourth week. What frequency you use should depend on what your schedule allows.

Summary Use the 2% load progression for compound movements, use the rep progression for single-joint or light movements, and use the frequency progression for the movements that train your lagging muscles.

Goal 2 Burn Fat (Metabolic Training) When training for fat loss you must burn more calories than you consume each day. This below-maintenance nutritional plan necessitates less demanding types of progression since you're more likely to overtrain when you're short on nutrients. Therefore, I recommend progression methods that don't mandate lifting ever-heavier loads, but instead force you to increase your metabolism by boosting excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). Before I get to the progressions, let me explain what EPOC is. After you finish training your body needs more oxygen. When you're training with weights, or simply running outside, your body uses up a lot of oxygen. Your body must restore that oxygen debt to maintain homeostasis. In essence, your body must return to its pre-exercise state. It does this by replenishing energy sources, re-oxygenating your blood and restoring circulatory hormones, decreasing body temperature, and returning ventilation and heart rate to normal. All of these steps collectively are known as EPOC, and all of these steps take energy. Therefore, the higher your EPOC, the more calories you'll burn after exercise. Alwyn Cosgrove refers to this as "afterburn."

Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) Therefore, when training for fat loss you should implement progression methods that force your body to use more oxygen. Here are the progressions.

Rest progression

Progressively decreasing your rest periods without changing the load is my favorite method to boost fat loss. Since you're not increasing the load, your muscles and joints aren't beat up by the lack of nutrients in your diet. Instead, you force your energy systems (mainly anaerobic glycolysis) to work harder. Before I outline how to use the rest progression, I must revert back to my opening statement about the importance of selecting the right movements. There's no place for single-joint movements in a fat loss workout! Does that mean you should never perform any trap raises, external rotations or other joint integrity exercises? Of course not. If you need to strengthen your lower traps or rotator cuff, you should include exercises for them. But this isn't part of your fat loss session per se, it's an addition after your fat loss training is finished. Beyond the proper movement selection, the rest progression is pretty simple. You'll start with a relatively short rest period, say, 60 seconds between each movement in a circuit, and then decrease the rest periods in five-second increments each time you repeat the training session. Here's an example. Week 1, Workout A 1A) Pull-up Rest 60 seconds 1B) Dip Rest 60 seconds 1C) Clean Rest 60 seconds and repeat Week 2, Workout A 1A) Pull-up Rest 55 seconds 1B) Dip Rest 55 seconds 1C) Clean Rest 55 seconds and repeat The first factor you must respect is the initial rest period. If 60 seconds isn't challenging, the rest periods are too long. In other words, if 60 seconds rest isn't enough to make you sweat and feel a little nauseous, you're not doing yourself any favors. You must start with an effective plan if you want the progression to work. If 60 seconds was too long for your first workout, decrease the rest periods by 10 seconds the next time you repeat it. From that point, stick to five second rest progressions. You can stick with the rest progression for as long as you're training for fat loss. I've worked with people who started with 60 second rest periods, and three total body workouts per week, who progressed to 10 second rest periods with the same movements, loads and reps. They all lost a substantial amount of body fat by supercharging their EPOC. The rest progression really does work wonders for most.

By the way, if you do experience nausea during metabolic training, give BETA-7 a try. It works very well for most people since it reduces proton accumulation during periods of training where anaerobic glycolysis is emphasized. Set progression Adding an extra set to each lift during a training session is another effective progression for metabolic training. It's effective because adding a set is less taxing than increasing the load or adding reps, but it's sufficient to boost your work capacity. There are two ways to use the set progression, depending on how your training sessions are structured. If you follow the typical set/rep plan with, say, 5x5 you'll simply add one set each time you repeat the workout. So if on Monday you did 5x5, the following Monday you'll do 6x5. The load won't change and neither will the rest periods. You'll keep adding a set for as long as you keep experiencing results. If you're new to training, you might be able to go from 5x5 to 10x5 over the course of five weeks and still get results. If you're experienced, it's likely that your body will adapt quicker. In that case, you might want to limit the set progression to three weeks and start with a higher volume. You could go from 8x3 to 10x3 over the course of three weeks. There's another way to use the set progression if you have a target number of total reps with each lift. Let's say your target number is 25 reps with a load you could lift fresh for 4 to 6 reps. And let's say on Monday your sets for the pull-up went as follows: Set 1: 6 reps Set 2: 5 reps Set 3: 5 reps Set 4: 5 reps Set 5: 4 reps The following Monday you'll add a sixth set and perform as many reps as possible, so it looks like this: Set 1: 6 reps Set 2: 5 reps Set 3: 5 reps Set 4: 5 reps Set 5: 4 reps Set 6: As many reps as possible Overall, I like to emphasize the rest progression. For fat loss, three total body sessions per week is the upper limit for most people. Use the rest progression on Monday and Friday and use the set progression on Wednesday. Summary: use the rest progression for two sessions each week; use the set progression for one workout each week. Stick to circuits derived of compound movements.

Final Words

It doesn't matter if you're training for hypertrophy or fat loss, you must have an effective progression plan in place. Use these methods and you'll always be forcing your body to do more work over time. This ensures that you're never left spinning your wheels.

4 Reasons You're Not Gaining Muscle by Brad Schoenfeld 9/04/2012

You hit the gym on a regular basis and you train hard really hard but for some reason you're just not making the gains that you should. All that sweat and effort, and without much to show for it.

If this sounds familiar, chances are you're making at least one of the four critical mistakes outlined below. The good news is, with just a few simple tweaks to your program you can once again be packing on some serious muscle. Here's how. Mistake #1: You're not varying your rep range.

The optimal number of repetitions for hypertrophy-oriented training is a source of ongoing debate in the fitness field. Although the research is by no means conclusive, evidence indicates that a moderate rep range (approximately 6-12 reps per set) is generally best for maximizing muscle growth.(1)

This is often referred to as "bodybuilding-style training" as it seems to provide the ideal combination of mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress the three primary factors involved in hypertrophic gains.(2) The problem is, most lifters seem to think this means all training should be carried out in this rep range and thus they rigidly adhere to the same loading patterns. Wrong assumption.

Understand that maximal muscular development is built on a foundation of strength. This mandates that at least some of your sets need to be carried out in the lower rep ranges (1-5 reps per set).

Stronger muscles allow you to use heavier weights, and thus generate greater muscular tension in the moderate repetition ranges that optimally stimulate hypertrophy. By increasing muscle tension without compromising metabolic stress, you're setting the stage for enhanced growth.

On the other end of the spectrum, high rep sets (in the range of 15 to 20 reps per set) also have a place in a hypertrophy-oriented routine. Provided that training is carried out at or near your sub-rep max, lower intensity sets help to increase your lactate threshold, the point at which lactic acid rapidly begins to accumulate in working muscles.

The problem with lactic acid is that beyond a certain point its accumulation interferes with muscle contraction, reducing the number of reps you can perform.(3) (Technical note: it's actually the H+ component of lactic acid that hastens the onset of muscular fatigue.)

Here's the good news: Higher rep training increases capillary density and improves muscle buffering capacity, both of which help to delay lactic buildup. The upshot is, you're able to maintain a greater time under tension at a given hypertrophy-oriented workload. In addition, you develop a greater tolerance for higher volumes of work an important component for maximizing hypertrophy (see Mistake #2).

Take home message: Optimal muscle development is achieved by varying your rep range over time. This is best carried out in a structured, periodized program. Both undulating and linear periodized approaches can work, depending on your goals. Whatever scheme you employ, though, make sure you include the full spectrum of loading ranges.

Sure, hypertrophy training is probably best achieved with moderate rep sets, but higher and lower intensities are nevertheless important for optimizing muscular development. Mistake #2: You're not using sufficient volume. Back in the 1970's, Arthur Jones popularized the so-called high-intensity training (HIT) approach to building muscle. HIT is based on the premise that only a single set of an exercise is necessary to stimulate growth, provided you train to the point of momentary concentric muscular failure.

According to HIT dogma, performing additional sets beyond this first set is superfluous and perhaps even counterproductive to muscle development. Other prominent industry leaders such as Mike Mentzer and Ellington Darden subsequently followed Jones's lead and embraced the HIT philosophy, resulting in a surge in its popularity. To this day, HIT continues to enjoy an ardent following.

Now before I get accused of being anti-HIT, I'll readily admit that it's a viable training strategy. There's no denying that it can help build appreciable muscle. And if you're time-pressed, it can provide an efficient and effective workout. That said, if your goal is to maximize muscle development, HIT simply doesn't do the trick. You need a higher training volume. Substantially higher.

The prevailing body of research consistently shows that multiple set protocols are superior to single set protocols for increasing strength and size. Recent meta-analyses published in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research show that multiple set training results in 46% greater increases in strength and 40% greater increases in muscle growth when compared to single-set protocols.(4, 5)

Whether the hypertrophic superiority of multiple sets is due to greater total muscle tension, muscle damage, metabolic stress, or some combination of these factors isn't clear. What's readily apparent is that multiple sets are a must if you want to maximize your muscular potential. Problem is, even if you employ multiple sets it's very possible you're still not training with sufficient volume.

The optimal number of sets needed to elicit superior growth will vary from person to person and depend on a host of individual factors such as genetics, recuperative ability, training experience, and nutritional status.

But individual response is only part of the equation. The size of a given muscle also has relevance. Larger muscle groups such as the back and thighs need a higher volume than the smaller muscles of the arms and calves (which, by the way, also get significant ancillary work during multi-joint exercises).

Another important consideration here is the structure of your program. All things being equal, training with a split routine allows for a greater daily training volume per muscle group versus a total body routine.

And if you do indeed follow a training split, the composition of your split will influence training daily volume (i.e., a 3-day split allows for a greater volume per muscle group compared with a 2-day split). Accordingly, training volume is best determined on a weekly basis as opposed to a single session.

Whatever your target weekly volume, optimal results are achieved by taking a periodized approach where the number of sets are strategically manipulated over the course of a training cycle. Understand that repeatedly training with high volumes will inevitably lead to overtraining.

In fact, evidence shows that volume has an even greater correlation with overtraining than intensity.(6) Only by embracing periodization can you reap the benefits of a high training volume while avoiding the dreaded overtrained state.

Here's a periodized strategy that I've found to be highly effective. Let's say you've determined that your maximum weekly volume should entail performing 18-20 sets per muscle group.Focus on a three-month mesocycle where you target 8-10 sets a week the first month, 14-16 sets the second month, and then culminate with an overreaching cycle in the final month where you perform 18-20 sets per week.

Follow this with a brief period of unloading or active recovery to facilitate restoration and rejuvenation. Given that it generally takes one to two weeks for the full effects of supercompensation to manifest after completion of an overreaching cycle, you should realize optimal muscular gains sometime during the restorative period. Mistake #3: You're not adhering to the principle of specificity. Most lifters don't just want to get big, they also want to get leaner in the process. During the initial stages of training, this is a viable goal. Beginners can pack on serious muscle while simultaneously losing body fat without much of a problem.

The same applies for those with significant weight to lose (more than 30 pounds or so), as well as regular lifters who've taken an extended break from the gym. And yes, pharmacologic enhancement also will enable you to get huge and shredded in a hurry.

But if you've been training for more than a year or so, are fairly lean, and not "anabolically enhanced," the quest to gain muscle while shedding fat becomes exceedingly difficult. At a certain point, you ultimately need to choose between one or the other.

If your choice is to bulk up, then this needs to be your training focus; otherwise results will be compromised. And this entails reevaluating how much aerobic exercise you perform.

The issue with concurrent training (i.e., combining resistance exercise and aerobics) is that it can interfere with the processes that drive anabolism. This is consistent with the AMPK-PKB switch hypothesis, which postulates that endurance and strength-related exercise activate and suppress distinct genes and signaling pathways, and these pathways have conflicting actions.(7)

Specifically, aerobic exercise regulates AMPK (adenosine monophosphate kinase), which is associated with pathways involved in carbohydrate and fatty acid metabolism. This of course has beneficial effects on fat loss.

Problem is, AMPK also inhibits activation of PKB-mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin), an anabolic pathway that's critical to protein synthesis and thus muscle building.

Now this doesn't necessarily mean you should refrain from performing any cardio. While evidence supports the concept of an AMPK-PKB switch, recent research shows that it's overly simplistic. Instead of a "switch," adaptations between aerobic endurance exercise and resistance training appear to take place along a continuum, whereby substantial overlap exists between pathways.(8)

So while frequent, lengthy cardio sessions are bound to compromise muscle development, a more moderate aerobic routine likely won't. And if nothing else, cardio is certainly good for your health and well being.

How much cardio is too much? Impossible to say. As with all aspects of exercise, individual response will vary based upon numerous genetic and lifestyle factors. Remember, too, that everyone has an upper limit to how much exercise they can tolerate before overtraining sets in.

Add in a cardio component to your routine and you increase the total amount of exercise-related stress placed on your body. At some point, these stresses can interfere with your recuperative abilities and bring about an overtrained state.

So for those looking to maximize muscle growth, the best advice is to err on the side of caution and limit the frequency, intensity, and duration of your aerobic sessions. Three days a week of 20-30 minute bouts is probably a good general guideline, but again this will vary from person to person. Monitor your progress, stay in tune with any signs of overtraining, and tweak your program as needed. Mistake #4: You're not taking in enough calories.

This mistake goes hand in hand with Mistake #3. In an attempt to get shredded while packing on mass, lifters will frequently restrict caloric intake while continuing to lift hard and heavy. Bad idea.

As previously noted, losing fat while gaining muscle is improbable for well-trained, natural lifters. If you fall into this category, it's imperative that you consume a surplus of calories in order to support muscle growth.

This is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; only changed from one form to another. Simply stated, take in more calories than you expend and the excess energy will be stored in the form of body mass.

All-too-often lifters will take this to mean that it's okay to eat everything in sight. This is consistent with the old-school "bulking" and "cutting" cycles where bodybuilders would scarf down massive quantities of food to get as big as possible and then go on an extreme diet with calories cut to starvation levels.

The problem with this approach is that upwards of 75% of weight gained during the bulking phase is in the form of body fat. Sure, you do gain muscle, too, but much of that is catabolized during the subsequent dieting process.

When all's said and done, you're lucky to retain half of your muscular gains. Worse, repeated cycles of bulking and cutting can reset your biological "set point," leading to higher body fat levels in future cycles.(9) Bottom line, it's simply not a smart nutritional strategy.

So what is an ideal caloric consumption for building muscle without porking up like a Sumo wrestler? A general guideline is to consume between 18 to 20 calories per pound of body weight. If you're a 200-pound guy, this equates to a target caloric intake of about 3600 to 4000 calories a day.

Those who are endomorphs typically do better with slightly lower calories, while those who are ectomorphic usually need a higher energy intake; as much as 25 calories per pound for extreme hard-gainers.

Once you settle on a given caloric intake, monitor results over time and adjust consumption according to your individual response. If you've been lifting for a while, a realistic goal is to gain 1-2 pounds per month when focusing on mass-building.

Conclusion

If your muscular development has stagnated, it's likely you're making one of the aforementioned mistakes perhaps you're even a multiple offender. Fortunately, you're not doomed to remain in a training rut. Identify the errors of your ways and then employ the solutions discussed above; you'll soon be back on track to getting the most out of your muscular potential.

T-Nation Strength and Size Roundtable, Part 1 Featuring Eric Cressey, Zach Even-Esh, Clay Hyght, Dan John, and Dave Tate Moderated by Greg McGlone Next Page | Pages 1 2

Writer Greg McGlone rounded up five of the biggest, baddest, strongest, and best-informed hombres in the iron game, and invited them to share their "secrets" with those of us who also want to get bigger, badder, stronger, and better-informed.

T-Nation: Most T-Nation members aren't competitive lifters or bodybuilders, but are chasing the goals of strength and hypertrophy simultaneously. What are the biggest mistakes that people make in trying to get big and strong at the same time? Dave Tate: Before I get into this, I feel it's important to expose the fact that I'll have a biased opinion. We all have training biases based on what we have done, read, and seen. Most people know where I stand and where I come from, but for those who don't, here's a quick summary. I've spent my life in the sport of powerlifting. I competed for over 25 years and have always trained in small private gyms that catered to those who were extremely serious about how they trained, be it powerlifting, bodybuilding, or any other sport. We all trained with total focus on whatever we were training for. In short, I don't get the whole "workout" thing. Training I understand. "Working out" I don't. This is where I'm coming from and always have, so I'm not going to water it down for the purpose of this roundtable. What do I mean by all this? I mean that I don't see any reason to train for strength and hypertrophy simultaneously. To be honest, I think it's stupid. Let me explain, if you train for max strength, then size (much easier to say than "hypertrophy") will be a side effect. In turn if you train for max size, then strength will be a side effect. If you train for both at the same time then you'll have the results of two side effects instead of one full effect.

Train for strength, and size will follow. And vice versa. In other words, if you try to do both, you'll see strength results, but they won't be as great as if you trained for strength alone. The same holds true if you trained solely for size. I can hear it now: "But Dave, I don't want to be a competitive powerlifter or bodybuilder, didn't you hear the question?" Yeah, I heard it, and this brings up problem #2. If you are in the vast majority of those who would ask the above question then I challenge you try and do a meet or show next year, and then get back to me on how you do. This is a lot like the girl who says, "I don't want to look like those bulky women you see in the magazines, so I don't lift weights."

Many women don't lift weight for fear of accidentally looking like this. I hate to be the one to tell you the sad reality of these sports, but it takes years of consistent training for that one goal to be competitive. You're not going to look or perform like a competitive bodybuilder or powerlifter with just a few training cycles, unless of course you're a freak. So my advice is to pick either strength or size as a goal, stop "working out," and start training. Eric Cressey: I touched on this quite a bit in a previous article. The problem isn't that they're trying to ride two horses with one ass; the problem is that they try to ride a powerlifter's horse with a bodybuilder's ass. Even if it does have striations in it, it won't get the job done. Beginners and intermediates will see solid strength improvements on 4x6, 5x5, 6x4, and other classic "middle of the road" bodybuilding approaches. However, as one becomes more neurally efficient, while these loading parameters will help to maintain or increase size, they won't do much for increasing strength. In reality, the volume at this 75-85% range really takes its toll on advanced lifters. I'll use myself as an example. At a body weight of 188, I have a 650 deadlift and 360 bench right now. The "charts" say that I should be able to do about 85% of my max (552.5 and 306, respectively) for sets of fives. While I could probably do it for one set in both instances, there would be a big fall-off on subsequent sets. And, take this a step further, and you'll recognize that my joints will probably hate me if I do this for an extended period of time (most commonly one month, from a program design standpoint). The solution, in my eyes, is what many powerlifters are doing today. Start your training session with a limited number of heavy sets of one to three (as much as ten sets, in the case of singles). Then, get the volume necessary for hypertrophy on assistance

work. So, as an example, you might squat heavy (possibly do a backoff set or two in your highest volume week), and then move on to rep work with glute-ham raises, single-leg work, and the like. As far as de-loading and fluctuation of training stress goes, it's hard to hit things 100% every week, so you fluctuate within the month rather than just building up week after week. A classic bodybuilding set-up might be: Week 1: Medium Week 2: High Week 3: Very high Week 4: Low (de-load) My feeling is that you flip-flop weeks 1 and 2 in order to give yourself a break on the training stress and apply the familiarity you've gained (from doing the exercises for a week) to some more significant loading. This is the way to go when ten sets of three and such stops working for you. Dan John: It's a mistake I see all the time. But, first, let me bore you a bit about a general observation that highlights this issue: when a group of guys get together and start training, they might use magazines and the internet to get advice. They work hard, doing lots of reps and lots of sets. And, soon enough, they look pretty ripped at 155 pounds bodyweight. Then, one guy goes to the big city school or gym or whatever and sees these "monsters" in the gym weighing 185, and he returns to the old training room with stories of guys doing behind the neck presses with over 100 pounds. So the group starts slapping on more plates, and miracle of miracles, they all start getting bigger. After a year of this on a trip to Disneyland, one of the gang goes to a big commercial gym in California and, well, you see where this is all heading. Most guys don't train heavy enough. My daughter Lindsay deadlifted 255 in her freshman year, with plenty left in the tank. I've had men come to my home facility (the Murray Institute for Lifelong Fitness, the MILF) and discover simply that what they thought was heavy was actually a warm up weight for typical high school athletes. Simply, many of our readers understand reps and sets probably better than me but never load the bar heavy enough. Sure, they do leg extensions with "G" or "H", or whatever the spa key selector tells them, but they never honestly lift enough weight.

If you want to see decent size and strength gains, you need to lift a lot heavier. I get emails from guys who do 5x5 with the following lifts three days a week: Snatch Clean and Jerk Squat Row Bench Press Deadlift Three days a week? Shucks, if you used any kind of real weight, that workout would kill you if you did it one day a year! Zach Even-Esh: People think that to get big they only need to get strong and train in a very low rep range of 1 to 5 reps. Without a doubt, this method gets you strong and it does add size, but, upping the reps with some supplemental movements with moderate weights (60 to 80% max) and moderate rep ranges (8 to 20) works great for adding size. What I've found to work best when it comes to adding muscle and strength simultaneously is to work in a heavy max effort or sub-max effort core lift first, followed by movements in the moderate rep range.

This is very similar to what Joe DeFranco uses with his athletes, it's also very similar to what many powerlifters do, because they understand that the higher reps increase hypertrophy, and a bigger muscle is very much like a larger car engine, it has the potential for more horse power. When I was a bodybuilder, even though I did body part splits, we always began with a heavy core lift in the 3 to 6 range with very heavy loads and then worked the shit out of our muscles with 2 or 3 supplemental movements that were basic lifts, slightly lighter and higher reps. Am I giving away secrets here? Absolutely not. Most people are too scared to work their ass off to get stronger and bigger. My gym is actually located dead smack next to a regular gym. I see guys trying to get big doing tons of machine movement, sitting down, lying down, not many ground-based movements, and not pushing the limits with heavy weights and intense effort.

You won't get big and strong if most of your exercises involve sitting on your butt. When I wrote about the guys in the pen, all jacked up and strong, I caught a glimpse of the weight pile outside. What did I see? Dips

 Military presses Squats Pull ups The 4 movements above should be standard in everyone's program unless some sort of injury keeps them away from these movements.

This dude probably doesn't spend much time on the Stairmaster. The secret is that there's no secret. Lift hard, lift consistently, eat tons of clean, wholesome foods and listen to your body. Most people only train hard seasonally, they prepare for summer or for a vacation, other then that, they train recreationally. Back in the day when there was no Internet and the local YMCA's were commonplace hardcore gyms, there were a lot of big and strong guys. There was no excess of information out there to confuse them, so they did what they knew how to do, and that was to work very hard on the basics, all the time. It's very simple, but it's not easy. Don't get these two terms mixed up. Clay Hyght: The main problem I've observed in the conundrum of achieving both size and strength is that trainees focus their training style too much on one goal at the expense of the other. A trainee who is influenced by bodybuilders (whether at the gym

or via magazines) has the tendency to train too much like a bodybuilder by performing a higher volume, more isolation exercises, and using a lighter load. I also suspect that they tend to equate the holy pump to productivity. On the contrary, a trainee who is influenced by power lifters or athletes who perform Olympic lifts tend to focus excessively on how much weight they can move while failing to properly utilize the target muscle. They often neglect isolation exercises or even direct arm work. Being married to either style of training is detrimental. Who says you can't do hanging cleans and presses for 5 x 5 and behind-the-back cable lateral raises for 3 x 15 in the same workout? On an even simpler note, I believe that one of the biggest flaws being made by 99% of the training population is not recording their workouts. How can you get stronger if you don't know precisely what weight you used and how many reps you did of each and every exercise? You can't know if you have surpassed a performance if you don't have a record of it! In regards to strength, it's crucial to slowly but steadily increase the load used for a given number of reps. When aiming for hypertrophy, performance must still be improved by either increasing the weight or reps or performing the exercise in a manner that better stimulates the target muscle. When performing dumbbell curls, I may note in my journal "strong supination with slight pause at the top, good squeeze". If in the next workout I did the same weight and reps as the previous time I did dumbbell curls but paused longer in the contracted position, I've improved my "performance" and therefore elicited an adaptation response. In aiming to achieve both strength and hypertrophy, keeping detailed performance records and steadily improving various facets of that performance is of utmost importance!

T-Nation: So is one of the downfalls of the average trainee in this situation that he's focusing too much time on things like isolation exercises and not putting enough time in on the compound movements? Or should they be putting an equal amount of time into both?

DJ: We have to be careful here. One of the downfalls of the "average trainee" is that they're average. Now, I'm not referring to Constitutional rights or salvation or anything. I'm talking about genetics. I don't necessarily believe in bell curves for everything, but the "average trainee" is going to be stuck right around average. There are genetic superstars in everything we do. I'm always amazed that most people don't realize how hard it is to be tall enough to play in the NBA. So, I'm devising a protocol to add six inches to one's height in four weeks or less, utilizing triple hypertrophy mesocycles. I hope the readers know I'm kidding, but the average trainee has to realize from high school PE class or an honest assessment from the beach that many of us have the curse of average-ness. Oh, and some of us lucky people would be, by definition, less than average. So, when I give a workshop and meet a person who has lifted for more than five years, yet looks like they've never even smelled a weightroom, I think about genetics first. So, the issue can't be solved by waving my hand like Obi-Wan Kenobi and prescribing more isolation or more compound moves. Those just aren't the droids we're looking for.

"You want to go home and rethink your genetic potential." Having said all of this, the answer is obvious to me: beyond the basic barbell curl, most people don't need isolation work ever. Ever. ZE: It's always been the case where hard work on the basics works when approached with consistency and very simple methods of training hard for two or three weeks and then reducing intensity for 1 week. I use isolation movements on weak areas for the most part. Movements such as face pulls, band pull-aparts, and bent over laterals are great for developing the weak upper back area and helping build muscle as well. Back extensions might be the way to go before deadlifting and squatting if we have someone who is superweak and needs to add muscle and strength to the lower back. The majority of time though, should absolutely be spent on the basics. If you went to a gym and spoke to the biggest, strongest guys, they would all tell you they perform the bench, squat, deadlift, military press, weighted pull ups, heavy barbell/dumbbell rows, heavy triceps extensions, and cheat curls. This may not seem like the common thing happening in gym because many people at these gyms don't realize that there are thousands of hard core lifters in garages and basements hitting heavy iron. This cult has been growing and it will continue to grow.

Hard core groups get together for training more often than we know, they pool their money together and pick up the heavy duty equipment needed to get the job done: power rack, power bar, heavy dumbbells, some chains, and plenty of free weights. Speak to these underground lifters and they will all tell you about benching, squatting, deadlifting, military presses, farmer walks, sled drags, etc. Speak to the dudes at the typical health club and you'll hear about Smith machines, lat pulldowns, cable cross overs, and getting the pump. Compare the two physiques from a performance stand point and a muscular strength/size standpoint, you can tell who spends time under heavy iron on a regular basis!

You can always tell who spends time under heavy iron on a regular basis. EC: I'm not totally against isolation movements, but they shouldn't comprise more than 10% of the total training. I'm a corrective exercise guy, so I think the most valuable ways to include these isolation movements are initiatives that address scapular stability (e.g., prone trap raises), elbow health (e.g., hammer curls), and the like. Many of these issues can be addressed in the warm-up, and don't really take too much out of you. If it helps to have a timeframe for a typical session at Cressey Performance, when my athletes roll in, they know they've got five minutes of self-myofascial release, another 5-10 minutes of mobility work, and then 50 minutes of reactive work and compound movements. The last 5-10 minutes is wiggle room for us to put in some of these isolation movements, and we're always incorporating "fillers" between sets to get in some extra corrective exercise work. An example might be scap pushups between sets of squats, or ankle mobilizations between sets of chin-ups.

So, I guess my overall mindset is to appreciate the value of isolation work when it's implemented appropriately, but don't kid yourself: you aren't so special that you need three sets of four different exercises for your biceps. CH: At the risk of being difficult, there's no such thing as the "average" trainee. Take a group of 100 trainees and although their average maximum deadlift might be 248 pounds, not one of them would likely have an actual max of 248. I just say that to point out how hard it is to give accurate advice for the "average" person. Okay, I'll stop being a pain in the culo and answer the question. Based upon what I see going on in most gyms around the US , most trainees do put too much time on isolation exercises and not enough time on the compound exercises, except for the flat barbell bench press. Go into any gym on Monday afternoon at 5:30 P.M. and you'll see that there's certainly no shortage of people doing that compound exercise! However, as another sociological observational study, keep an eye on the squat rack for a couple of hours. You'll probably see more people doing curls during that time period that you'll see doing squats! So as a general rule, yes, trainees don't do enough compound movements like squats, deadlifts, dips, clean and presses, chin-ups, and so on. You know why? Cause they're hard ass work, that why! It's a lot easier to do concentration curls than deadlifts, that's for sure. But virtually all would benefit more from the deadlifts.

Hard-ass work. So should they do an equal amount of each? Even though I'm the token bodybuilder at this here round table, I'd say that not even half of the exercises one does should be isolation exercises more like 25%. Again, that's very individual and depends upon a number of factors, one of which is the type of training program or split the trainee does. If you're training three days per week then why in the world would you waste time doing triceps kickbacks? That's not an efficient use of your (approximately) three hours of weekly training time! Before Eric falls asleep, let me conclude by saying that ones' development also comes into play. If you weigh 158 pounds then your little ass had better be doing some squats and deadlifts! On the other hand, if you weigh a solid 210 and genetically have a great back, then I think it's fine to chill a bit on the heavy deads and opt for something like low cable rows instead. DT: The first issue to address is assuming there's a downfall for the average trainee. If they are making the gains they want, then I would not be too quick to say there's a downfall at all. This is a hard question to answer because it really depends on what the prime goal of the trainee is. The best way I know to address this is by using the way a movement is trained and what population is doing it. I'll use the two extremes in this situation; bodybuilding and powerlifting. The main goal of the off-season bodybuilder is building muscle mass while the powerlifter's main goal is strength. As stated before, when the powerlifter trains for strength, size will be a side effect. I've seen many lifters come to Westside and gain 30-40 pounds in the first year, and not one of them was focusing on getting bigger. The focus was always on getting stronger. If you also watch top bodybuilders train, you'll also see that they're not as weak as many people claim they are. They're far from it, but strength isn't their primary goal. When these goals are different, the way a exercise is trained changes. The powerlifter is doing what I would call movementtraining, while the bodybuilder ismuscletraining. The powerlifter's main goal is strength, so his goal is to move as much weight as he can for the desired number of reps. The bodybuilder's goal is maximum stimulation of the muscle, and making sure that the muscle he's training is doing the work.

A bodybuilder focuses on stimulation, while a powerlifter just wants to get it up. On one side you have a lifter who is trying to use his whole body to do the lift, and on the other side you have the lifter trying to use the muscle to do the lift. The bench press is a great example of this. A trained powerlifter will know how to use everything to bench more weight, from his feet to his head. The bodybuilder's focus is on the pecs, and he'll be trying to place as much focus as he can in that region. There's a big difference between the two. This is not to say a powerlifter should never focus on muscles and bodybuilders should never focus on movements, but this is getting off topic. I bring this up because most "average" trainees I know have horrible control of their muscles. They just "lift" stuff and have no idea what is going on. If you watch their form, no two reps look the same and in many cases the muscle they are working is barely contracting. If I asked the average trainee to flex their pecs (that stupid thing you do to make your pecs bounce), they can. They can also do this fairly well with their biceps. Now if I asked them to do this with their triceps, traps, calves and so on they could not do it. They have no idea how to flex these muscles. One thing isolation work will do is teach them how to flex and control these muscle groups. This is important for both groups. For the bodybuilder it will bring greater focus to the area they are training because they will be able to flex what they are trying to stimulate. For the powerlifter this comes into play for weak point training. Let's say a lifter is weak off the chest in the bench press and the elbows always kick out first. One solution would be to teach them to flex with there triceps first off the chest and not the pecs. This will technically fix the problem but can't be done if the lifter has no idea how to flex his triceps. So my answer is yes isolation work is important during the early phases of training and how much depends on the skill of the trainee.

The main work still should be done with basic compound movements such as the squat, bench, and deadlifts.

Tomorrow, the coaches will discuss whether you have to look strong to be strong, training splits, and a whole lot more! In part 1, the coaches discussed the viability of building size and muscle at the same time, along with a comparison between compound and isolation movements. Today, they'll tackle the topic of whether you have to look strong to be strong, along with a fascinating discussion of training splits.

T-Nation: So far it seems to be the consensus that the majority of time should be spent on compounds, while how much time you spend on isolation movements will vary in importance depending upon the trainee's goals and priorities. This leads me to ask, does one have to be strong to look strong? One example would be Dave, who trained as a powerlifter for over 25 years, then made an amazing bodybuilder-esque transformation last year. On your interview with John Berardi on Fitcast, you spoke about how you (at least up until that time of the interview) did not do much barbell bench pressing, squatting, or deadlifting, because you didn't want to be reminded that you were not as strong on those lifts as you once were. Obviously, poundage progression is of the utmost importance, especially for a powerlifter, but how would this all play in for someone who wants primarily size and to be able to lift more than a wet paper bag? DT: "Does one have to be strong to look strong?" Did you seriously just ask this? Sorry, but I have to bust your balls on this one. I can't help it. Does one have to be rich to look rich? Does one have to be a good person to look like one? Does one have to look packed to have a huge cock or is it just a sock in his pants? What does strong look like? To me, strong is what you lift, not what you look like. I can, however, tell someone's potential for powerlifting by looking at their wrists, elbows, and knees. The bigger the better. I can also tell "strength" by torso and upper back thickness. The rest really does not matter. I can introduce you to many guys who would not fit the definition of what many say strong looks like, but they are some of the best lifters in the world. I'm not sure I understand the second part of the question. My decision to not do those movements has zero bearing on anyone reading this. For over 20 years those movements were the biggest part of my training program, and my base was developed using those lifts, and lifts to help increase those lifts. I knew my training was going to change from heavy sets under 5 reps (between 515 seconds) to sets over 10 reps (between 30-45 seconds). This would right away require lower weights than I've been using. I also knew that I wanted to slow the rep speed down and focus more on the muscle rather than the movement. This also brought the training weight down. This was done to give my joints a break from being pounded all the time and to maintain whatever muscle I had acquired while dieting. If I used the power lifts, my mindset would always revert back to how I used to train, I'd automatically begin to focus on the movement and my aggression would take off, as I want to blast into the heavy stuff. For the guy who wants to lift more than a wet paper bag, I have a very simple suggestion: get stronger!

"Grow stronger!" Look, this stuff is notthat complicated for most people. It gets harder when you run into sticking points, injuries, and competition but this is less than 10% of the people who will ever read this. And if they are in that 10%, they are reading this for entertainment value because they already know what to do and who to ask if they need help. For the rest it comes down to something most people just don't get. Get ready for the shocker of your life: strength and size take time to acquire. Even with all the drugs in the world it still takes time. For most people this time is measured in years. Not just years, but consistent years. Everyone is looking for the way to go from a 300 squat to a 800 squat the fastest way they can. While this is great, don't forget you still need to squat 350 first, and then 400. I hate to be the prick here, but this is a sad reality everyone wants to ignore. Unless you have outstanding genetics it will take a long time, and even if you're the spawn of Odin you still need to train to see any results. I'm not sure I answered this at all, but hey, do I have to look like an writer in order to write?

You don't have to look like a writer to be a writer.

ZE: For the most part, you can tell if someone is strong by the way they look. But, there have certainly been times where we've all seen a dude who looks skinny, doesn't look like much, and then he's deadlifting and benching more than you, and you look way bigger than he does. In a nutshell, some people simply don't eat enough or perform enough volume to get jacked up, yet they still get strong. There are plenty of people who look big and jacked but they can't move impressive amounts of weight either. I've seen a large number of people get pretty big doing a lot of "pumping up", nothing too heavy or extreme. In the end, the guys who eat and lift big, these are the guys who have a very distinct look and you know that they're strong. These guys usually have a rugged, solid physique. There's that toughness and hardness they've developed, where as the pump up type lifters don't have this physical appearance. Getting big and strong needs to stay simple. Let me bore you to death with my answers, but they are the truth. Take away the fancy programs, periodization, de-loading, superset, wave loading, etc. and let the lifter train hard, heavy, frequently and take time off when necessary and you'll get great results. Coupled with clean, wholesome eating and we have a recipe for success. Look at many of the guys from the Golden Era. It was common for guys to bench 365 to 405 while weighing between 205 and 210 pounds. Their food choices were whole eggs, steaks, fruits, plenty of water, potatoes, rice, and more of the same. They lifted barbells and dumbbells, heavy. Let's search for the strongest guys in the world and the biggest guys in the world. Look at their training facility: Westside Barbell, Metroflex Gym, and then you have the hole in the wall gyms outside of the USA: shitty upright stands for squatting, heavy barbells and dumbbells and not much else.

You won't find any Metros flexing at Metroflex Gym. EC: I guess it really depends on your perception of what strong is. I think the guys on this panel have a bit of a different mindset in this regard than many of the people reading this roundtable. We've all seen (and trained alongside) guys who have squatted a grand, pulled 900 plus, and benched over 800. Throw in some crazy Olympic lifting strength spectacles, big tire flips, and the occasional beat-down given to some drunk guy who manages to get out on the field at Fenway Park, and I guess you could say that we thrive on this stuff, so the bar keeps getting pushed higher (pun intended).

As for poundage progression, I can't overstate how important it is for the average trainee. In a broad sense, you can get stronger through two means: neural efficiency and increased cross-sectional area. The former will ultimately help the latter develop because you'll be able to handle bigger weights long-term. Do what it takes to develop both strength and size in the short-term, and you'll be fine long-term. I think Dave would be the first to tell you that training to get strong helped him get bigger, and ultimately helped him get leaner. Ronnie Coleman and Arnold would probably tell you the same. Brad Pitt won't tell you anything, though, so quit watching "Fight Club" and put down the pink dumbbells.

Tyler can't teach you much about getting big and strong. DJ: I think this comes to the crux of a whole set of other problems: do you really just want to "look strong" and actually lift weights that a freshman boy would skip on the way to going heavier? I just can't fathom that, but I understand that there are people who think this way. My wife has a cousin who once showed up to help grandpa move with this huge damn truck with all the crap on it. He wouldn't, however, allow anything to go into the bed of his truck because, and I quote, "It might scratch it." Now, that opened the door for me to make fun of him and all of my wife's family for quite a while. He didn't want anything to scratch the bed of his pickup truck. So, in my madness, I think that anyone who just wants to look strong, but not bestrong is like my wife's cousin. I'm a performance guy, I get that, so maybe I need to shut up right now.

CH: While there's certainly a statistical correlation to being big and being strong, it's not as intimately connected as many people make it out to be. For example: the average size of someone who can bench 400 is bigger than the average size of one who can bench 200, but there are millions of contradictory examples in between. I feel that strength primarily involves the nervous system. To some extent, new actin and myosin filaments will form and existing ones will get larger if one is training for sheer strength. The majority of improvements in strength, however, come from improvements in various aspects of the nervous system that I'll collectively call neural efficiency. Training for size, however, is far less about the nervous system and more about causing the body to build "stuff" that takes up more space. This "stuff" not only involves the size and number of the contractile proteins, but a number of others things like sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, capillary density, glycogen storage, and so on. On a side note, I feel that the fascia is one of the key limiting factors in muscle size, but I digress. Dave is a great example of how strength and muscular size aren't directly proportional. While he may have lost a good bit of strength in his quest to look sexy, he didn't lose a proportional amount of lean muscle mass. I'm also an example. My strength varies tremendously depending upon how I'm training, but I generally have about the same amount of lean mass. Heck, I was stronger on most lifts when I was 19 years old, but I now have far more muscle mass than I did then. As soon as I learned that chicks don't care how much I can lift but do care about how my body looks, I started focusing on the latter.

Most chicks care more about how you look than how much you can lift.

With all that being said, looking good for the ladies and being strong enough to impress the guys isn't that difficult. Simply use a powerlifting approach on the exercises where strength improvement is your goal maybe bench, squats, and deadlifts. Perform your "strength exercise" first in your routine and use a rep scheme like 5 x 5, 8 x 3, or 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. Don't go to failure on these sets, and make sure to improve a little each time you come back around to the lift. Next in your routine do something that's more hypertrophy oriented like flyes for three sets of 12. Take a shorter rest and train close to failure on these sets, with the last set (or two) being done to failure. Essentially, if you're seeking two goals you'll have to blend two types of training. T-Nation: If someone were to come to each one of you looking for equal and maximal gains in both strength and size, what type of a split would you set them up on? CH: As any trainer knows, unfortunately we often have to take things into account that really don't have anything to do with the "ideal" program. For instance, if the client only wants to train 3 days per week, then a four day per week program is worthless. But for the sake of this question, I'll try not to be difficult and assume the person will do whatever I ask of them. I've actually designed a program that addresses maximizing size and strength simultaneously. It's called Blending Size and Strength Version 2.0. In addition to the success of myself and my clients who have used it, I've gotten tons of feedback from people getting great results with this program. So I'm confident that the program is quite sound. Here's the split for this program. You'll do a heavy upper body workout on Monday, a light lower body and ab workout on Tuesday, take off on Wednesday, a light upper body workout on Thursday, followed by a heavy leg and ab workout on Friday and some R & R for the weekend. The exercises, sets, and reps are selected in a manner to address both goals. Essentially the light days are a bit more hypertrophy oriented while the heavy days are more strength oriented. Oddly, another split that I've seen to work time and time again is training four or five days per week and only hitting each body part once per week. I know that's damn near sacrilegious around T-Nation, and it scientifically seems less than optimal to me too. But I've seen it work time and time again. I believe it was John Berardi who used to have this email tagline: "No matter how elegant the science, you must occasionally look at the results." I love that! So although science may point us otherwise, an appropriately designed program that hits each body part once per week tends to yield real-life results. For those of us who have a hard time breaking ourselves away without doing at least three exercises for one body part, this onceweekly type of split is great as it allows ample recuperation. You may be asking, "How in the world can this and high-frequency training both work?" Simple: the common denominator is to train, recuperate, then train again. I've found that training each body part once per week is a sure fire way to allow for ample recuperation. Sure, it may even have you under-train a bit, but de-conditioning does not happen that quickly. If you've recuperated five days later; you'll still be stronger seven days later. Remember this, if you under-train a bit you'll still make progress, but if you over-train, you won't. Let me take a step back for a moment to mention an old saying, "The best program is the one you're currently not doing." Hypertrophy can absolutely be a result of heavy, low-rep strength training as Dave mentioned (and has proven). I've especially seen this to be the case if one has been training a bit lighter and more like a bodybuilder for a while.

For example, I had been tinkering around the gym for the past 8 weeks just doing some fairly light, bodybuilder-type training. I recently decided to put the bench, squat, and deadlift back into my routine. These are done in a heavy, low-rep manner. Since I hadn't done them or even lifted very heavy in a while, my strength on these would make Dave fall out of his chair laughing. But, after just a couple weeks of focusing on my strength on these lifts, they've gone way up, and I look denser to boot. On the other hand, on a number of occasions I've ended a strength cycle to pick up a standard bodybuilding split that's much higher in volume and generally lighter in weights. I'll notice almost immediately a new fullness and roundness to my muscles that I haven't seen in quite some time. My point is that there are benefits to virtually all of these types of training. You just have to know when and for how long to use them, and how to combine them. To conclude and finally answer the question, if I had to design just one program to help accomplish both goals for the highest percentage of readers, it would be a half-body split done four days per week with various sets and rep schemes." EC: No doubt about it: in the overwhelming majority of cases, it would be four days per week with two upper and two lower days. In some cases, we'd throw in some single-leg work on one of the upper body days as well. A lot of people move like crap and just need to stand on one foot more often.

ZE: Through experience, I'm definitely leaning towards the upper/lower split if we're looking to add strength and size. We've gained strength through full body workouts and we use these more so with combat athletes throughout most of the year, except for post-season when we want to pack on extra mass. I use both full body and upper/lower splits and when it comes to adding size AND strength the upper/lower split works great. You can't argue with the results and I've seen this over and over through my own clients and seeing DeFranco's athletes as well. If I found that the upper/lower split was NOT working, I would not be adverse to testing out six to eight weeks of training on a three-day split. Some people simply don't respond to the upper/lower split, but I've found it to be the rarity, not the norm. I've used full body workouts and upper/lower splits with combat athletes and many football players. There was a time and place for them all. When size combined with strength was the goal, splits always worked. I've used split workouts for myself for bodybuilding purposes and every time I was training for bodybuilding purposes, the critical goal was to get stronger. This always helped me get bigger. Getting stronger and eating big always helped me add a lot of size.

It's easy to stop discovering what works for you now that the Internet is out. I remember making phenomenal gains training on a four-day split every other day! I was getting stronger and bigger without fail. I had to learn this myself through experimentation. That's what people need to start doing today. Experimenting with what works and seeing how it applies to them, not what an internet article insists on doing. Programs work for only so long, eventually your body needs something different. Change is certainly a good thing and man, I've tried a boatload of splits and I still change things up to this day. DJ: For most people, "Westside for Skinny Bastards," would be a pretty good split. It certainly seems to be written about a lot on the net and, from what I can tell, most people seem to be getting good results. I still like whole body workouts at least once a week, even if you are splitting. I like Terry Todd's idea of a whole body "80%" day where you do all the lifts on your split days, but keep the weights and the reps at 80%. My best gains have always been with total body workouts with a daily emphasis on one part or another, so even though I see people doing better on a split, my heart still thinks that whole body is better.

Terry Todd, getting a lift from his wife Jan. I did something like this for a few years: Day One: upper body focus Some easy squats and pulls Day Two: lower body focus Some easy pushes and arm fun

 Day Three: 80% whole body workout You can keep doing that workout for a long time and it doesn't seem to burn you out. I believe in burn out and overtraining because I've been there. I know some people who have never trained hard who don't believe in overtraining. DT: I must be one of those guys who sees the glass as half empty because all I see here is moderation on both sides. Anyone who knows me very well already knows that I don't do moderation. It's either Blast or Dust. You go for it all or nothing.

"I don't do moderation." As stated before, I see no point what so ever in shooting for 50% size and 50% strength, even if there was such a thing. Why not 30/70 or 40/60? And what does that constitute in the first place? Is one inch on you arms equal to 30 pounds on the bench press? Better yet, how do you know if you're unequal? I actually tossed this question out to a couple people to see what there reaction would be. I wanted to see if my first reaction was legit or if I was just being, well, me. Then I got this back: "I'm looking for 33% strength, 33% size and 33% fat loss. The last 1% is missing because I don't want to train too hard. " Not only did this reaffirm my reaction, it made my day, and was one of those comments that keeps coming back to you through out the day getting funnier each time. Like the last question, I'm glad this was asked because it brings up some things were I feel

most people make mistakes. Just because you train for strength, it doesn't mean you'll get smaller, and if you train for size it doesn't mean you'll get weaker.

"I don't want to train too hard." I have to agree and disagree with the statement about me getting weaker while dieting. This is a matter of definition. Weaker at what? Yes, my max squat, bench, and pull went down. Mostly because I was not training them or training to improve them. I also was not doing any reps under eight. So in the regard to max strength on these lifts, yes I got weaker. On all the other movements I was doing I got stronger. Once again, many I had not done in years but there were many I used to do as accessory movements to my main lifts that got better. So before we begin to speak about strength gain and strength loss, strength must be defined. The issue I have is with this split focus. I know what people mean by it, but I don't get it when it comes to training or program design. Am I supposed to develop a program that'll only make you half-strong? This may also come back to who is being asked this question in the first place. I've never claimed to be anything more than someone who can help people get strong in the main lifts. This is what I've spent my life doing and where my experience is. I'm not real big on research and theory. I like to pretty much stick to what I've seen work. I know how to break down and build the three main lifts very well and can spot flaws and know how to fix them rather fast. This is because I've seen all the same things more times than I can count. So this is what I know. I know the extreme end of strength. You can take what I say and moderate it how you need for your own training, but I'm not one to do the moderation because I've never done so. I can make some crap up if you like but if this is the case then you can do exactly the same thing, and I'm sure I can find something other to do with my time then making up some program I would just pull out of my ass. If you need to know about how to set up a 50/50 program than I suggest you find those who do this day in and day out. Most of the muscle I've built has been a side effect of what I was training for. Case in point: after I tore my pecs I knew I needed stronger triceps to take over where my pecs could no longer do the job. In turn my arms got bigger from the specialization I had to do for

them. The intention was never to get bigger arms, but to find a way to bench more. Now, I have big arms, and when people ask me what I did to get them, I tell them, "Tear both pecs." See where I may not be the muscle mass go-to guy? There are many ways to split training programs. Some like bodypart splits, others like movement patterns, and then there are those like myself, who like to keep them movement-based (squat/deadlift and bench press). With movement based splits the movements can be what you like. Powerlifters will use the main lifts as will Olympic lifters and some strongman. Many coaches I know will pick 3-5 they want to build and use them as the target focus. To keep things simple, I'll use what most readers know and have read before in the Eight Keys articles. For the squat, bench, and deadlift, it would look like this. Day 1: Squat and Deadlift: Max effort work and accessories Day 2: Bench Press: Max effort work and accessories Day 3: Squat and Deadlift: Dynamic effort work and accessories Day 4: Bench Press: Dynamic effort work and accessories One other thing I want to state about training splits is how and when the days fall. For lifters, this is determined by what day the meet is. Everyone else I've spoken to seems to base their splits on what they've read or what they've been told. The most important aspect of any training split is what will work with your schedule. This is very simple stuff and I want to punch myself in the face for writing it but I see this all the time. People miss training sessions because they put them on days they already know they wont be able to do most of the time. If your work week is hell, then why are you taking Saturday and Sunday off training when you don't work on those days? Why not take off Monday and Tuesday when you know you'll be working late? My schedule is more demanding now than it has ever been, but I know enough to not train on Monday because there's always too much going on. I'm not blowing this question off at all. I'm just restating what I said at the beginning of this roundtable. I feel it's more important to set clear and concise objectives for each training phase, and I feel you should either train for strength and let size happen, or train for muscle mass and let strength happen. My experience is on the strength end of the spectrum so this is where I like to stay. I'm not comfortable writing or speaking about the other end of this spectrum because I don't have much in the trenches experience there. In short, there are much better people to ask about that. This brings up another bit of advice. I've always surrounded myself with people who know more about specific training aspects than I do. I try to find the best I can for this, and use them as my own network to help fill the gaps with my own training. You have seen this with my writing and training log. Take a look and those who are on team EliteFTS. They are there for business reasons but I would be lying if I said there were not selfish reasons as well. I guess what I'm saying is I think I know what I know, and know where to go for those things I don't know, or something like that. Writer Greg McGlone rounded up five of the biggest, baddest, strongest, and best-informed hombres in the iron game, and invited them to share their "secrets" with those of us who also want to get bigger, badder, stronger, and better-informed.

In part 1, the coaches discussed the viability of building size and muscle at the same time, along with a comparison between compound and isolation movements. In part 2, they tackled the topic of whether you have to look strong to be strong, along with a fascinating discussion of training splits. Today, the topics include nutrition, supplementation, recovery, and some final thoughts.

T-Nation: Along the same lines of question 4, what would you suggest to someone along the nutrition and supplementation fronts? CH: That's a million dollar question, Greg! The real answer to that could not only fill a book but volumes of books. One of the key variables here is whether or not the person wanted to try to get leaner while achieving some gains in size and strength, though these gains would be compromised a bit. Would they be happy keeping their body fat the same? Or are they hell bent on simply gaining maximum size and strength, and don't care if they gain a little fat? Without having a specific person for me to design a plan for, I'll simply give some rule-of-thumb guidelines. As for nutrition, I find that most people do best with carb-cycling. I say carb-cycling, but I actually cycle the fat along with the carbs. To lose weight faster, we implement more low-carb days or make the carbs on that day even lower. On the other hand, more high carb days and higher amounts on those days will create more anabolism. I find that cycling in this nature allows hypertrophy to happen about as fast as it can happen, but keeps body fat in check. I could fill volumes with more nutrition stuff, but I'll save that for a later day. I'm not really big on supplements per se. Too many people try to use them to make up for crappy nutrition and/or training. With that being said, I recommend that just about everyone take a fatty acid supplement and a good multivitamin. For those of us who are a bit more hardcore I'd recommend periodically using creatine and beta-alanine. Though I don't consider it supplementation (I consider it food), a whey/carb combo para-workout is of utmost importance. And yes, Biotest makes great products in each of these categories except the multi.

Only because Biotest makes something better than a multi.

Oh, one more thing that most will benefit from: additional magnesium. Most people have a magnesium deficiency, and that ain't good from a health or performance standpoint! Choose a form that ends in -ate like citrate or malate, and avoid magnesium oxide as it has poor bioavailability. DT: I'm not qualified to answer this one. I would suggest the likes of people such as Dr Eric Serrano, Dr. John Berardi, and Justin Harris. I've used all three for several different reasons and feel, as do many others, that they are about the best in the business. EC: As far as nutrition is concerned, I outlined some of the approaches I've taken in my "Periodize Your Diet" article a while back. That said, I'm a relative strength athlete; muscle mass gains are secondary to strength increases, so I'm not always looking for a caloric surplus. I'm generally spending a lot more time at maintenance, and thinking more in terms of what I need to do to fuel my training. Most guys who need to pack on strength and size need to be more aggressive with their caloric intake. Calories need to remain high during de-load weeks to take advantage of the rebound that'll take place when a ton of fatigue is removed, and you have an endocrine "bounceback" from the higher volume training periods. The secret is to stick to more veggies, protein, and healthy fats during those time periods.

You need to be aggressive with your caloric intake. Then again, on the whole, nutrition is an individual thing. Endomorphs are going to need to be a lot stricter than ectomorphs. Training experience also plays into it. If some guy is 250 pounds at 35% body fat and has never lifted, we don't need to jack up calories to put on size while building strength; he'll gain muscle by just eating the right stuff, and with a caloric deficit. DJ: I have three basic "rules" that I tell every athlete: 1. Protein at every meal 2. Fiber at every meal 3. Fish oil 2-3 times a day I also insist on the following:

1. Eat Breakfast every day 2. 3 meals a day (or more!) 3. Water as your major beverage Yep, they are all basic. But, I have yet to find an athlete who wants "more strength" or "more size" who follows all six. I have kids who take massive amounts of creatine but don't eat breakfast. I won't go into calories a day because it's a waste of everyone's time. I won't explain the number of grams to lean body mass: waste of time. Let me just say this: the Velocity Diet proved to me that what I was lacking most was protein, so if my experience argues anything it's that most athletes are, drumroll please, overfedand undernourished. They eat and drink a lot, but don't get enough protein, fiber, and omega-3. They consume massive amounts of calories, yet deprive their muscles of enough protein. So, you end up coaching fat asses who need to build size. Been there, done that. When I give workshops, I always mention that "everybody knows" that we need to floss twice a day. Few people do. The challenge of the floss issue is this: you knowyou should floss but you don't take the minute a day to do it. So, why do many coaches and trainers map out thousands of pages of "measure one ounce of chicken breast and mix it with one ounce of extra virgin olive oil with one gram of creatine." The athletes I work with can't be bothered to floss twice a day, but we expect them to hold to measuring each and every morsel of food for thirty-one weeks?

Everyone knows how important it is to floss regularly. It does not happen! Which is the point of the floss: if you don't have the will and discipline to do something as simple as flossing, how can I intervene and train you to eat or drink six controlled meals a day.

Really, this is why I strongly recommend now that an athlete start a year long or multi year training program by doing the Velocity Diet for 28 days. The problem here is self-discipline. Once the athlete has either completed or failed the V-Diet, then we can address other issues. The hard thing is this: most people striving for increased strength or increased lean mass will fail because of the discipline issues. There's enough information out there to help you with either goal, the methods may vary, but the bottom line is higher up. It's between your ears. ZE: Consistency has been the biggest factor with regards to making improvements; this is for nutrition andtraining. You can't eat great and enough quality nutrition for a few days, and then fall off the wagon for a few days. It won't work. When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I was able to eat a meal and then after almost every meal I had a bowl of cereal or a turkey and cheese sandwich. I was always lean. But I hit a plateau, so I knew that if it was broke, it had to be fixed. I eliminated milk, bread, and dairy, and in one week my body looked completely different, and my strength increased slightly as well. What has always worked for me is the following: Breakfast Lunch Afternoon meal Dinner/post workout meal Late evening meal I encourage my student athletes to do this as well. Most people skip breakfast, or eat a crappy one, have a shitty lunch, eat nothing until dinner, and then maybe some more shit at night.

Definitely not the breakfast of champions. The best nutrition results always came from minimal variety with myself, regularly eating the same foods over and over again. My forte is definitely not nutrition, but, if someone simply applies himself to eating clean, wholesome foods on a regular basis throughout the day, he'll make great gains. Plenty of protein and wholesome carbs, fruits, and veggies, tons of water, and meal replacements when necessary. One day I'll be able to eat whole foods on a regular basis, but, the meal replacements with some fruit are way better than fast food or processed crap that you find out and about. T-Nation: What are some recommendations in terms of cardiovascular conditioning/GPP for someone who's primary goal is size and strength? I know alot of people obviously hate cardio or any kind of conditioning work, especially during "bulking season." ZE: Being big & strong is not an excuse for anyone to become fat and out of shape, I don't care how strong you are, you have to be able to move your body! I love the simple tools: the prowler, the sled, sledge hammer training, hill sprints, and stair running. I also like to see workouts moving at a fast pace. I'm not a big advocate of the, "do a set, rest a minute, do a set, rest again" routine. We often combine a push-pull movement together, and our leg workouts are performed at a fast pace. EC: I summarized a lot of my ideas in my Cardio Confusion article a few years ago, and many of my ideas on this front remain the same simply because it worked so well. I'm incorporating more interval work nowadays, as I've experimented with consolidation of CNS-intensive work, and still seen solid strength gains provided the timing is right.

If size and strength are the main goals, it's best to do the interval work within 24 hours after a lower body training session; that way, things tend to be "lumped" into one period, almost as if you were doing double sessions. All in all, though, it really depends on whether you're dealing with an endo-, ecto-, or mesomorph. The more prone to fat gain a guy is, the more conditioning work you need to do. DJ: I think we had almost a generation miss GPP. I called it "playing," but we can call it GPP, if you please. I think one of the reasons I could handle the volume of the Dick Notmeyer workouts (three days a week of O lifts, two days a week of front squats, and heavy jerks) was the base I had achieved through years of organized and disorganized sports and fun. So, the 140-pound guy out there who wants to carry 240 will probably balk at the idea of sled pulling, basic games, farmer's walks, and the other GPP basics. But, like a fireplace, you have to add some kindling and fuel, and actually light it to get some heat. Too many people think they can just walk over to the fireplace and say, "Give me heat." You have to lay the foundation. Sure, there are going to be times, I call them "the last three decades" where you don't do cardio. But, be sure, in the beginning, to do something that prepares you "globally" to support the heavy training. DT: I hate cardio as well but feel it can aid in recovery during this time. I also feel it needs to be somewhat specific to what you are training for. For example Prowler Pushes, various sled pulls, and wheelbarrow work will be a better choices for someone whose aim is pure strength, while at the same time may not be the best selection for someone whose main goal is size. As stated before, I feel one of these needs to take priority over the other so the simple answer is yes I do feel it can be helpful but can also be disastrous if it begins to impede with the work you are trying to do in the weight room. For pure strength, go with the sled, prowler, or wheel barrel work. Start with a few trips of 50 feet done after your normal session. Once you develop a base cycle the GPP, work on a three days on, one day off split and drop the intensity or volume to 60% of previous day. Here's an example for when the prowler is used: Day 1: 200 pounds for 2 trips of 50 steps Day 2: 120 pounds for 2 trips of 50 steps Day 3: 70 pounds for 2 trips of 50 steps Day 4: Off Day 5: Repeat For pure size, just stick with 20 minutes of light cardio 3-4 times per week done after training or on off days. Sure there are many other things you can do, and yes, the pure size guy can do the prowler work but it has been my experience most who are training for pure size should really be training for pure strength, so there you have it. CH: My off-the-cuff answer is 20-30 minutes of cardio done on three, nonconsecutive days per week. But as always, it really depends. Those who are more endomorphic and those who are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease should typically do more.

On the other hand, a very ectomorphic individual should do no cardio at all; at least not as far as gaining muscle is concerned. It's hard enough for ectomorphs to eat enough calories, so why burn some off with cardio? I would like to add that the catabolic effects of cardio are way overstated and exaggerated. Many of my clients do quite a bit of cardio and steadily gain muscle, and so can I. So I wouldn't hesitate to have someone do two high-intensity-interval-training sessions and a couple of steady state sessions per week while attempting to gain lean mass. In fact, I think doing some sprints will help develop mass, especially in the lower body. Keeping body fat at a reasonable level is veryimportant when "bulking," especially for a competitor. All that fat you gain in the name of "bulking" will later have to be dieted right back off when you want to lean up. I've done it both ways, and I can say that starting a diet with a body fat in the single digits is far easier than coming down from 15 or 20%! So don't hesitate to do some cardio to keep body fat down. I actually have all my year-round male clients keep their body fat in the single digits, and females under about 14%.

Keeping body fat at reasonable levels is very important when bulking. However, if someone has to do a lot of cardio in the off-season in order to stay fairly lean, then their diet is messed up! There's no need at all to have to do three hours or more of cardio per week to stay lean. That should be a huge red flag that the 'ole diet needs some serious work. T-Nation: What do you suggest in terms of enhancing recovery from training on a daily basis? CH: Obviously nutrition is the key factor in maximizing recuperation. But I'm going to assume we don't need to talk a whole lot more about pre and post-workout nutrition and BCAA intake.

As far as other modalities to enhance recuperation, without a doubt the absolute best thing that one can do daily is to stretch. The longer I practice, the more I realize how important flexibility is. Even if we disregard the improvement in biomechanics that comes from stretching and mobility work, it's still of utmost importance in terms of growth. Hypertonic muscles typically develop bands of fibers or areas of a muscle that are, in essence, fused together with scar tissue. These fibers compromise force output which will ultimately reduce hypertrophy. And looking at it more simply, those fused fibers won't grow themselves. Fascia can also bind to the muscle and decrease performance and hypertrophy. You also have to look at the fact that a tight (hypertonic) muscle will decrease the neural firing (and strength) of its antagonist. It should be obvious, now, that maintaining optimal muscle integrity is of utmost importance. Assuming your muscles are reasonably healthy, stretching and mobility work should be enough to maintain optimal length and function. However, if you already have chronic shortening and adhesions then Active Release, Neuromuscular Reeducation, or a similar technique should be utilized to restore optimal function. I'll get off my soft-tissue soapbox now, and point out that cardio can also enhance recuperation. I'm torn whether or not HIIT can enhance recuperation. But I feel strongly that light cardio, like fast walking on a slightly inclined treadmill, does wonders for recuperation. It seems to increase circulation throughout the body enough to aid in the transport of nutrients and the removal of waste byproducts, enhancing the healing of training-induced microtrauma. At least, that's my theory. DT: This is a trick question, because if you have good programing this would not be an issue. So the first thing is to make sure your program is solid. If this is the case then the best means of recovery is rest. For most of the readers, just taking a few extra days off will take care of their needs. For competitive lifters and many other athletes, this may not always be an option, as they have practice and sessions that have to be done no matter what. Even with the best programming the stresses of training and life can still add up and begin to screw up your recovery. There are many things you can do, and each is an article (or book) in itself. There's tons of information out there, if you need it. The key to remember is that recovery aids should not be used all the time, but only when needed, or during a very heavy training phase. If you use them all the time they will lose their effect and actually hurt your own natural recovery timeline. It's also important to note, from my experience not everyone gets the same effect, while some means aid in one's recovery they can very well ruin another. So you need to find out what works best for you. Here are some things I've found to be effective: Massage Chiropractic Epson salt baths Steam contrast Sauna contrast Shower contrast ART therapy Electrotherapy Ultrasound

There are many other things, but these top my list. The one I've used the most, epsom salt baths, was first introduced to me by Chuck Vogelpohl, and I laughed my ass off when he told me but it did help, and has actually become part of my squat training (the night and morning before), and still is today. I figured if it was good enough for an 1100 pound squatter who has been through the mill then it was good enough for me. EC: We know that retired lifters have reduced disc heights under diagnostic imaging; if you lift weights at any significant degree of intensity, it's something you're going to encounter. That said, "heavy" is a relative term. Heavy for me on a deadlift would be 650 to 700: something that would feel like speed weight for a guy like Andy Bolton or Ed Coan, or unrealistically heavy for a guy who struggles to pull 315. You really have to take into account the role that supportive musculature plays in all of this.

"Heavy" means different things to different people. I think the lessons we can take home on this are:

1. De-Loading is important regardless of your training age. With respect to this discussion, we're talking single-leg movements, pull-throughs, belt squats, etc. 2. To paraphrase a quote from an old conference review I did here at T-Nation, "If you live your life the right way, you'll probably wind up in an orthopedist's office at some point. If you live it the wrong way, you'll wind up in a cardiologist's office." 3. Do everything in your power to teach your body to move efficiently so that when you do load on the big movements, you can do so safely. ZE: The simplest tool of all, yet highly underused, is listening to your body and training accordingly. You may have planned a 3 week phase of very hard training, but what if you feel like shit mid way through week 2? Do you train as planned or train according to what your body is telling you it needs? I train how my body tells me to train. I encourage and communicate heavily with my athletes, something Jason Ferruggia encourages me to do all the time, every workout. I gauge my athletes during the warm up: verbal and non-verbal communication. We may have a planned intense week but if they express the need and I see the need, we might de-load that day or that entire week! Every time I've been injured through training, it was because I trained differently than what my body was ready for. It was a lack of mental discipline where I would not listen to my body, instead, I allowed my crazy mind to drive me into the ground. NOT good! For the stuff everyone can do: foam rolling and rolling on medicine balls. We do this every workout at the end, and if they need, my athletes do this in the beginning, too. If possible, seek ART treatment. Not all practitioners are equally effective, please keep that in mind. Massage every 10 to 14 days Daily naps, optimally 60 to 90 minutes, but get them when you can! Eating clean foods Taking one full week off every three or four months DJ: For the newer lifter, recovery techniques are as simple as drink water, eat protein, take fish oil, and sleep. This list might never change, but I'm amazed at how light the protein intake for many athletes is during their "bulking" phase. Lots of carb crap, but little in the way of protein. Eat your damn protein.

Drink your damn protein Overall, I think the mind is more involved in strength gaining than one would first imagine. It's a skill, as Pavel says all the time. Hypertrophy is a bit more complex, but I would always rather be stronger than simply bigger. T-Nation: Any final thoughts you might have on anything. ZE: Training is simpler than we make it with regards to strength and size development. The physiques of the early 1900's through the late 60's are often times way better than those of today, and those guys were fucking strong. Sure, there were plenty of skinny and fat bastards back in those days as well, but the training methods and equipment back in the day were nothing compared to what we have today. The biggest problem is hard work and lack of consistency. Those of us who have been at this game for years know that even after 15 years of training, the basics, hard work, consistency, and tons of good food will always do the trick. CH: My thoughts on anything? Yeah, thanks for asking. I've got thoughts on a lot of things that I've actually wanted to get off my chest. For starters, why do girls like guys that take them for granted? And why do we guys end up wanting the same girl we took for granted, but only after she tells us to go to hell?

Why do we end up wanting women even more when they've told us to go to hell? Oh, you probably meant anything related to size and strength. Sorry. Well, I think we often make both training and nutrition far too complicated. While I'm the first to engage in discussions about, and rack my brain on, the minutia of getting bigger and stronger, it isn't rocket science. It's this simple: stimulate the muscle enough to elicit adaptation, allow it and the nervous system enough time to adapt (but not much more), and then repeat. The tricky part is that there are a million different ways to do just that. However, I don't think most people fail because they're doing the wrong program. I think most fail because they're inconsistent with either their training, nutrition, or both. No program will make up for inconsistency or lack of effort. I'll close by disregarding specifics and giving a handful of guidelines that will work for the vast majority of people. 1) Train hard but train for less than one hour, four times per week. 2) Only go to failure on the last set of an exercise. 3) Make the basic exercises the core of your routine. 4) Keep a log book and improve regularly.

5) Take four weeks off per year. 6) Eat 1.5 grams per pound of bodyweight per day, divided across six meals. 7) Eat about the same amount of carbs divided across six meals. 8) Eat at least 50g of "healthy" fat per day. That's it! Those guidelines summarize my nine years of college and 20 years of weight-training. Now that I've given away my secrets, I'll have to look for another line of work. Thanks a lot, Greg! EC: I love the fact that you've gone out of your way to bring some bright guys from different backgrounds together to throw around ideas on how there are different means to the same ends, yet some principles are universal. Still, with all that said, I can't state enough that all of this doesn't mean anything if you're stuck in a bad training environment. A crappy program performed with an awesome environment will yield better strength and mass gains than a fantastic program performed in a poor environment. The most successful guys are the ones who are not students of the game, but who realize that when push comes to shove, it's their surroundings that make them better the fastest. I'd like to think that my biggest success with Cressey Performance has been putting solid programming together with just the right attitude and environment. People need to use T-Nation for the programming aspect of things, but bust their butts in the "real world" to ensure that they're in surroundings conducive to success. DT: Yes, I can add some final thoughts. People need to stop looking for the catch-all (strength and size). Pick one and train for it, and when you get bored or stop making progress, pick the other. This way you are already moving forward. Simple concept, but for those who have been striving for both, let me just ask you this: "How's that been working for you?" T-Nation: Thanks gentlemen. I hope the readers enjoy this as much as I did

The Cure for Skinny A Roundtable, featuring Joe DeFranco, Vince DelMonte, and Craig Weller by Nate Green Next Page | Pages 1 2 3 4

Are you afraid of blowing away in a strong gust of wind? Tired of looking in the mirror and seeing vermicelli arms and Tinker Toy legs? Does your little sister ask to borrow your clothes... and threaten to beat you up if you refuse? Do you ever look at the 45-pound plates in the gym and wonder when you'll be able to use them? Sick of answering questions that remind you of the one subject you try to avoid? You aren't alone: Lots of guys share your hypertrophy-averse physiology. Many of them manage to work their way into more mirror-friendly proportions. I'm one of them, and I report to two former skinny bastards who grew up to be Testosterone Muscle editors. A select few end up as coaches who help guys like us get bigger, stronger, and more athletic. I talked to three of them: Joe DeFranco, a strength coach based in New Jersey who works with elite high school, college, and pro athletes; Vince DelMonte, author of No-Nonsense Muscle Building; and Craig Weller, a trainer based in San Diego and popular Testosterone contributor who's a former member of the Navy's elite special-ops forces. I locked the three of them in a room and wouldn't let them leave until they filled my tape recorder with nutrition tips, training strategies, and lifestyle adjustments that they've used to help themselves and their clients work up to larger shirt sizes. Testosterone Muscle: Let's go back to high school. How would I have picked you out of a crowd? What about now? Craig Weller: I was a 98-pound weakling. I remember being on the eighth grade football team and looking at the roster to find out I weighed less than everyone on the seventhgrade team. My dad actually listed my weight on the roster as 105 pounds because I was so damn embarrassed that I wasn't in the triple digits. But then I bought a Joe Weider program out of the back of a magazine and started lifting weights. I found better and better sources over time, and when I was a junior in high school I weighed 175 pounds and was deadlifting 405 pounds fairly easily. I now weigh about 185 pounds, although I'm still recovering from my last trip to Nepal, where I lost about 20 pounds.

Craig beating the hell out of a tire. Vince DelMonte: I was a lot like Craig, but I actually grew up as a long-distance runner. I ran for the University of Western Ontario for four years, and even represented Canada at the National Triathlon Championship. So if I had any chance of building muscle, I probably made it worse with all that endurance training. At the time, I weighed between 135 and 149 pounds.

Vince's jersey looks a little big During my second year of University, I lived in a house with eight guys. They called me "Skinny Vinnie," and it stuck. All the girls thought it was cute, which as we all know is the worst possible thing for a girl to call you. So I decided to make a change. Luckily, one of my professors was none other than John Berardi. My friends and I used to follow him around the gym and copy what he did. We called him "The Bible of Bodybuilding."

John invited me to a SWIS [Society of Weight-Training Injury Specialists] symposium. I met guys like Charles Poliquin and Ian King, and I decided to be a personal trainer. Only catch was, I didn't look like one. I went from 149 to 190 in six months. I now weigh 210.

No jersey, no problem. Joe DeFranco: I was definitely a skinny bastard. I grew tall way too fast. I was 5'11" and weighed 125 in the eighth grade. My dad used to take me to his hardcore gym with a bunch of ex-cops and military guys and I'd just do what he did. Right now I'm about 225.

DeFranco, behind the green barbell. But what's more important is that I've helped a ton of high school and college athletes gain huge amounts of muscle too.

DeFranco client Mike Guadango at 178 pounds.

Same guy at 202, plus a tattoo. TM: Philosophers have been debating this question since the advent of written language, so I'll put it to you: What's more important for the naturally skinny kid training or nutrition? JD: Nutrition, hands down. Listen, as soon as I get a real skinny high school kid, the first thing I have him do is just start eating a shit-ton of food. That's obvious, right? But here's the kicker: We're not going to be too strict or pissed off if he eats McDonald's a few times per week. The overriding factor is that they have to put more calories in their body than they burn off. And for a hard gainer whose genetics are working against him, you can't just have a caloric surplus of 100 or 200 calories a day. If you're going to gain some size, you'll need a lot more. TM: But McDonald's?

JD: Only at first. We tell them they can't eat too much or have too many meals in a day, and eating McDonald's or whatever will help them get used to eating big every few hours. Is it the best? Not really. But it does teach them to eat big and pack the calories in. Once they reach a base point, then we put them on a balanced plan where they'll get 40 percent of their calories from carbs, 30 percent from protein, and 30 percent from fats. Hell, for some of the really skinny guys, we'll go with a 50-30-20 ratio. And these are all from higher-quality sources. One of the biggest problems with these skinny guys is they avoid carbs like they're scared of them. Carbs have gotten such a bad rap over the past few years that it's absolutely ridiculous. If I take a look at a skinny guy's food log, I'll see an omelet for breakfast, a burger for lunch, and three pieces of chicken for dinner. Where the hell are the carbs? All that protein needs to repair the muscle, not supply energy in place of carbs. In fact one of the biggest things that has led to the most dramatic changes is simply focusing on peri- and post-workout nutrition, and making sure they're getting some carbs along with some high-quality protein. TM: Interesting stuff. What do you think, Craig? CW: I agree about timing. If I have a rough workout, I'll usually have a full serving of Surge during the workout and another full serving directly after. I'll then wait 30 minutes and have a high-carb meal, like chicken with a huge pile of brown rice. TM: What about the idea that skinny guys can get away with eating more junk food, at least for a while? CW: Maybe Joe's guys are different. Most skinny guys I know are eating junk food for the hell of it, and aren't even achieving a caloric surplus. They think they're eating a lot because they're chowing down on a lot of high-calorie junk food, but they're not using these foods as part of an overall system to get bigger. They're really just damaging their long-term health and their progress in the gym. TM: So are carbs and protein the only thing we're concerned about? CW: I think a lot of guys are skimping on their fats, too. If your fat consumption drops below 80 grams or so a day, then your endocrine system isn't going to function as well and your testosterone production may drop off significantly. Personally, I go for about a gram of protein per pound of bodyweight, but after I reach that I bulk things up with some healthy fats. It's always something that's worked for clients and me. I'll eat eight whole eggs at a time and take in a lot of avocadoes, cheese, and Flameout. Another good way of adding in healthy fats and sneaking in more calories is adding coconut milk to shakes. A can of it costs a little over a dollar and usually contains something like 75 grams of fat. I use about one-fourth of a can at a time. And it tastes good. I also eat almond butter with a spoon. VD: I agree with both of you guys, but I think people should realize that eating a ton of calories without getting the proper vitamins, minerals, and fiber is kind of shooting yourself in the foot. Your body won't be able to assimilate all that much if you're not focused on the quality of the food. So before anyone increases the calories, I think they should look at exactly where all those calories are coming from.

Let's say a client of mine is eating 3,000 calories a day, and we want him to get up to 3,600. I'm going to have him go back and examine every single meal before we do anything else. I'll have him look at the little details, like if he could be getting omega-3 eggs instead of normal ones, or if he could eat organic vegetables instead of the ones with all the pesticides. And I think once you make all those changes, then you can increase the actual calories. TM: That's an excellent point and one most guys wouldn't even consider. Let's talk training for the skinny guys. Kick us off, Vince. VD: The first thing I want say is that "do what works for you" is some bullshit advice for beginners. It's like Michael Phelps telling an eight-year-old that if you feel like doing backstrokes today, then do some backstrokes. Guys need a plan. They need a program and guidelines, and they need to know the principles that are going to contribute to the majority of their results. They have to know when to work on technique, strength, endurance, or hypertrophy. So it's a bit of a clich, but I think guys need to find a great program, trust it, and stick to it for at least 12 weeks. Don't jump around too much. See what you learn about your body during that time and gain some leverage. When you figure out what works for your body, then you can easily tweak the next program you do. A lot of guys are jumping from one program to the next with no new knowledge about how their bodies respond to each stimulus. JD: I agree completely. Too many guys try so many fucking programs at once, it's like they have ADD. Most of the programs out there work if you train hard enough. If you're eating enough and busting your ass, then you're going to get bigger and stronger if you've got a decent plan in place. But I get a ton of emails where guys tell me they're doing my " Westside for Skinny Bastards" program but throw in Jim Wendler's 5-3-1 template andCharles Staley's EDT combined with some of Thibaudeau's techniques. I write back and say, "You're fucked." If you combine 20 different great programs, and do them all at once, you're going to get shitty results. You have to stick to one thing for a while. Give it a solid eight to 12 weeks and I guarantee you'll get results. In fact, if you were to use the "Skinny Bastards" template and constantly tweak the exercises and set and rep scheme, you could stay on that program the rest of your life. VD: Right on! But here's something else to consider: After the guys have followed great programs for a couple of years or so, I think they should have the courage to make their own decisions. A guy should know what applies to his body and what doesn't, and should have the ability to tweak the program to his needs. For example, if your back is your weakest muscle group and you know you should be prioritizing it, and you're following an awesome program from Thibaudeau that says to do chest at the beginning of the week and back on the last day of the week, you should know to change the days around. You don't need to email or call him and ask if it's okay. You should know your body better than he does. TM: Good point. Joe, you've written three different versions of "Westside for Skinny Bastards." Do you still train athletes with that basic template? JD: It's evolved over time, but the bulk of the workout is the same. Max-effort training is still the best way to get stronger and look better. I really believe that maximal strength builds the foundation for all the other goals guys have.

But don't get me wrong I do high-rep stuff with the skinny guys. If you take a genetic-freak athlete who's absolutely jacked and did a muscle biopsy, you'd see a predominance of type IIB muscle fibers. These guys respond very well to max-effort movements. But skinny guys are usually more slow-twitch. Because they're not as neurologically efficient, they'll respond better to higher reps six to 12. In terms of frequency, three or four times a week is all they need in the gym. If you feel like you could train every day, you're probably not training correctly. My facility attracts really motivated guys, and I actually have to convince them not to come to the gym on their off days. CW: I agree with what Joe's talking about, for sure. I also want to point out that I don't think a guy's results are necessarily from a specific method, but rather an internalization and adherence to a few basic principles. Maximal strength, as Joe points out, is huge. I also don't think that a skinny guy should worry about single-joint or isolation movements if he only weighs 160 pounds. Your rhomboids or your medial deltoids just don't merit that much attention when you're that skinny. I also think guys need to spend more time on their lower body. Not equal time. More time. With my clients, loading the spine and doing heavy squats and deadlift variations has really caused a tremendous anabolic response. That's another reason why my conditioning stuff is usually posterior-chain and lower-body dominant. Even if our equipment is nothing more than a rock on a beach, we're going to use it to stimulate as much of our bodies as we can. We're going to move heavy, fast, and frequently. We're not going to do curls with the rock. We're going to push-press it, front squat, and throw it overhead as far as we can and then sprint to it. TM: Wouldn't conditioning be the last thing on a skinny guy's mind? Wouldn't that burn too many calories? CW: The type of conditioning I do is so dependent on strength that I haven't seen any muscle loss from it at all. We're not swimming or jogging here. We're moving heavy things for a repeated effort and more reps, or we're doing some intervals. You're getting a great anabolic response because you're moving something heavy, loading the spine, and not encouraging your body to become smaller or more efficient. TM: Joe, I know you've got some interesting thoughts on lower-body training. Care to share? JD: Allow me to steal a line from Alwyn Cosgrove when I say people either overreact or underreact to everything in the fitness industry. The answer is really right in the middle. It's definitely true most guys don't train their legs, and if they do, it's the shit they see in the mirror. So I give a lot of credit to Louie Simmons, who really popularized hamstring training through box squats, reverse hypers, and everything else. It was like a light bulb went off in the heads of thousands of guys. But then guys stopped training quads altogether for fear of being "unbalanced." For an athlete, or a guy who's trying to look good, the quads are just as important as the hamstrings. A lot of kids will gain 15 to 20 pounds within a two-month period by just focusing more on their legs, especially the quads. Hell, if you want three muscle groups that will put some size on your body, it's gotta be your ass, hamstrings, and quads.

I'm a huge fan of single-leg movements like Bulgarian split squats and barbell reverse lunges. If you walk into my gym at any hour I guarantee you're going to see someone with their back leg on a bench, holding dumbbells to their sides or a barbell on their back. It sucks and it's hard as hell, but the weight just pours on. TM: Vince, anything to add here? VD: I think it's really important to alternate a strength phase with a volume phase every three to six weeks, and to focus on biofeedback cues. It may sound simple, but in a strength phase your primary focus should be lifting as much weight as possible. You've got to focus on how strong you're feeling and not worry about how much of a "pump" you're getting. But when you switch to the volume phase, you need to focus more on what you experience during those reps, and on accomplishing more total work. You shouldn't really care about how heavy it is, but how heavy it feels. Really try to establish that mind-muscle connection. I think one of the most important things to realize is that you're going to have to work your ass off to get where you want to be. But it's kind of like saving up a million bucks. Are you going to go into debt again after you've worked so hard to get to that point? Gaining appreciable amounts of muscle requires doing things that may be considered obsessive by your friends. It may cause you to re-examine your social life and your daily habits. But it's only temporary. When you get where you want to be, you'll have a completely different mindset. It's definitely easier to maintain and keep growing once you've achieved your base, but it's an all-out war in the gym and the kitchen until then. TM: All right, last question. Give my your biggest, baddest tip for skinny guys looking to shed their medium-size T-shirts for good. CW: Something that I've done before with my guys is to give them a cheap watch with a countdown timer that goes off every two hours. Wherever they're at, they have to drop down and do 20 push-ups and polish it off with a Metabolic Drive protein bar. Sure, you'll look stupid doing pushups in the middle of Sears, but who cares? Carry a protein bar with you wherever you go and I guarantee you'll never be hungry. TM: Damn, Craig, that's messed up. What about you Vince? VD: If I could make a blanket rule, I'd have all skinny guys stop counting reps and stop following a tempo. Your greatest enemy is thinking too much. Let's eliminate that altogether and focus on training intensely to stimulate growth. I want my guy completely out of his comfort zone. Take whatever program you're following, start with weights that are five pounds heavier than you did last week, and do as many reps as possible for each set. The only thing I want you to track is your rest period. Use a stopwatch and keep it honest. It's okay if you don't finish the workout and end up vomiting in the washroom after 10 minutes. TM: Wrap us up, Joe.

JD: Two meals per week, I want my skinny guys to do what I call Hour of Power. This means for the duration of one hour they have to shove as much food as they can into their body without puking. I don't care what they eat anything goes. I've found this caloric influx two times per week actually helps skinny guys shock their muscles into growing. It also helps with their recovery. I recommend doing the Hour of Power on Wednesday and Sunday, or any other day you have off from lifting and can afford to be a bit sluggish for a few hours. But no puking! You'll lose precious calories. TM: Awesome tips. Thanks for participating, guys

The Carbohydrate Roundtable, Part 1 Moderated by John M. Berardi

It's been nearly two years since Lonnie Lowery and I teamed up to get our macronutrient roundtable on. First, we invited Cy Willson to share in an interesting protein discussion. Next, Eric Noreen joined us for an extremely informative discussion on dietary fats. After those two articles, many of you waited anxiously for the inevitable carb discussion. After all, those tasty carbs make up a full third of the macronutrient triumvirate. But the carb discussion never came. Waz up wit dat? Well, I'll be straight with you. Back when we finished the first two roundtables, Lonnie and I were quite happy with our work. Feeling accomplished in our roundtable careers, Lonnie and I debated whether we should go ahead with a carb roundtable or just retire from roundtable action while still at our peak. You see, those articles had propelled us toward roundtable celebrity and we didn't want to risk our place in roundtable history by tempting the gods with another roundtable article. In Lonnie's words, "We've done fat. We've done protein. What's left to do?" To which I replied, "Well, what about carbs?" "Carbs, barbs," he replied, "let's be happy with what we've done. We need to bow out now while we're at the top of our game!" While I agreed with Lonnie's sentiment at the time, for the last two years I haven't been able to shake this strange feeling that our decision was hasty. After all, how could we neglect the carbohydrate? The more I thought about it, the more I realized we'd made a mistake. If we really wanted to etch our place among the nutritional greats we had one more thing to accomplish. Fortunately, I recently received an unexpected phone call that put us in motion. The call was from weight loss icon Jared Vogle. Many of you may know him as the guy who lost like 3,000 pounds by eating two fresh Tubway sandwiches per day. Jared was calling to comment on the fact that we were missing a carbohydrate roundtable and that since he disagreed with nearly everything we wrote in the protein and fat roundtables (both in theory and obviously in practice), he was hoping to be included in the next roundtable article to, in his words, "set us straight" and to "teach us a thing or two about applied nutrition." Jared also commented that he printed out our previous roundtable discussions and read them while enjoying a "delicious low-fat Tubway sandwich, a small bag of potato chips, and a diet Coke." "A carbohydrate roundtable?" I replied with a sly grin while putting Jared on speakerphone and calling Lonnie and Cy into my office. "I think that's a great idea, Jared." And so it began.

John Berardi: Well Lonnie and Cy, here we are again, two years after our last roundtable. I hope you guys have been studying up over the last few years. I was getting pretty tired of carrying the both of you during that last one! So why don't we get started? Since Jared's stepped into the can and it's been thirty minutes, I'm not waiting a second longer for that guy, weight-loss icon or not, he can just jump in when he comes back. And by the way, Cy, let's try to be nice to Jared. "Soyboy" is not an appropriate way to greet our colleagues. Let's quickly cover some familiar ground regarding carbohydrates. As most people know, carbohydrates were conventionally classified structurally as simple or complex, but these distinctions are relatively useless in terms of predicting the physiological response associated with consuming them. Can you guys explain why?

Lonnie Lowery: First, JB, you can study this. [Lonnie makes an inappropriate grab at his "package".] Just had to get that out of my system. Secondly, you're calling the issue of carb complexity "useless"? That's pretty harsh, but yeah, it's mostly true nowadays. I do think historically there was some value to steering people away from simple carbs like table sugar. It's a source of "empty calories" as well as possessing some metabolically unfavorable effects. But now so much sugar is hidden in processed foods and beverages that the "complex vs. simple" distinction is less applicable to the average Joe. That is, teaching someone to avoid table sugar (sucrose) only gets him so far; complex carbs have become just as big a problem now. JB: Why is that? LL: So many complex carbohydrate foods are stripped, processed and refined that these choices don't offer the fiber and other nutrients they once did. Overall, I guess what I'm saying is that the simplistic notion of "complex equals good" and "simple equals bad" once had merit, but has become rather archaic, at least in application to real world (read as: fast, pre-packaged, yummy and artificial) choices. Now we have complex carbs that are heinous just as there are situations when good ol' simple sugars are great. Complexity is just one way to classify a carbohydrate molecule, of course. Individual monosaccharide units (generally glucose, fructose and galactose) can be treated just as differently by the body as longer chains thereof. Fructose, for example, is absorbed at the intestinal wall more slowly (facilitated diffusion) than glucose (active transport). In the liver, fructose can also enter glycolysis (the metabolic pathway used to break down sugars in our cells) in such a way as to bypass its rate-limiting step. Without enzymatic control (PFK for those who care), the pathway forms undue amounts of acetyl Co-A that are ultimately made into triglycerides. In other words, fructose, despite slower absorption and lesser insulin response, is itself lipogenic. That's quite different from the way glucose is metabolized, even though both are monosaccharides. JB: Right you are, Dr. Fructose. Cy, how 'bout explaining the difference between what one might consider simple vs. complex carbohydrates or, in more scientific terms, monosaccharides vs. polysaccharides. Cy Willson: Well, structural nomenclature such as monosaccharides, oligosacchardies and lastly, polysaccharides, which contain many linked units of monosaccharides, had classically been described as either "complex" or "simple" in terms of their structure. For example, since glucose or fructose are monosaccharides, they were classified as "simple" and thus were thought to be bad for you. The more linked units there were, the more "complex" it was considered and the better it was for you in terms of insulin release and overall health. So, with this reasoning, they said that starch, a polysaccharide that is found in foods like rice, potatoes, etc., would be the most beneficial in terms of health and improving body composition. With this same reasoning, they assumed that fructose, a monosaccharide, was terrible since it should cause a high release of insulin. The problem with these distinctions? Well, when you take a look at starch, it's merely a very long chain of glucose molecules that, once hydrolyzed, form free glucose or dextrose and cause a very high insulin response. As we know, insulin is a potent lipogenic hormone (fat building or generating) and if insulin levels are raised for a prolonged period of time, this doesn't allow lipolysis (fat breakdown) to occur. Thus a person will gain fat.

Now, fructose on the other hand doesn't require insulin in order to be stored as glycogen and thus it causes a very small increase in insulin secretion, making it better than starch in terms of the insulin response. In other words, an apple is better for you than a bowl of rice. Also, they failed to consider the fact that fiber slows down the rate of digestion and thus allows for a smaller release of insulin. In other words, consuming whole wheat bread would be better than white bread due to the fibrous carbohydrates contained in the bread. JB: Hey guys, don't forget the fact that classical distinctions leaned toward recommending complex carbs because nutritionists assumed that a long polysaccharide (many simple sugars joined together) would take longer to digest than a simple sugar and therefore would lead to a more gradual and lasting blood glucose response with a smaller insulin response. This would make "complex" carbs a wise nutritious choice. However, while theoretically sound, this just doesn't pan out for many "complex" foods. Maltodextrin, for example, is a complex carbohydrate that digests more quickly than straight glucose (a simple carbohydrate) while causing more dramatic increases in blood sugar and blood insulin. Therefore it appears that classifying carbohydrates according to how they're processed in the body presents a better way to look at carbs than classifying them according to their structural characteristics (i.e. simple vs. complex). Enter the glycemic and insulin indices. Jared, just entering the room: Hey guys, sorry I'm late. I had to stop at Tubway to grab a low fat sandwich. Do you guys mind if I eat while we do this roundtable thing? JB: Go for it, Jared. Jared: Good, 'cause if there's one thing I think we all agree on, it's the importance of a good post-workout meal. Since I just finished a grueling twenty-five minute walk, I know it's essential to eat something low fat and deliciously healthy to keep my heart rate up. And people say I don't know my nutritional physiology! When it comes to good nutrition, I choose to stop at Tubway. CW: You're certainly a nutritional genius, Captain Olestra. Jared: Olestra! Funny that you mention that since I've got some olestra chips right here in my Tubway bag. I just wanted to say that those chips with the olestra are awesome! I can eat and eat all that I want and not gain weight. You see, it's a rather neat thing, as the fat won't absorb so you only get the awesome nutritional benefits of potato chips! As we know, those carbs are so good for you and they won't make you gain weight! Those potato chip manufacturers are sheer geniuses. If it were up to me, I'd have all my food deep-fried in olestra. JB: Olestra, good for you? Um, how about no. Lonman, help me get back on track here. LL: Um, yeah. Anyway, the glycemic index, put simply, is a scale of how rapidly ingested carbs enter the bloodstream as glucose. It's one of the factors determining insulin response and metabolism of the substrate.

JB: But not the only factor that determines insulin response, as demonstrated by the insulin index. The insulin index, as I've discussed elsewhere at T-mag,measures the direct insulin response to an ingested food, whereas the glycemic index measures the glucose response to the ingested food. LL: Right. Now back to the disparities between structural distinctions (simple and complex) and physiological responses As with monosaccharides, we see large variations in the way the body handles various starches (technically, complex carbs). There's considerable variation between rice, bread, and potatoes, for example. Brown potatoes, in fact, are very similar in glycemic and insulinogenic response to simple glucose. This stuff isn't new. There were investigators reporting on these differences even back in the late 70s. Trickle down of such knowledge to dietitians and the general public has taken some time, however. The truth is that the glycemic index is pretty much a moot point as we rarely consume a single type of starch or any other substrate. Mixed meals (with protein, various carbs and fats) result in way different glycemic and insulinogenic responses. Cy or Jared, care to comment? JB: Let me jump in here for a second. While I agree that the GI only offers numbers for a single food, in a recent JAMA review (May 8, 2002) conducted by Dr. Ludwig, he stated that "In general, most refined starchy foods eaten in the United States have a high glycemic index, whereas nonstarchy vegetables, fruit, and legumes tend to have a low glycemic index. Co-ingestion of fat or protein lowers the glycemic index of individual foods somewhat but does not change their hierarchical relationship with regard to glycemic index. Despite initial concerns,the glycemic response to mixed meals can be predicted with reasonable accuracy from the glycemic index of constituent foods when standard methods are used." Based on the literature, I think I agree to some extent with Dr. Ludwig in that meals containing a high GI carb, regardless of the other macronutrient constituents, will promote higher blood glucose responses than the same meal containing a low GI carb. In addition, I think the GI (and II insulin index) can help us predict, with some accuracy, how our bodies will handle a mixed meal. Of course, there'll be some exceptions. But overall I think the GI (and II) offers a bit more predictive power than you suggest. Okay, Jared? Cy? Jared: [still crunching his olestra-laced chips] Uh, I'll be right back, guys. Sometimes my vigorous walks give me the runs. Exercise isn't all that healthy sometimes. CW: Hurry, Jared! Run! I'm sure glad we included him in our roundtable. Shall we get back to measures of insulin and glucose response? I think it's important to use a combination of both the GI and II of foods to plan our diets. Essentially, if we're concerned about blood sugar and insulin, we can use the two to pick a food that has both a low GI and doesn't cause much of a release of insulin. Another strategy to modulate the response is to take a food that may rank fairly high in terms of causing an insulin release and add in some sort of soluble fiber to slow the absorption of glucose in the intestine. This will allow a higher GI carb to be eaten without the large burst in blood glucose. One thing I can't understand are those individuals who want to reduce the glycemic index of a food by adding in fat. JB: Right, that combination high blood carbs, fat, and insulin belongs in my Axis of Evil. Just like Jared.

LL: Okay, although I think John is just getting sassy and he sees my point, I'm gonna get ornery just to make the point that the GI debate is a longstanding one. Although I accept that Ludwig's new data are valid, I say hierarchy, schmiearchy you guys are basically making an academic distinction. Maintaining a hierarchy in relation to other carb foods, in itself, means little physiologically. The overall composition of a meal still matters regarding both humoral glucose and insulin responses (and thus nutrient partitioning). And that's to say nothing of frequent feedings, which also confound any religious interpretation of the glycemic index. Again, the individual glycemic index is mostly a moot point. JB: But it's the best we've got to go on. One day there may be a better way to hammer in a nail, so should we conclude that hammers are useless? I've gotta get that nail in somehow so until that day, I'll use my hammer, thank you very much! It's the same here. We've got a way to classify carbohydrates that works fairly well (the GI). Of course, one day there may be a better one, but for now it'll do the job. LL: Okay, hammerhead. But beyond that, first you guys cite research to imply that the GI holds regardless of co-consumption and now Cy suggests that adding soluble fiber is the ticket for controlled delivery. So which is it? JB: Now you're just being a hairy, argumentative beast. Of course, it holds relative to other foods. Add fiber to a food with a GI of 90 and fiber to a food with a GI of 70 and the 90 might become 70 and the 70 might become 50. Regardless of coconsumption the hierarchy remains. But now you're dragging us into that "academic" debate that you didn't want to get into so let's just leave it at that. LL: Nope, I've got more to say. Listen, you're both acknowledging that dietary fat affects the insulin response. Isn't that coconsumption? I have to think that regardless of a "maintained hierarchy" among glycemic indices, the fact remains that various carbs are indeed affected, both in their delivery and their insulinogenic response, by factors such as soluble fiber, solidity, total caloric load, fat content, etc. I don't disagree for a moment that Dr. Ludwig's new data are interesting but slower entry into the blood stream still matters physiologically. If a car is going fast enough to endanger pedestrians (say 50 mph), then slowing it down even 10 miles per hour helps reduce the risk (in this case screaming blood sugar). If another car (carb type) is slowed from 30 mph down to 20 mph due to co-consumed foods, great. In either case, co-consumption matters. I think the practical interpretation of the (now becoming infamous) "Ludwig data" is obvious. Indulgence in yummy refined starches (in any food combination) over unrefined carbs (legumes, veggies, whole grains, etc.) is for guys who do twenty five minute walks as their "training session." Why not just avoid refined starches and sugars pretty much all the time except for during and after exercise? Human beings aren't genetically programmed to handle too much of that stuff! Besides, all nutrition guidelines already suggest foods that happen to be low-GI (whole grains, legumes, most fruits, milk products, etc.) So again, it's not a huge deal. JB: I'll agree with what you said there, except for the car stuff because I couldn't figure it out. Using low GI foods all the time is the best way to make the GI a moot point for sure!

CW: As I said earlier, instead of John's "Axis of Evil," why not add in a substance that will slow down digestion and absorption of glucose but at the same time doesn't possess any caloric value, i.e. soluble fiber? Just as the rate of absorption is a major factor in terms of protein accretion via ingestion of a protein supplement (casein), I think the same thing applies in terms of keeping plasma insulin levels low in response to ingestion of a food. Consuming a fair amount of fiber with each meal should accomplish this. You could also use the drug metformin, as one of its mechanisms of action may be slowing and/or reducing intestinal glucose absorption. LL: Metformin! John, hide your Glucophage! JB: Stand back everyone! He's making the transformation from the mild mannered Cy Willson to the indestructible Cy-Borg! LL: Since John's pulling JAMA articles on us, it's worth mentioning that a recent article in said journal lists metformin as vastly over-prescribed. Whether this is cautionary or opportunistic depends upon one's mindset, I suppose! JB: Picking fights again, you Bigfoot? Let's move right along. You're right Cy-Borg, metformin might help, as might Gymnema Sylvestre. Last week, John Berardi, Lonnie Lowery, Cy Willson, and that annoying Jared kid from the TV commercials discussed different aspects of carbohydrate metabolism. When last we left them, they were about to start explaining the differences between individual types of carbohydrates.

Listen, with carbohydrate classification schemes out of the way (and hopefully most of Lonnie's argumentative streak), let's address some of the individual types of carbohydrate floating around the nutrition and supplement worlds and discuss how they might or might not fit into a good nutritional regime. Let's talk: Monosaccharides, fructose and glucose (dextrose) Disaccharides, lactose and sucrose Polysaccharide, maltodextrin Food additive high fructose corn syrup Polysaccharide starches, amylose and amylopectin Polysaccharide fiber, cellulose The sometimes carb, sometimes sugar alcohol (depending on whether bar manufacturers want to disguise carb content or not) glycerol Fructose and glucose, as seen earlier, are single unit monosaccharides that, while structurally very similar, behave very differently in the body.

As Lonman mentioned, glucose is more rapidly absorbed in the GI and tends to elicit higher blood glucose and insulin responses. This makes glucose ingestion ideal for situations where rapid digestion or energy provision is required (during exercise, during a hypoglycemic episode, post exercise) but not so great for the remainder of the day when stable blood sugar and insulin are desirable. Glucose is found as a monosaccharide in fruits, vegetables, and honey as well as many manufactured sports drinks. Most blood glucose doesn't come from glucose ingestion but from other dietary carbohydrates that are eventually broken down into glucose. Fructose, on the other hand, is metabolized differently due to its structure. In the liver, fructose is metabolized and can replenish glycogen (liver only) or can form triglycerides. Due to the fact that fructose doesn't cause a substantial rise in blood sugar (it's too busy filling liver glycogen stores and creating triglycerides), it doesn't stimulate insulin secretion to any large extent. Now, the great debate among nutritionists has been whether the low insulin response is enough to outweigh the inevitable formation of some triglycerides. In my opinion, the best answer is that it all depends on how much fructose you ingest. With a very high daily consumption of fructose (from lots of fruit, but even from the more lipogenic high fructose corn syrup and from sucrose, which is in fact, a glucose and a fructose joined together), the lipogenic effects should probably be considered. However, a moderate daily intake of fructose, especially from fruits, is encouraged. Just be sure not to consume fructose around exercise time. It has been shown time and time again to cause GI distress, increase ratings of exertion, and cause higher serum cortisol levels when consumed in conjunction with exercise. Fructose is found naturally in many fruits, berries and honey (foods that I highly encourage consumption of) as well as some dietary supplements, but in Western society most people get fructose from processed foods containing high fructose corn syrup. Jared: Hey, I just heard someone talking about Fructopia. That's one of my fave drinks. You guys really know your stuff. And by the way, I'm feelin' better now! I'd better cut my walks back down to fifteen minutes. JB: Good to know, Jared. Right now I was just about to talk about polysaccharides, like lactose, for example. Got anything to contribute? Jared: Lactose? Um, I think that's the stuff in milk that gives me gas. JB: That's right, o' baggy skinned one! You must be lactose intolerant and can't produce enough of the intestinal enzyme lactase. You see, lactose is a disaccharide consisting of glucose joined to galactose. Since lactose is too large to be absorbed in the

intestines, it must be broken down into glucose and galactose for absorption. If not, the lactose just sits around in the GI tract fermenting, causing gas, diarrhea, and bloating. Lactose is found in dairy products, with highest concentrations in milk. Fermented dairy products usually have very little lactose remaining as the lactose is converted to lactic acid. In addition, yogurt contains enzymes that help in the digestion of lactose. If you're lactose intolerant, like our friend Jared, you should avoid lactose. Otherwise, it's probably okay since it has a low GI and II. LL: Johnman, I feel like I've got to interject a little anecdote. One of my acquaintances, Steve Hertzler, did some practical research on lactose intolerance back in 1996. He found that most maldigesters can handle up to six or seven grams (half cup of milk) before, uh, "distress" sets in. That's good information but its acquisition takes a dedicated hombre. The man has actually put rubber britches on his subjects, complete with gas collection valves! Ugh! I sometimes wonder: what career paths lead one to becoming a flatulence researcher? Okay, sorry, on with the show JB: Thanks for sharing your "tale." Back to sucrose. Sucrose, like lactose, is a disaccharide that's formed when glucose and fructose join. Sucrose is, by far, the most abundant source of dietary carbohydrate in the Western world and while its glycemic index is lower than that of glucose, it's still substantially higher than fructose. Therefore, when sucrose is digested, it can have both a high glycemic index and be lipogenic. Not a great combination; therefore, perhaps sucrose intake should be moderated by anyone interested in their body composition. Just as I recommended saying no to fructose around exercise, I think this should extend to sucrose as well. Dr. Lowery, why don't you tackle maltodextrin, high fructose corn syrup, and the starches amylose and amylopectin? Then Cy can wrap up with cellulose and glycerol. Jared: Hold on a second. You guys are losing me. I just don't get it. I mean, I lost 3,000 pounds and don't even know what those words are! Just how much maltopectin or whatever is in one of those yummy Veggie Delight sandwiches? You know, they have less than six grams of fat! And by the way, why is that Cy dude growling at me? JB: Just don't make any sudden movements, Jared. Lonnie, go ahead. LL: Okay, maltodextrin, amylose, and amylopectin are polyglucose molecules. The primary differences are in their structure. Maltodextrin is shorter than the other two but still longer than mono and disaccharides. Amylose consists of long, straight chains of glucose units whereas amylopectin is a branched polymer. Amylopectin is rather like glycogen ("animal carbohydrate") but with fewer branches. Both forms of starch, amylose and amylopectin, occur in cereals, potatoes, legumes and other veggies, with amylose usually contributing 15 to 20% or so and amylopectin comprising the other 80 to 85% of total starch. As far as application to athletes, a study by Costill's group in 1996 revealed twenty-four hour glycogen resynthesis rates in muscle to be in the order of glucose > amylopectin > maltodextrin > amylose ("resistant starch"). Actually, the first three groups were similar statistically and subsequent exercise performance wasn't different among groups. Only the amylose was inferior. Other data suggest that glucose polymers may be slightly superior regarding performance, however. This conclusion stems from their decreased osmolality (in this case, faster gastric emptying during exercise). The difficulty in summarizing the legions of carbohydrate type-exercise studies lies in the different protocols. So many factors make for apples vs. oranges comparisons. Initial glycogen stores, exercise modality, drinks vs. solids, subjects' training status, and even temperature affect the research. Trends can

be seen, despite the discrepancies, however. Perhaps most important is that para and post-exercise feedings are the key time to heed the GI and drink rapidly-digested/absorbed carbohydrates like glucose. Next is high fructose corn syrup. What can I say? Many folks live on this stuff (fructose is a full 5% of the average American's diet) and they wonder why they're fat. John's already slammed the wicked glucose-fructose combination and this sweet syrup (fructose being 2.5 fold sweeter than glucose) offers it in a rapidly consumable, 64 oz., super-sized container. Not that it only appears in drinks it's pervasive! When one considers that there's about one teaspoon worth (4 grams) of sugar per ounce of sweetened beverage, it's no wonder that such drinks can quickly add up to hundreds of lipogenic kcal. (By the way, the GI of sucrose is only 59 and fructose is just 20 on a 100 scale, if memory serves; so much for the GI as a tool for judging the beneficence of a carbohydrate food.) That kind of manmade excess leaves your 40,000+ year-old genetic blueprint stumped. Sometimes I'm amazed that we can process it at all without ending up in some kind of glucosuric coma. CW: Good job, Lonnie, I'll finish off the rest. Cellulose is a polysaccharide that, unlike glycogen or amylopectin, is an unbranched polymer of glucose (again, many glucose units jointed together). In cellulose, if anyone cares, the glucose units are joined by 1,4-beta-glycosidic bonds, whereas starch and glycogen are linked mainly by 1,4-a-glycosidic bonds and to a lesser extent 1,6-alpha-glycosidic bonds. I'll discuse the importance of this in a second. The main thing to realize is that we humans don't possess beta-glucosidases. These are enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of the bonds (break the bond) at the C-1 (beta configuration) position of each glucose unit. The function of these enzymes would be to break down cellulose into a bunch of free glucose molecules. Instead, we possess alpha glucosidases, which allow us to hydrolyze starches to d-glucose. So what does this mean? We can't digest cellulose and thus we consider it a "fiber." That's right, cellulose is the "fiber" contained in the various plants that you consume. Oh, and on a side note, galactose, which is one of the two sugars in lactose, also has the anomeric carbon possessing beta configuration at the C-1 position. Luckily, animals like cows have certain symbiotic microorganisms in their rumen or their "first stomach" and thus are able to digest the cellulose in grass and things of that nature. I still look forward to the day where I can eat grass, don't you Jared? Jared: Wait just a second! Are you trying to say I'm a cow or that I get intimate with cows? Because if that's what you're saying, it's not true. Why can't people just forget about that rumor? It's a lie, I tell you! A filthy lie! CW: No, that's not what I meant at all, Mr. Sensitive. Jared: Oh, huh, I was just testing you. Uh, change of topic You know, if one day we can eat grass, just like the cows, I bet Tubway will be the first to come out with grass sandwiches. Baby, talk about low fat! CW: We can't wait, Jared. Next topic glycerol. Glycerol is classically described as a hygroscopic, trihydroxy alcohol, which simply means that it contains three hydroxyl groups and is able to take up moisture out of the air and retain it. It's also a clear, syrupy liquid that has a very distinct sweet taste. With those properties in mind, it's easy to see why those manufacturers were putting it into bars in order to keep them sweetened as well as provide some texture and moisture. The only problem was that they weren't counting the carb content since it's not a carbohydrate but instead an alcohol.

Well, that's fine provided that you inform customers that glycerol still has a caloric value and thus you should keep track of it just as you would any macronutrient. This was a very misleading and shady thing to do. Essentially, when you consider the calorie content of the glycerol in those bars, they'd be better off using sucrose. My suggestion would be to stay away from glycerol and whatever you do, don't combine it with sulfuric acid, Jared! JB: I've written about glycerol in a previous "Appetite for Construction" column and the bottom line was that it can certainly be converted into a carb (for every 10 grams of glycerol you may get somewhere around 3 grams of glucose), therefore it's not necessarily calorie or carb-free, so to speak. Okay, now that some of the biochemistry is out of the way, why don't we get down to the nitty gritty. I'd like to hear each of your rules on carb intake, you know, how many grams of carbs per day for different populations, percent carbs in the diet for different populations, proper timing of carb intake for different populations, etc. LL: Interestingly, the necessity of any carbs at all has been questioned in the scientific literature. Can it be true that we don't need any? I'm continually amazed at how adaptable the human body is. Muscle glycogen stores can replenish quite well without post workout carbs, for example. Of course, our brains prefer glucose as a fuel, which, along with other requirements, leads me to a rough preference for 50% of one's caloric intake. Based on available literature, I personally consume the majority of my carbs at breakfast (whole grain cereals with milk, oatmeal, flax pancakes, etc. equaling about 100 grams of carbs), then at midmorning (another 100 grams or so), at lunch (another 100 grams or so), and finally during and post-exercise (another 100 grams with protein, as a beverage). I try to minimize carbs in the evening but still probably eat about 50 grams worth. If I were trying to lose fat, I'd probably confine my large carb meals (100g or so) to breakfast and post-exercise. These just can't be reduced without consequences. The other meals I'd cut back by half. If this sounds boring, so be it. I'm a big believer in moderation and allowing adequate time (i.e. a few weeks) to see changes. CW: For those trying to gain muscle mass, I'm sticking to my "skinny bastard" recommendations. In other words, consuming foods that elicit a significant increase in plasma insulin levels and continually doing this throughout the day. It's that anabolic sledgehammer thing Lonnie has talked about. As for the actual intake of carbs, for those trying to "gain weight" I've used a simple formula of three or four times the person's bodyweight in carbs. In other words, if the guy is 150 pounds then at least 450 to 600 grams of carbs need to be ingested every day. And for those trying to reduce body fat stores, I suggest minimizing carb intake for the most part, except for a few key times. With these people, I'd suggest consuming foods that are high in fiber and don't cause much of an insulin release. Foods like oldfashioned oatmeal, yams, certain fruits, etc. For those trying to reduce body fat stores, I suggest no more than their body weight in grams, so a 210 pound guy at 12 to 15% body fat shouldn't be consuming more than 210 grams of carbs per day. Now, this does leave some room for variation depending on the person's body fat levels. For instance, when it comes to a guy who's 350 at 25% body fat, I'm not going to suggest 350 grams per day, instead I'd suggest around 250 grams or less. Just keep in mind that this is my method of utilizing a "starting point"

as it always works well. This way we have a level that's usually tolerable at the beginning and will still allow for fat loss. Now, after initiating the dieting plan, depending on the individual as well as their goals, we can adjust that particular intake accordingly. As far as carb timing, I feel the most important times are in the morning upon waking, in the middle of the day, and post workout. I personally consume carbs in that fashion during the school year simply because I can't function as well without some form of carbohydrate in the morning. I also need some form of carb during the afternoon to ensure that my glycogen stores are at least partially full by the time I workout in the evening. Finally, after the evening workout, I consume a post-workout drink with carbs. JB: Unfortunately, since I didn't invite any of the low-carb gurus to participate, this portion of the roundtable will be debate free. Typically I tend to agree with Lonnie in that carb selections should be unprocessed, grainy, whole foods like beans, nuts, whole grains, oats, etc. My "Lean Eatin'" article here at T-mag gives a more thorough discussion of this. Lonman puts it best when he states that we simply weren't programmed to eat high sugar, high GI, processed foods. Therefore your carb choices should be low GI, low II, and unprocessed. As discussed in my article, these foods should make up about 80% of your daily carb fare with the additional 20% coming from high GI post-workout foods that help replenish glycogen (during periods of weight gain and during the early stages of weight loss). Unlike Lonman, I don't make the morning vs. nighttime distinction since training throws a big monkey wrench into this. If you train in the morning, I'd recommend what Lonnie does tapering off carbs as the day goes on. But if you train in the evening, I'd eat carbs after the workout to help with replenishment and recovery. Again, a lot of it depends on your goals. If you want to gain weight and have a fast metabolic rate, carb it all day. If you want to lose weight then the most important times to eat your carbs are probably the first meal of the day and then after training. As far as how many carbs to eat when bulking up or losing weight, I tend to go with Cy's recommendations for a rough estimate. For a more definitive one, go check out my "Massive Eating" calorie calculations. These numbers are a great starting point. As per the definition, though, a starting point is where you start. You'll have to make adjustments, sometimes weekly, to maintain the type of progress you're looking for. One strategy I often use for weight loss involves setting protein and fat intake constant (at about 1.5g/lb and about .5-.75g/lb) and then concomitantly reducing carb intake and increasing exercise volume in order to keep the weight loss coming. For weight gain I typically just reverse this scenario up to 500 to 600 grams of carbs, at which time I'll start to increase the protein and fat again. As far as macronutrient ratios, I tend to think that concept is a bit too gimmicky and offers little value because if you're trying to gain mass; it doesn't matter if you're eating 40-30-30 when your total kcal intake is less than 2000kcal. Likewise, if you're eating a breakdown of 40-30-30 but 4000kcal, you're probably not going to lose fat. Therefore, as described above, I tend to recommend keeping protein relatively constant at about 1.5g/lb (300 grams for a 200 pound person) while fat, but mostly carbs, are adjusted slightly up or down based on your goals. Jared: Know what I like? Those little squeezy bottles full of sauces at Tubway. I mean, how cool is that? JB: Jared! Pay attention! Any closing remarks? Jared: Uh, after all I've taught you today, I think my work is done here. You know, I've got an idea. Let's just all go to Tubway! Come on!

*Note: The names of certain characters and "weight loss" restaurants referred to in this article are almost fictional. Resemblance between them and any real life individual or establishment is purely satirical. In other words, don't sue us! We're just funnin' ya!

Fat Roundtable What's new in fat science? Refereed by John M. Berardi

During our last roundtable, Cy Willson, Lonnie Lowery, and myself got together to talk protein. There were no holds barred as we threw out our own personal protein theories and suggestions with extreme prejudice. With the theories bouncing around like lotto balls in a billion dollar drawing, we went crazy. Lonnie was screaming about being a real man while whipping out his long, cylindrical? pointer to illustrate his points on the graphs and tables he brought along. In the meantime, Cy and myself were flipping each other off at each disagreement. All in all we had a real blast while giving you guys some practical suggestions for how to use protein to get bigger. We had so much fun I couldn't wait to do another roundtable. Only this time we'll talk about fat. Within the last few years there's been a lot of discussion regarding the optimal macronutrient composition of the diet. A wide range of individuals (some of them being very wide themselves) have asked me for advice about what fats to eat and how much. You see, after the anti-fat surge of the 80s and early 90s, people began to realize that the elimination of dietary fat from our culture was not only nearly impossible, but was downright stupid. People continued to get fatter even though their fat intakes dropped lower and lower. In addition, normal physiological processes like endocrine profiles were being altered. These startling repercussions brought about a surge in fat research. This surge has provided much of the information we want to share today. Bodybuilders and some cutting edge nutritionists are starting to become aware of the basics of fat consumption, but most individuals still have a long way to go in understanding what all the fat science means. What makes it all the more confusing is the fact that scientists, as usual, speak in a language that the typical layperson can't understand. So when they talk about how monounsaturated fatty acids are incorporated into the phospholipid bilayer of the cell membrane and are less subject to lipid peroxidation due to reduced phospholipase C activity, it doesn't exactly work. Most people were lost at the monounsaturated part. That's why I've assembled this roundtable. Eric Noreen, Professor Lonnie Lowery, and myself are here to help make sense of the science of fat consumption. Our goal is to clear up some fat myths; present some info on saturated, polyunsaturated, and monounsaturated fats; clear up the distinction between the "omega" fatty acids; and try to have a little fun while doing so. Since most of you already know myself and Lonnie, let me tell you about Eric and why you should care what he has to say. Eric is a competitive cyclist who recently competed at the Masters' World Championships in Montreal, Quebec. Although a bit on the thin side, he's definitely as hardcore an athlete as they come. In addition, Eric is my lab mate and another PhD candidate who studies with Dr. Peter Lemon. On top of all of this, Eric is one hell of a guy and is a great nutrition resource. He especially knows his fats. So now that you know who's who, let's start chewin' the fat! JB: Hey Eric, yo' momma so fat she had to get out of bed to roll over. EN: Oh yeah, yo' momma so fat it takes her two trips to haul ass!

LL: Well, both of your mommas are so fat that when I took them out dancing, the whole band skipped. JB: All right, enough of that! Let's get serious! Before we get into actual dietary recommendations, let's just talk about what kinds of dietary fats are out there for public consumption. Then we can talk about what the difference is between them and why some are better than others. For example, to start off very basic, saturated fats are most commonly associated with animal products. Monounsaturated fats are most commonly associated with olive and canola oils. Last are the polyunsaturated fats which are most commonly associated with many vegetable or fish oils. Hey Eric, why don't you further elaborate on the polyunsaturated fats, namely omega 3s and omega 6s?

EN: Okay, that's easy. As you said, John, the omega fats are polyunsaturates. There are several different omega 3 fatty acids, and there are several different omega 6 fatty acids. The grand daddy of all omega 3s is a fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid (LNA). This fatty acid can be elongated and desaturated in the body to form several other omega 3 fatty acids. The two most talked about omega 3s that are made from LNA are eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The grand daddy of the 6 family is linoleic acid (LA). Just like LNA, LA can be elongated and desaturated in the body to form several other omega 6 fatty acids. The two Omega 6s made from LA that are most often talked about are gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) and arachidonic acid (AA). LA, LNA and the fats made from them are essential for physiological function. Since our bodies don't have the ability to make them, the amounts of omega 3s or 6s found in the body are largely a function of what we eat. Omega 3s are mainly found in fish oil, flaxseed oil, canola oil, walnut oil, and green leafy vegetables. Omega 6s are mainly found in vegetable oil, corn oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, and sesame oil. Interestingly, the fats from animal products (meat, dairy, and eggs) that we usually think of as being all saturated can also provide some polyunsaturates. The level of polyunsaturates and the ratio of 3s to 6s is entirely dependent on what the animals are fed. Animal feed high in corn will produce animals that have high omega 6 fats. Animals fed natural grasses will be high in omega 3s. The implications of this are really important for us. LL: In the case of these animals, they are what they eat. And so are we. JB: Right! So if we eat meat that was fed a lot of corn, then we get a diet high in 6s and we also become high in 6s. The same is the case for 3s. We can get into this later. First, though, since you and I have pretty much handled the "conventional fats," why don't we get Lonnie to share some insight about the "special fats" he's had experience with. LL: Well, in addition to conventional fatty acids of which Westerners get an excess of the Omega 6s there're also dietary lipids that are present in much smaller amounts and have very unique, drug-like properties. JB: Drug-like properties? Yeah, we've all heard that before. This better be good!

LL: Oh, just you wait and see! In great contrast to the omega 6 linoleate, omega 3s like EPA and DHA, as well as CLA, hold considerable promise as anti-inflammatory, analgesic, anti-carcinogenic and anti-catabolic compounds. How many nutrients can offer a pain-free, cancer-free, beefed-up body like that? Of course, I'm exaggerating now, but there's enough evidence to get excited. JB: Oh great, are you working for Bill Phillips? I remember when he thought that CLA was the next wonder drug. So what happened? LL: Well, in my opinion, CLA crumbled under the unbelievable hype. It won't pack on mass like D-bol, that's for sure. But I have some brand spankin' new data from my lab to show that it does have some drug-like effects. So listen up all of you nonbelievers! In the past, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) was shown in animals to reduce body fat. That's news you can take to your mama, John! The researchers thought that lipogenic/lipolytic enzymes as well as certain cytokines were affected by CLA. Therefore, the enzymes that build fat were inhibited while those that release fat were upregulated. From a practical standpoint, nifty physiologic effects like eating a fat to get lean may be cost prohibitive. You see, dietary lipids can exhibit a dose-response curve, i.e., more works better. And although a lot of CLA will work, it can get expensive. Although initial research has been promising regarding muscle mass and strength, we've only seen effects in the lab with 7.2 to 15 grams per day, way more than most folks could afford! Oh, and before I go off on my recent data, I need to mention that despite often rigorous dietary and activity controls, I've yet to see CLA affect fat mass in weight trained men at any dose. It just doesn't seem to do anything for leaning-out active adult men. JB: Well, that's a disappointment! At least it has some other beneficial effects though. Listen, although I know that you're dying to show off your nice little tables, hold off for a bit, Mr. Professor. I want to cover some other important topics first. Let's get down to dietary recommendations. When talking about dietary consumption, the group that's going to read this article has to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately most dieticians haven't done this and have made recommendations for the "average" individual or the "average" athlete. In addition, they tend to base their recommendations on the needs of clinical populations like heart disease patients. In all of this, the poor power athletes of the world have been neglected. Here, since our audience is bodybuilders, let's tailor this conversation for them. EN: Don't leave the cyclists out of this! JB: Okay, although the focus will be on bodybuilders, we'll make recommendations that all athletes can use. Besides, we're not all that different. I noticed you cyclists have nice silky shaven legs just like us bodybuilders. Too bad you don't get laid as much, huh? Anyway, most bodybuilders get all jacked up about protein manipulation for increased anaerobic performance and muscle mass, but usually fat manipulation is relegated to the health domain. It isn't usually discussed from the performance or hypertrophy standpoint. I guess that's probably because most people think that since muscle mass is protein, then protein intake equals muscle mass. What they don't realize, however, is that skeletal muscle protein only accounts for such a small percent of total body weight vs. total fat weight.

Dr. Lemon, Dr. Ziegenfuss, and myself worked out the following numbers for a hypothetical male. If we took a 200-lb male that has about 15% body fat, that individual would have about 30 lbs of fat on their body and less than 15 lbs of contractile muscle protein. That's a 2 to 1 ratio of fat to muscle contractile protein. Now, of course, it's not that simple in terms of assigning importance to each macronutrient in the diet. But it isn't all that difficult either. Basically, the body is either mostly anabolic or catabolic. It's both building up and breaking down at all times. However, if anabolism outweighs catabolism, we grow. This has roots on the hormonal, neuromuscular, and/or organ level. If you eat to be anabolic, you'll grow muscle. If you eat to be catabolic, you'll lose muscle. It's that simple. EN: That's a good point, John. And dietary fats are big players in bringing the body into a generalized anabolic state. Too many athletes and bodybuilders just don't understand that losing weight and maximizing training are two conflicting ideas as far as your body is concerned. If you're dieting/starving yourself or even eating below maintenance to try and lose weight, then you aren't going to get great results from your training! It's just that simple. If you aren't eating intelligently, it'll take much longer for your body to fully recover from a hard workout. Even more devastating is the fact that you won't have the ability to train as hard. All athletes need to train hard to maximize their gains. I don't care if you're sitting on a bike for four hours per day or pushing up iron. It takes a lot of energy to train hard day-in and day-out and your body knows this. It won't take too many days of hard training on a catabolic diet before your body decides that it doesn't want to play anymore. Mentally and physically you just won't be able to keep up the same intensity during your workouts. Unfortunately, too many athletes ignore the warning signals from their bodies and they continue to push on. This can lead to overtraining, which may take weeks or even months to correct. Am I saying that you should never try to work out and diet? Absolutely not. Lifting along with dieting is an extremely effective means of shedding fat, but it isn't an effective means of increasing muscle mass. The bottom line is if your objective is to put on as much muscle as possible, you have to give your body what it needs. JB: Thanks Eric. I often marvel at how dieting bodybuilders, wrestlers, rowers, and other athletes who try to lose fat or "make weight" convince themselves that the dieting doesn't affect them much. Bullshit! They're self delusional! Of course it affects you. Mass drops radically, you feel like shit, and you perform like it, too. Okay, let's discuss fat intake and restriction coupled with high carbohydrate diets. It used to be the norm for dieters and athletes alike to restrict dietary fats to such miniscule amounts that the fat in oatmeal, which is only 3 lousy grams per serving, was way too much for them! I remember I used to train with this guy who claimed to eat less than 15 grams per day. I don't know how the hell he did that, but it sounds ridiculous to me. Like it was some badge of honor that his testes were now rendered useless and that he was essentially unable to put on muscle mass. Ridiculous! Personally, I think that eating moderate to high fat is ideal for both hormonal reasons and metabolic ones, too. With low fat diets, Testosterone levels crash. In addition, when there's inadequate fat in the diet, the essential fatty acids are deficient. The body can't function optimally from the genetic level up to the cellular level and even all the way up to integrative metabolism. In addition, cellular metabolism favors carbohydrate oxidation (burning) during low fat diets and therefore fats are more likely to be stored anyway.

I know that our recommendations often fly right in the face of convention, but after all, we're writing for a magazine named Testosterone. I've got another one for you. I've been known to recommend saturated fats for growth? EN: You diabolical bastard! JB: Yeah, yeah, I know. Now, I don't suggest very high quantities of saturated fats, so relax. When dieting, I think that only 10 to 15% of your total fat intake should come from saturates. But when trying to increase mass, you need to take the saturates up to about 30 to 35% of total fats. I say this because there's data to suggest that saturated fat intake can increase T production. With all of the fears of saturated fats out there, I can understand why some would be cautious. But the bottom line is that if you train, you can get away with higher levels of saturated fats from a health perspective and you'll probably grow, too. With this said, do you guys think there are any normal or sub-clinical (non-medically treated) situations where dietary fats should be restricted to such low levels? LL: Typically, severe restrictions on total fat intake are reserved for fat maldigestion pathologies like pancreatic and gall bladder problems. As for sub-clinical situations, fat restrictions below 20 to 30% of daily intake are largely unnecessary. Even morbid clinical obesity is treated with simultaneous carb and fat restrictions, not just fat restriction. This is called a "protein-sparing modified fast" or PSMF. Although I don't agree with everything they say, higher-fat diet proponents like Dr. Adkins and perhaps Barry Sears do have some valid points regarding refined carbohydrates as "bad guys." It's about time for this kind of lateral thinking. Dietary fats have been lumped together as a single entity and demonized for too long. EN: When people start talking about completely getting rid of fat in their diets it makes me want to punch them in the brain. It's a classic example of the nutritional misinformation that's so rampant in our society. There's nothing magically thermogenic about the absence of fat! JB: Right, punch'em in the brain. Then you better get your 150-pound butt on your bike and peddle away! Seriously, though, I think that the general recommendations to cut down on fat in the diet were well intended. At the time, the average sedentary individual was eating about 40% fat (most of this coming from saturated fats) in the diet. That's a nice recipe for heart disease, obesity, etc. EN: Yeah, but this fear of fat has been taken to the extreme by the general public. Here's why: Firstly, certain dietary fatty acids can play a role in the blood lipid abnormalities that plague sedentary individuals; there's no question about that. Saturated fats can lead to high LDL and low HDL and that's bad. And secondly, fat is a great source of caloric density (lots of calories per gram of fat). So it's much easier to overeat if you're eating a lot of fat. But both of these points are largely moot if you're working out every day. You have to remember that we evolved on a fairly high fat diet and our body functions best with fat in our diet. Just one example of what I mean would be the antioxidant lycopene, which is found mainly in tomatoes. Many of you have probably heard about lycopene in the news recently because of its extremely powerful anticancer effect. If you eat a tomato, very little lycopene actually makes it into your blood stream. However, if you eat a tomato and a little fat voila! Huge increase in plasma levels of lycopene. I could go on for hours talking about fat and general health, so I'll cut it short there.

JB: Okay good, I guess I'm not the only crazy one who sees value in higher fat diets in athletes. Interestingly, and even more relevant to our readers, is the fact that fat can increase the absorption and effectiveness of anabolic drugs. In men given oral Testosterone and Testosterone undecaonate, a high fat (59%) meal nearly doubled the bioavailability of the T! In one group receiving Test undecanoate tablets alone, their T levels didn't even increase above placebo levels. When taken with the high fat meal, their T levels were increased significantly. Who would've thought that eating fat could make your steroids more effective? Anyway, at this time, why don't we break out some cutting edge fat research. Let's get to the impact of different fats on performance. Over the last few years, bodybuilders have been turned on to flax oil. Many writers have ascribed magical thermogenic, anabolic, and transcendental health benefits to this oil. We know now that the "magic" in flax comes from the omega 3 content. Since you're the resident expert on the omega families, why don't you tell us what you think, Eric. EN: Well, this looks like a pretty good opportunity for me to get on my omega 3 soap box and start proclaiming the power of the mighty salmon! As I mentioned earlier, we evolved on a fairly high fat diet. The problem is that the fats we were eating back in the good old paleolithic days were quite a bit different from the fats we eat now. Back then our ratio of omega 6s to omega 3s was very close to 1:1. These days it has been suggested that this ratio is 30:1 up to 50:1! So what's the big deal you ask? The big deal is that this change in the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 plays a role in pretty much every major disease that's killing us in Western civilization. This ratio can also impact performance and body composition as well. First, let me briefly touch on why this ratio is important. When we eat fat, some of it is incorporated into the cell membrane as phospholipids (lipids with a phosphate attached.) These guys make up the barrier between the inside and outside of the cells. These phospholipids are important because they're used to make a family of hormone-like molecules called eicosanoids. Eicosanoids are involved in pretty much everything our body does, and we could spend days just talking about them. The big picture here is that if we're eating a lot of omega 6 fatty acids, we get phospholipids with omega 6 fatty acids in them. The eicosanoids are then made from the omega 6s. The same is true for eating omega 3s. The eicosanoids made from 3s and 6s have many different functional properties. One of the big differences is that omega 6 eicosanoids are very pro-inflammatory, whereas omega 3 eicosanoids are very weakly inflammatory at best. A dietary shift towards more omega 3s has been shown to help in a variety of diseases from asthma to cardiovascular disease, but it also has the potential to be of benefit to athletes. The nagging shoulder tendonitis that flares up every time you do shoulder presses could conceivably improve with more 3s. Omega 3s could also speed up recovery from hard workouts where you completely shred your muscles. LL: Let's mention the fact that the muscle damage created from weight training is very pro-inflammatory anyway. If the cell membrane is full of omega 6s, you're talking about mega soreness and damage. With omega 3s, muscle soreness may be reduced and recovery time may be enhanced! You see, inflammation is a cyclical process. Training damages muscle muscle gets inflamed inflammation promotes more damage more damage, more inflammation, and so on. This is where CLA comes in to play. Since I've done quite a bit of CLA research, here's where I comment on some of the biggest benefits of taking the stuff. And here, finally, hot off the presses, are my graphs:

As you can see from this data set, both delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and interleukin-6 concentrations were blunted after an eccentric downhill run in the CLA subjects. IL-6 is a pain-related, inflammatory cytokine, so the two findings agree. In theory less IL-6, less muscle soreness. And check this out:

The urinary nitrogen from these subjects was a bit lower in the CLA group as well, indicating a tad less muscle breakdown, but this latter finding wasn't statistically significant like the others. All this is exciting, but unless you're a subject in one of my studies, it's unlikely that you'll get close to 15 grams a day of CLA, even with supplements. At this point, I wouldn't recommend it anyway; we need more data on both safety and efficacy. In fact, Dr. Joey Antonio joked once that I've basically just discovered expensive natural "aspirin" that takes six weeks to work! I can hardly argue except to say that it's a food that seems to possess drug-like qualities and that in itself is fascinating.

JB: Right on, guys. I can't give a recommendation for CLA, Lonnie, but thanks for those splendid graphs. I feel like I'm back in seminar class snoozing through one of your buddy, Dr Ziegenfuss' lectures! As far as what I can recommend, I've recommended fish and flax oils to many people suffering from injuries. I've also recommended them to some friends with asthma and rheumatoid arthritis. Each has noticed some benefit. In regard to weight trainers, it's my impression that the benefits noticed with CLA in Lonnie's studies would also be noticed with omega 3s. Eric, we've talked a lot about the "omega" family and insulin lately. What's your take on their impact in regard to the mighty hormone insulin? EN: Perhaps the biggest benefit from eating a better ratio of 3s to 6s may come from increased insulin sensitivity. It's pretty well established in rodent studies that membrane phospholipids high in omega 6s leads to, or at least contribute to, insulin resistance. Membrane phospholipids high in omega 3s actually have an opposite effect- increased insulin sensitivity! What's really exciting is that the improvement in insulin sensitivity with 3s may only occur in muscle cells. Adipocytes (fat cells) appear to actually become insulin resistant with a diet high in omega 3s. This is a best-case scenario! Insulin has two main actions in an adipocyte. First, it turns on the fat-making machinery so you're making bigger adipocytes (i.e. larger beer belly.) Secondly, it inhibits your fat cells from breaking down the stored fat and sending it off to the muscles to burn for energy. So basically insulin helps build fat cells. With omega 3s, however, you now have a scenario where the muscle is increasing its response to one of the most anabolic hormones in our body, and the fat cells are basically ignoring the signal to make more fat! Beautiful. Even more exciting yet is the recent research that has suggested that 3s also shut down the genes that tell the body to store fat. In rodent studies, when rats are fed a diet with 6s as their fat source, they are considerably fatter than rats that are fed the same amount of calories but with 3s as their fat source. Now I keep mentioning rodent studies, because the data isn't as solid in humans. This is because you can't control the diet in humans like you can in rodents. The rodent studies generally start the rats on their fat, either 6s or 3s, immediately after they are weaned from their mother. In addition, the fats are completely controlled. JB: You mean, the study rats don't get stressed out from too much sitting around in woodchips all day and just blow their diet with pints of Ben and Jerry's Chubby Hubby ice cream? EN: I think not. Humans do, though! First, they enter into a study with a body full of omega 6s. Then they continue to eat a diet that is quite high in omega 6s. The experiments typically just supplement the normal diet with fish oil or some other high omega 3 oil. This presents a problem because 6s and 3s interfere with each other. So if you have lots of 6s in the body and still coming in the diet, they're going to minimize the effectiveness of the 3s that you're taking in. JB: You know, I've been thinking a lot about something lately. I've been wondering what is more important, the ratio of 6s to 3s or the absolute values. We all know that by increasing your intake of polys each day through flax or salmon, the levels of 3 will go up. Also, the actual number of 6s and total fats may go up, too. So basically you get more 3s and more 6s and more fat. But the ratios change.

Here's an example. At the start you might have been getting 90 g of fats per day. Something like 30 g from sats, 30 g from monos, and 30 g from polys. Of the polys, 25 g might be omega 6s and 5 g might be omega 3s (a 5:1 ratio). Well, if I now add three tablespoons of flax per day, I'll be getting 30 g from sats, 30 g from monos, and 75 g from polys. In this case, there are definitely more 3s (about 35 g total), but there are also more 6s (about 40g total). So the ratio of 6s to 3s has changed from 5:1 to almost 1:1. So my main question is this: Is the ratio more important or is the total level of 6s and 3s more important? From what you said above, it seems like one might want to avoid 6s as much as possible so that more 3s can be incorporated into cell membranes exclusively and replace the 6s that are already there. I can imagine that with a diet rich in mostly 3s, you could accomplish this over a few months' time. With the rates of cell membrane turnover, it wouldn't happen immediately, though. EN: There have been some pretty good studies looking at this question and in terms of the eicosanoids produced it looks like it's the ratios that are the most important. If you're eating a typical diet that's high in 6s and then supplement with a lot of 3s, the improvement is pretty impressive. However, with that said, I think a much more sensible plan is to reduce the amount of 6s in the diet as much as possible at the same time that you are increasing the amount of 3s. Your total fat intake doesn't really change, but the ratios do. JB: Okay, the best of both worlds would be to eliminate 6s and increase 3s. So this would actually warrant the use of fish oils over flax oils. I know that the fish oils show a much more impressive health benefit for cardiovascular disease patients and insulin resistant diabetics than does flax. I guess that's because with flax, you increase both 3s and 6s, while with fish oils you increase mostly 3s. Also, it appears that because the fish oils are rich in EPA and DHA, they're better suited to the health benefits we mentioned. Other omega 3 oils have a lot of LNA, but that omega 3 has to be converted into the more effective EPA and DHA. An analogy would be to compare LNA to prohormones while EPA and DHA are like Testosterone. LNA gives some benefit by itself but is most effective when converted to EPA and DHA. So why not just take fish oils which are high EPA and DHA? LL: I'll take the cop-out answer and say both total and fatty acid ratios matter. Obviously, total amount of fat, in grams, is a big issue as far as energy density/gross caloric intake is concerned. That is, you get to eat less at a given caloric ceiling. Luckily fat's higher satiety value (e.g. slower gastric emptying) helps keep you full longer. On the other side of the coin, like Eric said, there's hard evidence stating that fatty acid ratios may be more critical regarding inflammation and immune-related catabolism. I personally consume about 30% of my energy as fat. I try to eat very little "junk fat." Gone are the days of gobs of mayo on my BK Broiler and other such creams, dressings and sauces that have few nutrients. Most of my fat now is from olive oil (monounsaturates) and meat (saturates and polys). Although you guys have mostly discussed the polys, namely the omega 3s, few people realize the extent to which monos aid athletes not the least of which are antioxidant effects. As mentioned earlier with the polys, monounsaturates can be incorporated into the cell membrane. While there, monounsaturates are much less likely to suffer from lipid peroxidation. Lipid peroxidation occurs when free radicals attack cell membranes. This is part of the cellular damage that antioxidants protect against. So by using more monos in the diet, you can protect against oxidative damage from another angle.

Back to my diet, I also add a few grams of fish oil (via salmon or capsules) per day if I'm primarily focusing on protein sparing, as when I'm in a fat loss/aerobic activity phase of training. I also jack up my DHA and EPA (along with occasional flax seeds) during the times when my elbow tendonitis is screaming. But I do shy away from fish oils during mass phases because no one really knows if there's any potentially negative impact on muscle growth. I'm always cautious in this respect. Remember, those rats lost weight with omega 3s verses 6s. JB: Yeah, Lonnie, but I think most of it was fat weight that they lost. I don't really see a problem with omega 3s inhibiting muscle gain. But remember, I recommend 30% of the total dietary fats coming from saturates during mass building. Then I shoot for 1020% monos and 50-60% polys (mostly omega 3s). LL: Fair enough. JB: Listen, over the last few months, I've been slowly changing up my intake based on this relatively new information. Although I still like my egg yolks and beef, I've been switching to the omega 3 eggs and broiling leaner beef. This way, I get to control my omega 6 and saturated fat intake and supplement my omega 3 intake. In addition to eating the golden eggs from wonder chickens, I've been adding one to two cans of salmon per day for the EPA's and DHA's. Tuna is the traditional cheap and easy bodybuilding protein, but it doesn't have the good omega 3 fats that salmon has. I think that bodybuilders should, as Eric recommends, leave their tuna behind and recognize the power of the mighty salmon. As far as the monos that Lonnie mentioned, I also add olive oil to my daily salads. Finally, liquid flax and fish oils are added to my protein shakes. There's no question that I recover better and can stay leaner on a higher caloric intake eating this way. Also, my chronic knee, elbow, and shoulder pain from years of football, rugby, and heavy training feel better than ever. Coincidence? I think not! EN: This is what I try to do. I try to get around 30% of my total calories from fat. Unlike John, I look for saturated fats to make up only about 10% or so of my total fat intake. I make a conscious effort to completely eliminate 6s from my diet, but given how abundant they are, this just brings me down to a moderate level. To compensate I hit the 3s pretty heavy. I eat a big bowl of green weeds every day, a can of salmon almost every day, and I try to eat a couple salmon steaks a week. I eat a lot of omega 3 eggs and I also eat flax specialty products such as flax frozen waffles. I also grind up flax seeds and put them in a lot of my food. In addition to that, I take a couple of salmon oil capsules every day and a tablespoon of flaxseed oil. I also eat a lot of sardines (much to my roommate's dismay) in the days leading up to a big race. The remainder of my fat comes from olive oil, which I put on just about everything. JB: That reminds me, Eric. You want a Tick-Tack? Go ahead, take two, really. Just kidding. Thanks for sharing your info, guys! So, T-men, what have we learned today? Well, here are a few pearls of wisdom to take to the kitchen: During all training phases, make a conscious attempt to eliminate the omega 6 poly unsaturates from your diet while simultaneously increasing your omega 3s mostly in the form of fish/salmon oils (DHA, EPA) and some flax seeds or flax oils. This increase in 3s, as well as the more favorable ratio of 3s to 6s, can potentially increase insulin sensitivity in muscle, decrease it in fat, reduce body fat, decrease muscle damage and soreness, and decrease disease or injury-induced inflammation.

 Replacing your saturates with monounsaturates in the form of olive oils is a smart move. This can fa vorably impact blood lipid profiles and cell integrity (by preventing free radical induced oxidation.) If you want to really piss off the dieticians and "health fanatics," eat saturated fats (about 30%, but not much more of yo ur total fat intake) during mass phases. During diet phases, decrease this ratio to about 10% of total fat intake and attack the salmon and olives for the rest of your fats. Finally, don't reduce fat intake to such low levels that your energy levels are that of a 80 -year-old bridge player. Trust me, your testis will become nothing more than little dangling ornaments with no real function but to get in your way during leg presses. In short, eat your fats! Time to get even fatter. At least intellectually. A comment I made in a recent article apparently set a pea beneath the many mattresses upon which TC sleeps. It had to do with how dietary fats enhance the insulin response to carbohydrates. To put it succinctly, TC couldn't help but notice it and figured readers would too. They did. Should fat be eaten with carbs or not? The comment wasn't meant to be controversial but alas data can be interpreted and applied in many ways. For example, "40 -3030 guys" like TC would agree that fat + carbs are probably good while our own John Berardi probably would not. And me? I'll try to disagree with everybody just for fun. (Is this getting like the Caffeine Roundtable? Link to http://www.testosterone.net/articles/219caff.html) But rather than start our own Fight Club, I offered to head up another roundtable regarding dietary fat combinations. Get ready... TC, Cy, John and I are about to each throw in our two cents on some controversial stuff. By the time we're done, we should have, well, eight cents and TC can get back to his beauty rest.

So I will now reach into my bag of irritating questions. First up: carbohydrate + fat combinations good or evil? JB: Before we delve into this discussion, I'd like to make a few comments to set the stage for what we should strive to accomplish in this roundtable. First, it's exceptionally easy to get lost in theoretical discussions, to dissect any particular phenomenon (physiological or otherwise) in order to gain some new insight while at the same time losing the appropriate vantage point from which we can apply the new information. To this end, I think it's important to note that while discussions about responses to individual meals are interesting and useful, at the end of the day, each of us has to come up with an appropriate plan for ingesting the specific amount of protein, carbohydrate, and fat required to achieve our desired goals. After all, the reason we discuss the theoretical rationale behind meal combinations or meal timing is so that we can use this information to develop a functional plan. So in discussing specific meal combinations let's not forget that at the end of the day, each of us has to consume enough protein, carbohydrates, fats, and total energy to assist in the attainment of our goals. LL: Definitely. There are multitudes of "diets" out there, most based on a singular, clever idea. But at the end of the day, it's still total daily kcal and macronutrient intake that matter greatly to the aspiring athlete. It's prudent to remind everyone that protein intake is typically held steady (e.g. at a gram per pound) while carbohydrates and fats are the energy sources. Whether an individual prefers one or the other or a specific combination is of secondary concern.

TC: Sure, I "grok" all that, but let me quickly explain that I'm not really a 40-30-30 guy. I think one-size fits all macronutrient prescriptions are odious. I'm actually of the mind that we humans can get by with far fewer grams of carbs than is generally believed. After all, we need protein to live, we need fat to live, but take away our carbs and all we get is a little grumpy. With that said, I think avoiding all carbs is unrealistic, especially for bodybuilders and endurance athletes. In the case of bodybuilders who are trying to bulk up, getting all your calories from just protein and fat can be problematic in a whole bunch of ways. Likewise, the endurance athlete would do well to have a nice store of glycogen warehoused in his muscles so that he doesn't collapse after the first 10 kilometers in his "Greater Urbana Ectomorph 15 K Fun Run." But I digress. Back to the question. Are carb and fat combinations good or evil? Generally speaking, in my humble opinion, they're definitely not evil. Let's go back in history a bit. During the early 17th century, a high-grinding system of milling was introduced that resulted in very fine white flours. These flours pretty much replaced the coarser stone-ground flours. As such, the actual particle size, in addition to the inherent fiber content of these grains, decreased. That meant that the body could absorb them incredibly quickly (given that the digestive system wasn't left with much to do) which lead to dramatic surges in blood sugar and insulin. Lo and behold it was about this time that obesity and its partner in crime, diabetes mellitus started to show up. However, about 80 years ago, a researcher named Jacobsen noticed that eating bread with butter produced a much smaller rise in blood-glucose concentration than did bread alone. Subsequent research has confirmed Jacobsens' observations again and again. Fat, when added to a carb meal, impairs gastric emptying as well as absorption of the carbohydrate. The fat both increases the viscosity of the sludge in your stomach and interferes with the enzyme carbohydrate interaction. I've also done tons of informal experiments to confirm aspects of this. All it takes is a timer, a nifty little drug store glucometer, and a manly disregard of the pain caused by finger pricks. What I'd done is eat plain carbs and tested by blood sugar every 15 minutes of at least an hour. Then, I'd test that same carb source, only this time, ingest it with a little fat, usually in the form of oil, peanut butter, or even whole milk. Without fail, the carb-only foods would send blood sugar skyrocketing, with a concurrent blood sugar crash (below baseline) an hour later. Interestingly, you know what the worst food I tested was? Special K cereal, the dieter's alleged dream. Given that most of the carbs we eat in modern society are highly processed, it seems prudent to eat fat at the same time to dull the blood sugar and subsequent insulin rise. In fact, eating fish oil with a carb seems like it would be the smartest thing to do, given that omega-3 unsaturated fatty acids seem to have an ameliorating effect on glucose tolerance. Who knows? It might have something to do with increasing sensitivity to insulin at the cell level. Likewise, eating a carb with a protein would also be prudent, as that, too, would slow down absorption and ameliorate the insulin response. By the way, this doesn't directly pertain to the question, but it seems, too, that adding vinegar or some fermented vegetables to your carbs also reduces the rate at which starch is digested. The same goes for sourdough-type breads. Anyone for a pickle on sourdough sandwich? LL: Thanks for the history, TC. We need to be reminded of the social and technological events leading to America's current state lest we slip into pointlessly academic banter based on the latest single study. And now I'm faced with my own smarty pants question Hmm. Carbs with fats Was Dr. Jekyll good or evil? With regard to this point, I think he'd be a benevolent friend to thin, more ectomorphic guys but a malevolent fiend toward thicker-skinned endomorphs. What the heck am I talking about? Well, either I'm watching too many old horror flicks or I'm saying that carbohydrate + fat combinations may be helpful to those who wish to maintain higher insulin and glucose levels for a long time such as thin, highly active guys while those trying

to shed body fat should probably avoid the combo. Oh yeah, and just to be disagreeable, John, you putz you're, uh, dressed badly today. CW:: Well, being as it's been shown that simply slowing the rate at which glucose enters the bloodstream or (intestinal glucose absorption rate), I'd simply suggest that you make sure a higher amount of fiber is contained in each meal. Back when guar gum was used, they'd demonstrated increased insulin sensitivity simply because of its effect on slowing/reducing absorption of glucose and it's thought to be one of the mechanisms of action with metformin. Now where I think people screw this up is by saying "Okay then, fat-free cookies and some Metamucil." No, what they should be thinking is "Okay, a chicken breast and some oatmeal" or just simply "oatmeal." Aside from that, you should be eating things that are harder in texture, high in fiber, consuming protein, casein (smiling) when possible and yes, it's okay to add some fish oil caps in there as well. However, if you're simply using the fat content to slow absorption of glucose, then why not use something that doesn't have any caloric value, like fiber? So, no, unless you're one of those skinny guys that Lonnie mentioned, avoid fat and carb containing meals and stick to meals that are high in fiber. Remember, the lower the amount of glucose in the bloodstream, the less insulin will be secreted and the easier it will be for those adipocytes to release those nasty droplets of fat. Now if you're one of those skinny basterr I mean individuals, the n as Lonnie pointed out, you can certainly benefit from having consistently high insulin levels. Actually that's the entire premise behind my "Skinny Bastard" diet. JB: Gasp! Combining carbohydrates and fats in a single meal is a dietary strategy straight out of the fiery inferno, introduced by ol' Lucifer himself and enforced by his evil minions! Well, at least that's what some of my Massive Eating archangels might have you believe. Being their Massive Master, though, it's important that I tighten the reins a bit. Therefore I'm glad you asked this question, Lon Solo. Ever since my Massive Eating articles and the introduction of my Don't Diet plan, many readers have misinterpreted the recommendations to mean that a carbohydrate containing meal must never contain so much as a single gram of fat while a fat containing meal must never contain so much as a single gram of carbohydrate. This is unfortunate since my specific comments stated that: "Meals with a high carbohydrate content in combination with high-fat meals can actually promote a synergistic insulin release when compared to the two alone. High fat with high-carb meals represent the worst possible case scenario." I also stated that one should: "Eat meals consisting of fat and protein together with very little carbs. Also eat protein and carbs together, but with very little fat in those meals. Don't eat carbs by themselves and don't eat carbs with fat." In these statements, the key words here are obviously underlined. Basically my point was that when one of the two macronutrients was consumed in high quantities, the other must be consumed in low quantities. My generalized and rough guideline has been that any high-carb meal should contain less than 10g of fat while any high fat meal should contain less than 15g of carbohydrates. And of course, protein should be consumed with every meal. These recommendations are designed for those weight trainers interested first and foremost in body composition alterations. LL: bringing us back to the ol' "hold protein steady and choose your energy source" idea

JB: As described in both my Massive Eating and Don't Diet plans, one of the reasons why we try to minimize this potentially fattening combo of high fat and high carbohydrate meals is because of the very same synergistic insulin release that has been described above. In 1996, when Dr. Holt and colleagues were formulating those famous insulin index charts, they noticed that foods containing refined carbohydrates and fats seemed to generate a disproportionate insulin response relative to the actual carbohydrate content as well as the glycemic index of the meal. This indicated that meals high in fat and carbohydrate could promote a nasty case of hyperinsulinemia. This is the very same hyperinsulinemia that prevents the mobilization of fats from the storage depots of the adipose tissue to the metabolic furnaces of the muscle where they can be burned for energy; the very same hyperinsulinemia that, when combined with high blood levels of fat, can cause uptake of both fat and carbohydrate into the adipose tissue for fat building. Numerous studies over the years have supported the notion that fats indeed may enhance the insulin response to carbohydrate ingestion and that hyperinsulinemia both shuts down fat burning and enhances fat building, especially in the presence of hyperlipidemia. In 1998, Holtschlag et al discussed the possibility that ingested fat also may potentiate the amounts of insulin stimulated by ingested carbohydrates. The effect of these ingested nutrients (fats, proteins and carbohydrates) on insulin secretion is direct, through stimulation of insulin secretion via glucose and absorbed amino acids and is indirect, through stimulation of hormone secretion, via ingested proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. While the Massive Eating/Don't Diet plans aren't perfect (no human attempt at manipulating physiology is), I believe they provide a functional way to consume an abundant amount of micronutrient dense, glycogen-replenishing carbohydrates and metabolism altering, hormone-stimulating fats, and muscle-building proteins while simultaneously preventing excessive hyperinsulinemia and excessive fat gain. After all, high blood levels of insulin, carbohydrates, and fats (due to the synergistic insulin secretion promoted by a carbohydrate + protein + fat meal as well as the absorption of these nutrients) can lead to more nutrients being shuttled to your fat cells than desired. Why not try to minimize this potentially enlarging combination? One of the most logical ways to do this while ensuring you get all the nutrients you need is to combine your meals properly. LL: Okay, everybody take a deep breath he's still talking JB: So where's the scientific data? We don't got none. But the theory makes some sense. However, theory aside, thousands of weight lifters and strength athletes have benefited from these recommendations, reporting exactly what I had indicated in my first Massive Eating article; they simply can eat more calories than they ever thought possible without gaining as much fat as they might have expected. In other words, the proportion of lean mass gained to fat mass gained is improved (if trying to get bigger) and the proportion of lean mass retained to fat mass lost is also improved (if trying to get leaner). Of course, other programs can also produce results. But from what I've seen of these recommendations, this plan is one of the better ones. Before we move on, though, I want to pacify the science savvy out there. I've simplified matters here for explanatory purposes only, since nutritional science is wrought with great complexity. One example of this is the fact that insulin is not the only regulator of fat storage. Adipose tissue can be stuffed full of fats and carbohydrates in an insulin independent manner via a hormone called "ASP" or Acylation Stimulating Protein. This hormone doesn't need insulin to make you fatter. Rather, it's released from fat cells directly in response to blood chylomicrons (pre-packaged fats) and is responsible for increased triglyceride synthesis in the adipose cells. Basically, ASP works for fat storage like insulin works for carbohydrate storage.

So, does this mean that the Massive Eating/Don't Diet combos will not work since fat can be stored even without high blood levels of insulin? Heck no! All it means is that there are all sorts of physiological phenomenon occurring that we either don't understand all that well or don't even know about. But rather than throwing our hands up in resignation, we should focus on what we do know in order to manipulate what we can. In this case, by using our diet to manipulate insulin concentrations, we can favorably affect body composition. I'd love to talk all day on this topic, but for now, I think a few of the other guys might like to get a word in edgewise. TC: Damn straight! I don't disagree that you shouldn't ingest high amounts of carbs and high amounts of fats in one meal. However, I think it's a bit unrealistic to go through life you know, eating out, going to your girlfriend's house for dinner, etc. and have to grab the waiter and/or potential future mother-in-law by the neck and slam their head into the wall every time they have the temerity to combine fats and carbs. I know, I know, as bodybuilders we're not ever supposed to "slip up," but hell, I'm talking all things in moderation, here. When presented with a menu or meal that doesn't come from the kitchen of the bodybuilding gods, practice damage control and combine high GI carbs with fats and/or proteins. And as far as John's Massive Eating plan, I admire the hell out of it for its elegance and intellectual thinking behind it, but unless I'm mistaken, most diets where you grossly overeat end up adding about 70% lean mass and about 30% fat mass. That's why tubby guys aren't generally as tubby as we think they are. There's usually a lot of muscle underneath that lard.

LL: Okay, now all of you are allowed to back-pedal a bit. Are there any exceptions to your respective rules (e.g. bulking phases, body types, individual metabolisms, dietary carb or fat types)? TC: Sure, I wouldn't combine fats with carbs in the much-hallowed post workout period. As badly dressed John Berardi has pointed out time and time again, this period, in particular, is when you want to sledgehammer your insulin rate sky high. Likewise, in general, I don't think eating carbs by themselves is a bad thing for the ectomorph who desperately wants to put on weight any kind of weight. However, my only fear is that this individual, might, in the long run, create some insulin resistance and find it ultimately a little harder to shed some of his newly acquired lard. JB: As stated above, my basic low carb with higher-fat meals and low fat with higher carb meals are designed first and foremost for weight trainers interested in body composition change. You know emaciated guys like Lonnie, TC, and Cy. If you're a competitive athlete and your primary goals are performance and recovery, then you have some special concerns that these basic rules do not address. For example, major concerns of athletes include steady energy provision (carbohydrate 2-3 hours before training or competition as well as during competition) and glycogen recovery (abundant post exercise carbohydrate intake). Since carbs are such a large part of the competitive athlete's day, fats and proteins often have to be included in higher carb meals. Does this mean athletes are destined to balloon up like male spider monkeys during mating season? Nope. If you're training correctly as an athlete, your body is probably quite opposed to fat storage anyway and the "devil's combinations" will probably not wreak havoc on your adipose content. Another exception concerns the type of carbohydrate. Meals that contain protein, fat and very low glycemic index/insulin index carbohydrates that are also fibrous may also be okay. Therefore it seems that foods like beans, nuts, vegetables, and some fruits appear to be "rule breakers." Due to their low GI and II characteristics, these foods generate very little insulin response and don't dump glucose into the blood at a substantial rate. This means that they won't create the dreaded high insulin, carbohydrate, and fat concentrations in the blood. Since they are also often rich in vitamins, minerals, and healthy fiber, they are certainly an acceptable

addition to a protein and fat meal in moderation, of course, with the "bulk" of these types of foods being served during your protein + carb meals. Finally, while meal combination rules have been very effective for many trainees trying to promote a gradual weight loss, they appear to especially shine when applied to those trying to gain muscle mass (i.e. Massive Eating) while minimizing body fat. While Lonman makes a good theoretical point in suggesting that perhaps chronic hyperinsulinemia may be the kick start that some skinny bastards need to gain mass, I will continue to assert that the Massive Eating plan appears to be the best way to accomplish what most weight lifters really want low-fat beef, baby. LL: You betcha, JB; TC has mentioned that too. Screaming insulin concentrations over weeks and weeks could eventually become counterproductive due to retarded insulin sensitivity (a la type II diabetes). I like the term "kick start," though. Time of day is also a big confounding factor regarding fat and carb "rules." I personally try to avoid fat + carb combinations in the morning (or fats, period). There are data out there suggesting that glucose tolerance is impaired with a fatty breakfast. I wouldn't want to seriously mess up my glucose tolerance for five or six hours when it's otherwise at its best. A big mid-morning carb snack or lunch isn't doing a lot of good if one's muscles are resistant to accepting the resulting blood glucose. I've mentioned before that fat may be a better choice in the evening but in place of carbs. There is actually research likening healthy nighttime carb-eating subjects to diabetics! "Carb handling" actually gets that bad. I guess here is where my interpretations jive with JB's. Protein with whole-grain carbohydrates in the morning, protein with fat in the evening is logical for most folks. Although, again, skinny guys may want to keep the carbs, fats and proteins flowing pretty much all day. There is insulinogenic synergy here. Maintaining higher insulin concentrations around the clock is the anabolic sledgehammer that they may need to grow. CW:: Damn it Lonnie, now what the hell am I supposed to say? Well, I have to completely agree with what Lonnie said and don't have much to add. Well, one thing I should mention is that even for those individuals who have a more difficult time reducing fat stores, they too should still have one liquid, whey-containing, fiber-free, glucose or dextrose-containing meal and that would be after their workout. TC: I can't argue with any of that, either. JB: I mostly agree with LL's comments here, too. While the meal combination rules still stick, it's crucial to recognize that another issue, nutrient timing, is also important when considering when certain meals (P+C or P+F) should be consumed. I agree with Lonman's morning and nighttime recommendations and will go one step further in reiterating that 90-120 minutes before training a P+F meal may be the best suggestion, while after training, P+C meals are essential.

LL: Question number three: Does combining fat with protein have any pros or cons? TC: I wouldn't think it would have any cons, except that, again, in the post-workout period, it might slow down the rate at which amino acids enter into the bloodstream and end up in target muscle cells. I also don't mind protein-only meals. While it's true that protein itself causes an insulin response, it also stimulates glucagon release, in contrast with carb-only meals that cause insulin to increase with a concurrent decrease in glucagon.

In other words, were it not for this protein-induced release of glucagon, the protein-induced release of insulin would lead to a hypoglycemic state. What happens is that the glucagon induces breakdown of hepatic glycogen to "cover" the insulin release. JB: Most practically, since my plan suggests very little fat with P+C meals, it's obvious that the daily dietary fat intake has to either be provided as a fat-only meal or in conjunction with protein as a P+F meal. The importance of a good amount of fat, especially healthy fat, has been discussed repeatedly here at T-mag so let's just assume that a good amount of dietary fat (20-30% of total kcal intake) is required and then move on. Since a fat only meal provides virtually no metabolic increase (thermic effect of feeding) as well as provides none of the daily protein requirement, I think it's important to consume protein and fat meals when not consuming protein and carb meals. Besides the practicality of it all, meals combining protein and fat may offer other benefits. Since the inclusion of fat leads to slowed gastric emptying, adding fat to a high-protein meal may effectively slow the rate of the protein absorption, creating something analogous to a time-released protein. This would make the P+F meal ideal for bedtime snacks, especially if you choose the appropriate protein source (see Bedtime Story). Next up: Glucagon. Since glucagon is a regulatory hormone responsible for providing energy to the tissues, it is classified as a catabolic hormone. Essentially, glucagon plays Lex Luther to insulin's Superman. To be more specific, glucagon stimulates the breakdown of stored glycogen into glucose in skeletal muscle and in the liver, stimulates the breakdown of fats into fatty acids in adipose tissue, maintains the liver's output of glucose from amino acid precursors, and leads to the formation of ketone bodies from fatty-acid precursors in the liver; all catabolic events designed at dipping into your energy reserves to provide fuel. Since a protein-only meal increases the release of glucagon (in order to stimulate the liver to produce glucose to normalize blood sugar) and since fat does nothing to directly mitigate the effects of a protein meal on glucagon release while carbohydrates decrease this response, some have speculated that a protein-only meal or a protein-plus-fat meal is a no-no since the glucagon release may promote the manufacture of glucose from all those ingested amino acids. While this may be true with a high protein diet that also lacks sufficient dietary carbohydrate, I believe that the destruction of amino acids will be minimal if the body has sufficient carbohydrate reserves in the liver. In this case, glucagon will tend to make more of the necessary blood glucose from stored glycogen than from ingested amino acids. Sure, some of those aminos will be destroyed. But you've gotta get your fat in sometime and if you're eating enough protein in your diet, there will be plenty left to keep you growing. Besides, although fat does not necessarily mitigate the glucagon response directly, the fact that fat slows the intestinal transit of the protein indicates that over time, the glucagon response to the same protein meal will be less since there are less amino acids being absorbed per unit time to stimulate glucagon release. TC: Alright, Berardi! Screw this academic bullshit. I challenge you to an old fashioned duel. Choose your weapon: a protein and fat combo of ham hocks or a carb and protein combo of corn dogs at thirty paces. LL: Hey! TC, can you stop mocking the Large Professor? He's up on that soapbox again, for sure, but I'm trying to keep this civilized! I did once see a study that fat present in protein meals helps maintain Testosterone levels post-prandially (after eating). But it goes beyond that. Slowed gastric emptying would help dole out that protein to otherwise starving muscles at night, too. I've got to think a steak before bed would maintain serum concentrations of amino acids longer than, say, whey mixed into water or juice.

CW:: Lonnie, I have to agree with that wholeheartedly as well. You know, casein is great in terms of slowing gastric emptying as well. Aside from that is the fact that when you sleep, you should enjoy lower plasma insulin levels, which would allow for increased fat oxidation. Oh, and not that this matters much, but just for fun it could result in higher GH levels while sleeping as well. Basically, you should gain 50 lbs. of lean body mass and wake up with 3% body fat when utilizing this method. Kidding! TC: Okay, I agree with all of you there, too. Fat and protein at night would slow gastric emptying and act as a "time release" protein of sorts.

Well, it seems that none of us are in too much disagreement here. Sure, we've got our minor differences when it comes to macronutrient combos, but for the most part, we could probably all eat peacefully at the same smorgasbord.

The Protein Roundtable See what happens when two T-mag writers and a nutrition professor get together to talk protein Refereed by John M. Berardi

So what do you know about protein? Probably about as much as you've read in the magazine ads promoting the glycomucuswhatevers and ion-exchanged, cross-mutated doohickies. Or maybe isotopically labeled protein tracers aren't your forte and all you really know is that "meat is good." Well, that's okay. Sometimes the science of protein is complicated. The more we talk about it, the more overcomplicated it gets. After all, when is the best time to consume protein? How much? What kind? Is soy really that bad? Why is whey supposed to be so good? What's up with the new interest in casein? And finally, do any of these factors make a difference when it comes to getting buff and attracting women? To help you answer these questions, we've compiled a small panel of very knowledgeable, yet opinionated experts to discuss some hot topic protein issues. We put them in a padded cell, removed all sharp objects, locked the doors and let them go at it. Like a group of argumentative teenage girls enraged by their "Which member of 'N Sync is the biggest hottie" debate, our experts let the science and the theories fly. When they emerged from the cell a few hours later with tuffs of hair pulled from their heads and all sporting bloody noses and black eyes, we knew we'd found a few answers.

Introducing the Players? John M. Berardi - John's a regular contributor to T-mag, an exercise biochemist and a supplement researcher. In other words, he bags all the babes. He's contributed to research on anabolic steroids, andro, ribose, vanadyl sulfate, creatine, glutamine, antioxidants, and other ergogenic aids. He even took a crack at research aimed at fixing cardiovascular disease. John is now studying with the world renowned "godfather of protein requirements," Peter Lemon. Although he may seem a bit nerdy from that perspective, John also happens to be a pretty accomplished competitive bodybuilder with a few NABBA USA trophies on his mantel. Although he hasn't competed in a while, the 5'8" Berardi still maintains a respectable year-round body fat of below 5% at a bodyweight of about 190 pounds. Cy Willson - Cy Willson is also a regular contributor to T-mag. Although he likes to have his hand in many pots, his general expertise is in the areas of physiology, endocrinology, and pharmacology, and their respective applications to bodybuilding. When he's not chasing coeds, Cy is busting his ass to get into graduate school and plans to make a name for himself in pharmaceutical research. Although he doesn't compete, he stands 6'2", 230 pounds at 8% body fat. Despite being the youngest contributor to Tmag (and therefore having to wear a beanie around the office with a little propeller on top), Cy is making a name for himself as a balls-to-the-walls nutritional theorist. Lonnie Lowrey ? Lonnie is a college nutrition professor, researcher and bodybuilder who's about as traditional in the dietetics world as an Amish TV repairman. His doctorate is in exercise physiology, but he took the nutrition job for the free food and because he likes hearing cute coeds call him Dr. LL Cool J. He too belongs to the "Dr. Lemon family tree" and has thus

researched his share of dietary supplements. For those muscleheads who care less for academia and more for anabolism, Lonnie is 5'8" and weighs in at 210 pounds at about 8% fat. He's competed as a light-heavy twice, but got spanked for being "too smooth at 4% fat". He has thus turned his back on competition, opting for size over starvation. Also, he's probably about the only college prof in the world who enjoys punching-up 500 pound squats between classes. Now that you know the players, let's get the discussion underway!

The Master Plan ? Protein Requirements and Over-Consumption JB: As the self-appointed moderator of this little soiree, I'd like to say that I think this roundtable is long overdue. Based on the discussions I've overheard in the gym and even from many magazine articles I've read, there seems to be lot of protein myths being perpetuated, as well as a lot of plain old stupidity being tossed around. So let's just get aggressive and clean house starting with protein needs for maximizing muscle mass. Over the years, the chicks at the American Dietetics Association (ADA) have continually reasserted that the protein requirements of "normal" people are about 0.4 grams per pound of bodyweight (0.4 g/lb). According to the ADA, this is estimated to meet the needs of 97.5% of the population. Well, ADA, if there are two things that I know, the first is that bodybuilders probably don't fit into that 97.5%. The second is that bodybuilders certainly aren't normal. Despite these undisputed facts, I can still vividly remember the day my very first nutrition professor laughed at me in front of the whole class when I argued for a higher intake for bodybuilders. Times have changed a little and thankfully the over-fat, undertrained and protein-deficient RDA bureaucrats have adjusted their recommendations based on new research. They currently recognize a protein need of about 0.55 to 0.65 g/lb for endurance trainers and 0.65 to 0.80 g/lb for weight trainers. They also state that the maximum usable amount of protein for adults is 1 g/lb. I guess they're coming around. Personally, although there are many factors influencing protein needs, I think people striving for muscle growth need at least 1 g/lb. There's even some literature in the famed Romanian weightlifting programs that suggests that 1.6 to 1.8 g/lb might be beneficial for really intensely trained guys. If I had to make recommendations, though, I'd say that 1 g/lb is a good start for trainees just plugging along with typical year-round training. When the intensity goes up, I'd take the protein up, too. However, I think that going up to or above 2 g/lb might, at the least, be overkill and at the most, be harmful to muscle gains or normal physiology. What do you think, Cy? CW: Yep, I agree. For a typical bodybuilder, there's no question that a minimum of 1 g/lb is an absolute necessity. I think metabolism has a lot to do with intake so in cases where the person has a fast metabolism, I'd go with 1.25 to 1.50 g/lb. I've seen guys that had trouble gaining muscle conquer this by simply using that formula. One thing that you didn't mention, though, is that too many guys don't understand that protein intake, along with enough overall calories, is the key determinant of how much muscle you can gain. You see, the better the calorie balance, the better the protein balance. For people eating lower calories and trying to drop body fat, my rule is that the more you decrease carb and fat intake, the more you should increase protein intake, even if it means going well over 1 g/lb. Some people make the mistake of reducing protein too much during a calorie-restricted diet because they don't get as full from protein sources or they don't find them as palatable. So, in effect, they end up increasing the amount of fat or carbs in

their program. The thing to remember here is that, although all protein sources aren't that inviting, a higher amount will lead to a further decrease in fat and a better maintenance of protein stores. LL: Interesting theory regarding metabolic rate, Cy. Now might be a good time to discuss the potential for protein overconsumption. As you both know, there's no consensus (or even a single study to my knowledge) that excess protein (> 0.8 g/kg) does any measurable damage to healthy kidneys. Most of the scare tactics stem from the data on renal patients. These patients end up with rapid loss of kidney function on normal high protein diets. Interestingly, the very professionals who point out every mistaken extrapolation in the dietary supplement world conveniently forget that they're doing the same "leap of faith" bullshit by applying this patient data to healthy athletes. Having said that, I think there are real body composition advantages to eating upwards of 1.5 g/ lb. That's right, overfeed protein! First off, overeating protein, within reason, will not make you fat. A calorie is not a calorie! That is, excess protein calories aren't as likely to be stored as body fat compared to carbs and most fats. This is because protein has to have its nitrogen ripped off in the liver (the urea cycle), which is an energy costly process. To boot, protein kicks up glucagon secretion and glucagon antagonizes the lipogenic (fat storage) effects of insulin. Carbs don't lend people the same favor; they just jack insulin levels sky high. The net result is that the thermic effect of food is about 30% of the intake for proteins, while it's just 4 to 6% for fats and carbohydrates. This means that for a 100 calorie meal, protein will require a full 30 calories just to process it, compared to a mere 4 to 6 calories expended to process those yummy gutexpanding carbs and fats. The bottom line is that it appears better to overeat than to under-eat protein when you're trying to add muscle mass while keeping the body fat off. I'll say it again; you should overfeed protein. You'll piss off a good deal of it, but so what? It won't hurt you unless you've got kidney disease and you'll have the assurance that your ball-busting gym work is getting the required nutritional support. My old classroom quote (much to the chagrin of certain traditional dietetics instructors) is: "By hitting the weights and taking anabolic supplements, you've hired a brick layer. Now you've got to give him some bricks." Of course, as Cy pointed out, you also need some carbs and fat for energy, so we'll call them the "gas" for your bricklayer's equipment. You should vary these according to your glucose tolerance and energy expenditure. To further support my point, check out this data: JB: Oh hell, the professor is pulling out charts! LL: Just pay attention, smart ass! Figure 1. A comparison of two 170 pound athletes, one who just ate real food versus one who consumed two MRP's per day plus food: Subject and Protein Intake 1. Whole foods (78g protein/day) 2. Whole foods plus MRP (175g protein/day) Urinary nitrogen (Protein Lost) 12g (75g protein broken down) 27g (169g protein broken down) Net Protein Gained 78-75 = 3g per day 175-169 = 6g per day

Obviously, although subject #2 lost more nitrogen and protein per day, in the end he still netted the most protein by double the amount!

Soup's On ? Protein Intake in a Single Meal CW: Here's a hot topic for you guys. People often ask me about how much protein can and should be eaten in a single muscle building meal. Although there may not be a single number given that can be applied to everyone because of the variables involved in protein metabolism (LBM, REE, T3-T4 levels, Testosterone, insulin, the list goes on and on), I'll say that based on size, a minimum of 40 grams per sitting should work well for everyone. It's important that people know that those amino acids do a heck of a lot more than build muscle. You need them to form a lot of various hormones and neurotransmitters, as well as other important constituents in the human body. A maximum protein intake is much harder to estimate. In the real world, many guys consume amounts in the 60 to 90 gram range. By in large, these same men have all been successful in their bodybuilding efforts. Another thing to consider is the role that timing plays in how much you should consume in one sitting. Obviously, you should consume the largest amounts when rising and before going to bed. I feel you should also increase the amount of protein directly following a workout. Okay, what do you guys think? JB: I agree completely on this point. Actually, this topic has been debated in the absence of data for far too long. Just to let you all in on a little secret, I'm aware of a research protocol being designed right now to investigate this very question! Pretty soon we should have some data that will tell us just how much protein can be absorbed in a single sitting. Exciting, right Lonnie? So Lonnie, to go one step further with this question, do you know of any good "adjunct" nutrients that may actually help us digest and metabolize even higher levels of daily or "per meal" protein intake? LL: There's been talk of using bromelain and papain enzymes from pineapples and papaya, respectively, to increase protein digestion. The truth is, digestion of many proteins already averages above 90%, so I doubt they'll help much in this regard. I will say that when consuming powdered proteins, I personally try to double the fluid volume that most supplement labels recommend. This helps to keep me from continually "assaulting the porcelain," if you know what I mean. Nobody's going to grow with a thick, osmotic nightmare of nutrients dragging out their backside. I also try to eat some solid food with reconstituted protein drinks and MRPs for similar reasons.

Protein, Protein Everywhere, But What Kind Should I Drink? CW: Thanks for some very vivid and frightening pictures, Lonnie. Moving right along to protein types, from what I've seen, it would be safe to say that in terms of overall muscle tissue increases and decreases of body fat, casein reigns superior. It's been shown to accomplish these feats by increasing anabolism to a moderate extent, but even more importantly, decreasing catabolism to a large degree. I'm convinced that the sole reason behind this is simply because of its slow digestion and consequently, absorption rates. It provides a steady, slower paced release of amino acids into the blood stream. Casein is therefore the best protein to use before an overnight fast and for breakfast. Whey, while having a higher BV (Biological Value), has been outperformed by casein simply because of its fast rate of digestion and absorption. It increases anabolism quickly and to a large extent, but these effects are short lived. In fact, it was shown that although amino acid concentrations increased with whey, oxidation rates also increased, creating a steady state metabolism in

which there was no change in overall protein balance. It's possible, however, that whey could match casein if you were to combine it with some type of low GI carb and a little fat and continually ingest it every two hours. But, that's a big pain in the ass, as well as the wallet! That being said, my idea of the perfect type of protein would be a combo of casein and whey. This is because of the fact that whey, while having a greater anabolic response and better BV, lacks the steady absorption rate of casein. Combine the two and pow! you've got one hell of a team! What one lacks, the other compliments. Soy, on the other hand, is for women. Or maybe for men that want to take on the characteristics of women. Soy may have some health benefits, at least for chicks, but for men it could wreak havoc with your endocrine system, increase body fat, cause water retention, and lower Testosterone. For me, that isn't worth lowering your LDL by a few points. I don't like soy, as you may have noticed, and I don't think it has any place in a man's diet at all! JB: But come on, Cy, what about getting in touch with our feminine sides? Actually, although the data is still mixed, whenever I've added any significant amount of soy to my diet (> 15 g/d), I've felt like crap. I've gained fat easier and definitely held more water. So now, whenever I see soy powder, I run with fear! As far as the other protein sources, I'm sorry, Cy, but I'm not ready to dump my beef and salmon for multiple daily servings cottage cheese just yet. Yuck! Although casein seems to be winning a few battles, it certainly hasn't won the war. In fact, I just read a study that showed that three months of whey supplementation increased anaerobic muscular performance while casein didn't do squat. I tend to agree with you that casein seems superior for body composition in the few studies that have been done, especially one in which normal diets were supplemented with whey or casein, but remember, the supplement was added to a normal diet. And by "normal," I mean varied. So adding casein in to your nutritional program seemingly would help pack on some mass. I also think, though, that adding some whey to a normal diet would be beneficial. When it comes to supplementing, this isn't a one or the other question! And notice I say supplement. That is because I think that the mainstay of the diet should be good, old fashioned food that actually requires chewing! This whole business of consuming nothing but powders all day makes me want to yak. Not only is in boring as hell, but you miss out on a whole variety of nutrients. Bring on the dead animals! LL: You go, John! Variety is key, both for staying on a diet (without sweating every time you pass a cheeseburger) and for getting the necessary spectrum of nutrients that no protein powder or MRP can provide (at least in correct proportions). Humans evolved to eat animal flesh, not reconstituted powders. I think that meat, egg, casein, whey, and soy are all valuable in their own way. I'm not sure that I agree soy will turn a guy into a chick. The isoflavones in soy isolates can bind estrogen receptors, inducing a much weaker (even anti-estrogenic) effect than if natural estradiol latched on. (Yes, even T-mag readers have some circulating estrogen!) Isoflavones seem to affect beta estrogen receptors (in bone, for example), not alpha estrogen receptors. If they do cause water retention and fat accumulation in men, I need to see this data before it's too late! However, I feel compelled to say that I eat soy and I'm a muscular, hairy, balding, lean, grainy-skinned man, baby! Whoo-hoo! JB: Calm down, Kojak!

LL: Sorry about that; back to protein. I think many people forget that they mix their whey with casein (milk) anyway, getting a pretty cool 3:1 proportion. After a workout, this could equate to a big 25 to 50 gram bolus of fast acting, anabolic whey right when you need it, with the added benefit of 8 to 16 grams of long-acting, anti-catabolic casein. Of course, I've yet to see data on the combo. As a final note, in unpublished data by myself and colleagues, we looked at the body comp effects a variety of protein powders have on novice lifters. We compared gel-filtered whey, ion exchange whey, casein, soy and maltodextrin. What did we find? Nada! No reliable differences over a six-week period! In relative support of Cy, however, the casein group slightly outgrew the other groups in upper arm muscle. But again, the differences weren't statistically significant. The take home message is that no one is blowing passed his training buddy in six weeks just because he eats a different protein! CW: Interesting data, you soy eating, grainy skinned man! As far as eating food verses powders, I have a different perspective. In today's fast paced world, many people don't have the time and/or patience to prepare whole food. Yes, whole food should be a staple, but the powders offer a concentrated, cost efficient, source of protein. While we're at it, if you're going to eat whole food, add some cottage cheese. No, that shouldn't be the mainstay of your diet either, but it offers a damn good amount of casein. If you don't want the fat, opt for the fat free version. As far as the lactose goes, that's just a necessary evil. Hey, I hate the stuff, too! My inability to create enough lactase has caused some horrible occurrences. Let's just say that if you can smell gas in a smoke-filled strip club, it's bad! (Oddly enough, I received a year's supply of lactase enzyme tablets for Christmas last year! Think someone was trying to tell me something?) As far as the first casein verses whey study I mentioned goes, the proteins were added to calorie restricted diets, which aren't that "normal" anyway.

You Didn't Get The Timing Right! JB: Now I guess the next issue we deal with should be how and when to incorporate certain proteins into the diet. Your thoughts, Lonnie? LL: Well, I'm a fan of eating two meals of 50 grams of protein plus 50 grams of high-glycemic carbs at 30 and 90 minutes posttraining. The rest of the day I limit carbs to fibrous grains, fruits and vegetables, but I try to get four more meals in of 30 to 50 grams of protein each (meat, eggs, whey, casein, soy). This pattern is used to better manage insulin. Insulin isn't called the "most anabolic hormone" for nothing. It not only induces protein synthesis and prevents its breakdown, it also swells cells with glycogen (itself anabolic) and frees up Testosterone to do its own anabolic work. But there's a dark side, young Jedi. Insulin is a "Jekyll and Hyde" hormone. Unlike Testosterone, insulin is under immediate, acute control. This is both good and bad. Simply eat a lot of food and voila, muscle growth! But there's a catch: eat sugar to get this insulin spike and you'll also be providing substrate for lipogenesis (fat building). This is obviously not good, especially later in the day. Instead, big protein meals (with some low glycemic carbs and monounsaturated fats tossed in for energy) are a better approach. You'll provide plenty of "bricks" (amino acids) for protein synthesis as well as get just enough energy to put them in place (into contractile proteins). If you train with any volume, this approach will also replenish your glycogen stores without dumping in sugar all at once with overspill into adipose tissue JB: As far as timing, I like to make more specific recommendations. I think the most valid recommendation would be to take a big helping of casein at the bedtime meal in order to slowly deliver those amino acids to the muscles and to prevent catabolism over that long, catabolic frenzy called sleep. Theoretically I'd like to recommend "stacking" the casein with whey protein at this

time due to the fact that you could get some pre-bedtime anabolism in addition to all this overnight anti-catabolism, but I'm not so certain it would pan out that way. As Lonnie pointed out earlier, the research on absorption and metabolism has only looked at individual protein types and not at combos. Who knows, perhaps you wouldn't get the best of both worlds, but the worst. It's kind of like the glycemic index thing. Individual food GI's can be determined, but once you throw them into a meal the GI of the individual food no longer matters. This could be the case with protein combinations. Again, though, I'm just spankin' the theoretical monkey here. So, for now, until further research sheds some light on this question, I'd suggest adding your whey supplement as a post-workout dose and your casein supplement as your pre-bedtime meal. CW: Why only use whey as your post-workout meal, John? So you're telling me you don't want to decrease catabolism after a workout, in addition to increasing amino acid concentrations? Whey, by itself is a big pain in the ass! Having to continually ingest 30 to 40 grams every couple of hours sucks. Like the previous study demonstrated, amino acid concentrations return to baseline too quickly with whey. The quick rise in amino acid concentrations also causes oxidation rates to increase so quickly that no overall increase in protein accretion is seen. So, why not have a slow releasing protein post-workout? It provides a steady amount of amino acids, providing a decrease in catabolism, and an increase in anabolism. You need to slow the digestion rate down with whey. A faster absorption rate isn't going to equate to more muscle. It's been demonstrated to be just the opposite. JB: Whoa, big fella. I don't wanna piss you off since you're about 7 inches taller and 40 pounds heavier than me, but I'm not sure I agree with you. In 1997, Biolo showed that an immediate rise in plasma amino acids after exercise was more anabolic than when ingested sometime later. This, to me, means that whey should be ingested immediately after the workout due to its really fast absorption rates. I know that in the study there was more protein oxidation with whey, but the protein wasn't given after a workout. As you know, the physiology is just different. Researchers think that after a workout catabolism can be prevented and anabolism induced with a hearty portion of quickly delivered amino acids. So, after the workout, I just don't think oxidation would increase with whey because the intramuscular demands for aminos are just too great. Remember that in the study, blood amino acid levels with whey were still greater than casein after two hours. So by taking a big dose of whey immediately after the workout, you're going to flood the body with aminos and this rise will stay up for about two hours, reaching levels higher than casein can. Then at the two hour mark, if you eat some other protein meal, you're set up for the day. I really think, though, that you need that infusion of aminos that whey can give right after the workout. The next question is, why not whey and casein together? Well, combining whey and casein might lead to a slowing of whey absorption. In this case you'd be missing out on some of the protein synthesis that you could get otherwise. Personally, I mix up a 50 gram whey shake and bring it to the gym with me. Immediately after my training I drink it down. Then, about 60 to 90 minutes later, I take in about 50 grams of casein (cottage cheese) with a bunch of carbs. Fair enough? CW: Sounds good to me. I guess I won't have to squash you after all. You could also throw in some whey with the cottage cheese. Since it's not directly post-workout time anymore, the slow absorption wouldn't really hinder anything. The whey by itself for post-workout does make more sense, when you put it in the terms of the anabolic response. JB: So you wanna hug? CW: Next topic please!

Cutting Through The Nonsense JB: At this point, I'd like to talk about some of the craziness that's out there concerning protein manipulation. Some writers have been recommending eating minimal protein for most meals and eating most of your protein (like 60% or more) in one big nitrogen rich feast. Bullshit! This is based on a study that showed elderly women (68 years old) had better overall protein gains with 80% of their protein consumed in one meal. When this one study was repeated in young women, there was no similar effect! And even if there was, as a researcher buddy of mine said, one study does not a fact make! Well, I'm not an elderly woman. I like eating protein and I'm gonna be chowing down on protein all day long, not just after training. I think the recommendations in Cy's protein article about eating more than usual after the workout are very reasonable, but I'm not sure if 50% of the day's intake is necessary. After the workout, the body wants aminos, no doubt, so give it what it wants. Personally, I like to have three really big protein meals a day of about 80 to 100 grams and three smaller protein meals of about 30 to 50 grams. This puts me at about 30% post-workout. Breakfast, post-workout (the whey shake plus the cottage cheese meal), and bedtime are the big protein feasts. I do this because sometimes big protein doses can force protein synthesis. So perhaps in the morning or before bed we can coax the body to start a little synthesis. In addition, after a workout, protein synthesis is up for about 24 hours, so I like to provide building blocks all day long. Oh yeah, as Lonnie mentioned earlier, each meal includes some low GI carbs as well as healthy fats. Now that I've vented, do you guys have any axes to grind with some of the protein theories out there? CW: As far as axes, the only thing that angers me in terms of protein intake is the misconception of kidney damage. Unfortunately, when talking about increases in protein intake, many people still respond with "Yeah, I know I should eat a lot of protein, but won't that cause kidney damage?" As Lonnie pointed out earlier, the only time when the kidneys have been damaged or even stressed to a significant degree was in patients experiencing renal failure or severe kidney damage. Now, it may be possible to stress the kidneys in normal humans, but the amount to cause such problems would be completely absurd. I really don't have any other beefs (no pun intended) to settle. However, there are a few things that should be noted in terms of a high-protein intake. Just to be safe, always make sure you're consuming enough water since a high-protein intake can potentially cause dehydration. Also, for older lifters and women, it's important to consume additional calcium if eating a high protein diet, as it could lead to a depletion of both blood and bone calcium. This can probably be prevented if you use a daily multivitamin or some type of MRP. JB: Before we close, I've got one final beef. I think that this sport, by nature, attracts extreme personalities. And at the recommendation of an expert, bodybuilding extremists are very eager to take things to the next level. In this case, something as simple as one expert saying casein is better than whey can cause such a row that these guys will be sprinkling their whey protein into the Pacific Ocean as if the protein was the cremated ashes of a dearly departed loved one. Chill guys! Don't forget the eggs, chicken, dairy, lean beef, and fish. These are real foods with all sorts of benefits that supersede the arguably marginal benefits of eating nothing by casein or whey. Bottom line: Mix it up! Remember, unless you're a big bag of laziness, in which case you won't last very long in this game anyway, you'll be eating five or more meals per day every two or three hours.

Over those five meals you need to divide your protein intake (not necessarily equally) and eat protein from a variety of sources, utilizing the special properties of whey and casein when appropriate. Let's close on that note. In the end, it's all about balance.