The Winning Formula: How to Manipulate Diet and Exercise to Look Great Naked

by John Berardi

from http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/training/winning_1.htm
First published at www.t-mag.com, Apr 12 2002.

Introduction - Fat Is Beautiful?

While you T-men and T-vixens may find this difficult to believe, once upon a time, fat was not abhorred the way it is today. In fact, to be plump (not obese, of course) was viewed as a status symbol. Carrying around a bit of excess body fat distinguished the nobility from the peasantry and therefore became a sign of attractiveness, of beauty. But let's be honest. Back then, stripped down to the most basic of levels, being fat meant that you could afford to eat!

To illustrate this, here are a couple of interesting ideas that came about just before the turn of the century:

• In the 1880's photographers were instructed that models "with hollowed cheeks or visible collar-bones" should not be photographed because the camera would accentuate these "defects."
• In addition, in 1882, Americans discouraged exercise, as they believed that it "would burn excessive amounts of fat."

But in the late 1800's and early 1900's when industrialization took over and food became easily available, even the lower and middle classes could afford to become plump. Well, this certainly aggravated the upper class, as they no longer could be distinguished by their rounded physiques. In an effort to differentiate themselves from the lower and middle classes, they decided to adopt a new ideal, and slim was now in.

The irony of it all is that as a result of this new ideal, healthy food was in demand, and much the same as it is today, eating well became expensive. So what happens is that the lower and middle classes can hardly afford to be thin, while in the 1800's they could hardly afford to be fat.

So with this new standard in beauty and refinement set, the weight-loss industry began and people began to worry about losing weight (at first) and (more recently) about losing fat.

So with that said, the objective of this two part article (which served as the transcript from the second of two, 2-hour lectures I recently gave at Ian King's excellent "Bigger, Stronger, Leaner!" seminar in Toronto) is to:

1. Give you a brief interesting history of the weight loss industry.
2. Present a review of the effectiveness of different weight/fat loss strategies.
3. Present a model for designing healthy and effective weight/fat loss strategies.

The Weight Loss Industry - A Checkered Past

As is the case with any dramatic shift in public opinion, new problems arise which require new solutions. About the turn of the century the new problem was how to lose weight. And the weight loss industry exploded in offering solutions. However, in the absence of detailed scientific data on the nature of energy balance, food composition, and the cellular mechanisms of energy exchange, the best the industry could do was search for agents that promoted weight loss, regardless of how they worked. Here are a few frightening examples of this mentality in action.

When I say the words, "heroin chic," you think of the waif supermodels that believe heroin is the best diet drug available. Well, back in the dawn of the diet age, they had their own version of heroin chic that we'll affectionately call "consumption chic." You see, at the time, several popular European poets and writers (Keates, Shelley, Chekov, Bronte) had tuberculosis, which made them sickly and thin. People therefore associated this look with refinement and intelligence. As a result, the wealthy, taking the lead of other celebrities of the day, began starving themselves to appear sickly and refined. And the very low calorie diet (VLCD) was born.

When I was growing up, a popular statement in my house was "John, I can't afford you eating like this; whadda' ya' have, a hollow leg or a tapeworm or something?" Now I didn't know what a tapeworm was (a worm made out of masking tape?), but I associated it with being able to eat a lot of food while staying thin, so the tapeworm was okay with me. But going back to the turn of the century, a popular question of the day might have been "Where can I get some chocolate covered tapeworms?" Yep, tapeworms (parasites that live in the intestinal tract) were actually used as a way to lose weight!

During this same time period, even Kellogg of cereal fame entered the diet market by offering their "Safe Fat Reducer." This product was loaded with thyroid hormone. And not the kind that comes nicely sterile as synthesized by a pharmaceutical laboratory. No, they added the pulverized thyroid glands of dead animals to their product.

Other common ingredients that were used in the tonics introduced during the infancy of the diet industry were laxatives (cause diarrhea), purgatives (cause vomiting), strychnine (cause nervousness, restlessness, tremors), and arsenic (cause death - Do you weigh less when you're dead?).

Getting even further away from the scientific method, some "diet experts" had a theory that men and women should not use lotions or cosmetics. In their opinion, these agents were absorbed into the skin, transported to fat cells, and stored as body fat. This was not good news for Oil Of Olay.

A final interesting diet drug note concerns our old friend DNP. For those of you who don't know, DNP (dinitrophenol) gained popularity in the 1990's as a particularly effective fat-loss drug among bodybuilders. But DNP was nothing new; in fact, it was the very first drug ever prescribed for weight loss. By 1935, over 100,000 Americans had taken DNP to lose weight. So where can you get some? Not so fast. The problem is, DNP was actually found to be an effective agent for promoting weight loss in munitions plants during WWI. What happened was that fat munitions workers who had been exposed to DNP (which is used commercially in explosives, as an herbicide, and an insecticide) were losing huge amount of weight. What they didn't know at the time though, was that the physiological actions of DNP cause the body to uncouple oxidative phosphorlylation from ATP production. In essence, normally, people metabolize food to produce energy (ATP). Well, DNP causes the body to metabolize food but instead of producing energy (ATP), heat is generated; so much heat that the organs can actually cook in the body. So, if you don't mind liquefied organs, DNP will help melt away body fat, literally. And this was a popular diet treatment!

The Weight Loss Industry - The Focus on Food

Although low carb diets (i.e. ketogenic diets and the Atkins Diet) have been in vogue for the last few years, let me shed a little light on where the concept of the low carb diet came from. Interestingly, the first low carb diet was promoted several years before we even had strong evidence that carbohydrates, fats, and proteins were present in our foodstuffs.

As legend has it, William Banting, a very overweight casket maker (of all things), was worried that his casket would be too expensive to fit his large, gelatinous physique. So he theorized that eating less starch (potatoes, bread, pasta) would help him lose weight. And right he was as he dropped down a few "casket sizes." He became slim and svelte and in 1878 he published his "Letter on Corpulence," extolling the virtues of the no bread, no potatoes, and no pasta diet. So the first low-carb diet came from a casket maker.

Just a few years later, information began trickling out of the scientific community regarding the composition of food. In the 1890's Wilber Atwater is credited for observing the different macronutrient components of food. In the early 1900's, Russell Chittenden went a step further to determine the calorie content of food. With these data, the concept of energy balance and the practice of calorie counting was born.

Half a century later, in the 1950's, the research world began to publish extensively on different diet strategies including ketogenic diets, high protein diets, very low calorie diets, and protein sparing modified fasts; this last one known to T-mag readers as "Fat Fast." As a result of these dietary strategies, rather than promoting long-term weight loss, the concept of yo-yo dieting began.

So, T-men and vixens, take note. While writers are often "introducing new diet plans," there is very little that is "new." As mentioned, the "Fat Fast" diet was popular in the 1950's (although Brock's version has a few modifications that make it a bit better), ketogenic diets were used at the same time with limited success, and even the Atkins diet was first introduced in 1966. So don't fall victim to the notion that these diets are really revolutionary ways to lose fat. As you're about to see, they failed miserably back then, and even now, they aren't the best way to change your physique.

Weight Loss Research

The problem with the dangerous early approaches to weight loss as well as the later diet approaches (including ketogenic diets, very low calorie diets, fat fast type diets, etc) is that they all worked to one degree or another but the effects of these treatments lasted only as long as the treatments were followed. In addition, since the focus was on weight loss (not fat loss), the composition of the loss (lean vs. fat) was usually ignored. Once the drugs were removed or normal dieting resumed, subjects actually gained more fat than they had lost!

Then comes research to the rescue. When more accurate methods of body composition testing were developed, body composition was used to determine the proportions of the loss. These new techniques demonstrated that most of the aforementioned low calorie diets decreased metabolic rate, chronically depleted muscle glycogen (and therefore performance), and decreased lean body mass (muscle).

Here are some of the more important research breakthroughs of the last couple of decades:

• Studies by Elliot et al (1989) showed that a modified fast resulted in a 22% reduction in RMR and this persisted even 8 weeks after returning to a mixed, maintenance diet. This means that the metabolism can be chronically depressed after dieting, even when returning to a reasonable energy intake.
  
• Coxon et al (1989) showed that diets resulting in a weight loss of 4.18 lbs per week lead to losses of 1.75 lbs of lean mass per week. Very bad!
  
• Bogardus et al (1981) showed that a carbohydrate restricted diet (35%P, 1%C, 64%F - 850kcal) chronically decreased muscle glycogen by 50% and as a result, decreases exercise performance by 50% as compared to a carb containing isoenergetic diet (35%P, 36%C, 29%F - 850 kcal). No decreases were seen in the moderate carbohydrate group.
  
• Dulloo et al (1990) showed that in calorie deprived (50% below maintenance) rats, weight regain was rapid and nearly all weight regained was fat. The muscle mass that was lost was not replenished with refeeding.

Therefore, in each of these studies, the prescribed diets lead to a smaller metabolic furnace and the dieters couldn't help but gain the fat back. As a result, researchers were looking for alternative ways of manipulating the energy balance equation (energy in - energy out). Enter aerobic exercise intervention.

In prescribing aerobic exercise, researchers believed that exercise would promote fat loss alone, enhance fat loss with dieting, and/or prevent metabolic decline with dieting. And they were correct. Nicklas et al (1997) and Dengel et al (1994) showed that when dietary treatment (300kcal below maintenance) was compared to dietary treatment plus aerobic exercise, the diet plus aerobic exercise group was more fit, retained more lean mass (but they still lost some), and lost more fat. In addition, in diet only groups, fat breakdown and oxidation tend to decline, but when adding aerobic exercise, fat breakdown and oxidation are not decreased.

Although aerobic exercise was effective for assisting in fat-loss programs, some lean mass is still lost. With the muscle building and preserving properties of weight training starting to be realized, finally, researchers began to speculate that another form of exercise might be beneficial in addition to aerobic exercise. Enter resistance exercise intervention:

• Ballor et al (1988) studied 4 groups of subjects. The first group was a control; the second group ate below maintenance; the third group performed resistance training only; and the fourth group dieted and lifted. While the diet and the diet plus exercise groups lost the same amount of weight, the diet plus exercise group actually gained lean mass while the diet group lost lean mass. In addition, the exercise only group lost no weight but did increase lean mass substantially.
  
• In a direct comparison of aerobic and resistance training, Kraemer et al (1999) showed that diet plus resistance exercise was better than diet alone or diet plus aerobic exercise in preserving lean body mass and muscle power during weight loss. All three groups lost a similar amount of weight but while the diet group lost 6 lbs of lean mass and the aerobic group lost 4 lbs of lean mass, the resistance group didn't lose any lean mass. This means that the resistance group also lost the most fat mass.

At this point in time, it's well recognized that a fat reduction strategy should include diet, aerobic, and resistance exercise strategies. Below, I've provided a list of what you might expect to happen with each treatment:

• Aerobic exercise alone leads to a 3 lb weight loss in 12 weeks and a 6.6-lb weight loss in 30 weeks. This is accompanied by no losses in LBM (*at maintenance caloric intake).
  
• Resistance exercise alone leads to no weight loss but a 2.2 lb (women) to 4.4 lb (men) gain in LBM in 8-12 weeks (*at maintenance caloric intake).
  
• Diet alone leads to a 6.4 lb LBM loss for every 22 lbs weight lost.
  
• Diet plus aerobic exercise leads to a 3.74 lb LBM loss for every 22 lbs weight lost.
  
• Diet plus resistance exercise leads to losses in fat mass and a preservation of LBM.

  Conclusion - Research Summary

  Based on what I've presented so far, here is a summary of what's happening with the different weight loss strategies.

  1) Diet alone works for weight loss but it leads to unacceptable losses in metabolic rate and LBM.
  2) Aerobic exercise alone can lead to comparable fat loss with diet conditions (assuming the same energy deficit). However it's difficult to burn the required amount of calories for sufficient weight loss with aerobic exercise. In addition, if adequate exercise is performed for a reasonable fat loss, some lean body mass may also be lost.
  3) Resistance exercise alone cannot match diet-induced weight loss.
  4) Simultaneous exercise and diet interventions do not necessarily lead to greater weight loss than diet alone, but energy metabolism is improved and lean-body mass is preserved.
  5) A combination of diet, a small amount aerobic exercise, and moderate amount of resistance exercise should yield the greatest weight loss while preserving LBM.

  Looking back through this article, it appears that we've come a long way in our quest to lose fat. However, while researchers are doing quite a bit to promote healthy weight loss, let's not lose sight of where the diet industry is today. Are our current diet drugs completely safe and effective? That's debatable. How about our commercial weight loss clinics? Certainly not!

  You know, although we can laugh at the ridiculousness of the diet industry of 100 years ago, these stories, in my opinion, serve as a warning for us. I often wonder what the articles in the year 2100 will say about us.

Part 2

from http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/training/winning_2.htm
First published at www.t-mag.com, Apr 19 2002.

in Part 1, I presented a brief history of the weight-loss industry as well as some of the scientific research that's contributed to our knowledge of how to optimally reduce body fat while preserving lean mass. In that article I made it clear that dieting alone is a terrible way to go about losing weight. Ideally, in order to lose weight, one would incorporate resistance exercise, anaerobic exercise, and aerobic exercise, in addition to a mild hypocaloric diet.

Now, as a T-mag reader, this information shouldn't come as a surprise to you and may simply serve as a review. However, in this article, I'd like to present an interesting model for how to optimize your exercise and nutritional intake for fat loss. This model has been particularly effective in many of my athletes as well as my clients interested in a fat loss program that enhances muscle definition.

Exercise Errors

While different trainees have their individual struggles with trying to lose body fat, there seems to be a real pattern as to why most trainees fail at getting in the best shape of their lives. They are simply focusing on the wrong variables in the equation. Let me explain what I mean.

Typically when a client comes to me and can't figure out why they can't lose fat, they assume that their diet is the problem. Most of these people believe that their training is top notch and that if they just got their diet in order, they would look great. Well contrary to what you might expect, the first thing I examine is their training program, not their diet.

Now, I know you're thinking that since I'm the "nutrition guy," I should be looking at the diet first. That's a mistake. As demonstrated time and time again throughout the literature, dropping caloric intake too low has some very unfavorable implications for tissue turnover, metabolism, body composition, and performance. Therefore, the last thing I want to do with a client is drop their calories. So I look to their exercise program. And what I find is that most often, small changes in their exercise routine are enough to get them losing fat again; this without any significant reductions in energy intake.

So what's wrong with most of their programs? Well, I typically find one of two errors. First, they're simply not exercising enough. Now I know that recovery is the buzzword in the weight training industry, but I want you T-men to understand a very important truth. You see, in today's mechanized society, we're all sedentary. That's right, all of us, myself included.

The reality is that the most active of us simply superimpose a dose of exercise over our inactive lifestyles. And just like a dose of your favorite pharmaceutical substance, there's a dose response relationship (i.e. as the dose increases, the response increases). In the case of exercise, as exercise duration increases, fitness increases and fatness decreases.

Now, just like your favorite pharmaceutical, it's important to realize that once you increase the dose over a specific threshold, you get toxicity. So although I think that many trainees can improve their physiques with a bit more time in the gym, it's very important to determine how to maximize the dose-response relationship without getting into the "toxic" range.

The other error is that many trainees put in their time but simply fail to achieve the intensity necessary for the training response. As Ian King says, "a common error that some people make is that they mistake training for the training response." In other words, they believe that because they are putting in their time, they are going to get positive, muscular adaptations and body-composition changes. That's like saying that showing up for a test and putting your pencil to the paper will guarantee an "A." These individuals need to learn how to realize the training response.

In recognizing these two problems, I've developed a training model that should maximize the dose response relationship while allowing the trainee to benefit from the training response. This model is discussed below.

Exercise Model

In this exercise model I expect trainees to devote 7.5 hours per week to their training. The training time will break down as follows:

Strength Training (5 hours - 67%)

The strength-training component of this program has three specific goals:

1. Maintain muscle mass while eating a slightly hypocaloric diet.
2. Maintain muscle strength while eating a slightly hypocaloric diet.
3. Burn a sufficient amount of calories during the workout.

To achieve these goals the trainee must first focus on maintaining heavy loads. Therefore the weight that the client can handle must not decrease as the weight-loss stage progresses. Now we all know that some strength is lost when dropping body weight. However, the weight handled must still remain high despite this.

So how can you maintain the weight lifted when losing muscle strength? Well that's easy. My suggestion is for clients to increase the volume of work by increasing the number of sets as the reps decrease. Therefore if a client can bench press 225 for 3 sets of 6 reps and strength begins to diminish, that client must stay with 225 but may have to do 6 sets of 3 repetitions - whatever it takes to maintain the load.

The second focus of the strength component should be to utilize adequate but not excessive rest between sets. Basically, you rest as long as it takes to recover from your previous set and maintain the load. I've found that 2-3 minutes is typically adequate.

The third focus of the strength component should be to limit muscle-protein degradation caused by the exercise. Since the client will be on a slightly hypocaloric diet, recovery from intense exercise will certainly be impaired. Therefore highly damaging exercise bouts will lead to muscle wasting. In order to prevent excessive damage, the eccentric portion of the lift should be minimized. One simple way to do this is to speed up your negatives. This will prevent excess muscle damage, damage that the hypocaloric diet cannot compensate for.

The final focus of the strength component should be on performing energy costly, metabolic exercises. Therefore, multiple-joint exercises using many muscle groups (bench press, squats, dead lifts, cleans, and bent over rows) must be the focus of this strength-training phase.

Anaerobic Interval Training (1.5 hours - 20%)

The anaerobic (interval) phase of this exercise program is in place for the following reasons:

1. Anaerobic intervals lead to a large caloric expenditure during the exercise but also a large EPOC (post exercise metabolic rate).
2. Anaerobic intervals lead to increased aerobic, anaerobic, and ATP-PC enzyme activity. These enzymes are responsible for regulating the energy pathways of the muscle. By up-regulating these enzymes, you'll burn more fat and carbohydrates.
3. Anaerobic intervals can lead to increased muscle size in the working muscles.
4. Anaerobic intervals lead to an increased SR (sarcoplasmic reticulum). The SR is responsible for the calcium balance and contractile regulation of the muscle.
5. Anaerobic intervals can lead to an increased % of FT (fast twitch) fibers (IIA) and a loss of the ST (slow twitch) fibers (I). The fast twitch fibers are better suited to strength and power as well as growth.
6. Although this last one probably doesn't matter very much (since most post-exercise hormonal responses are much too short lived to offer any significant benefit), anaerobic intervals do lead to increased concentrations of Testosterone (38%) and GH (2000%) in the blood shortly after exercise.

In order to most effectively train the anaerobic system, intensity is the key to your progress. If you go too intensely, you won't be able to complete the workout. If your intensity isn't high enough, you'll not get the appropriate training adaptations. One way to determine the appropriate training intensity is to do an incremental exercise test to failure. On a treadmill, this means running at a constant rate of 7 miles per hour. After each minute of exercise, you'll increase the grade of the treadmill by 1% until you simply cannot stay on the treadmill. The incline at which you fail represents your max work rate. For most people, this is somewhere between 9% and 15%, giving them a max work rate of 7 miles per hour at a 9-15% grade. Once you have determined your max, I want you to do your intervals at this intensity using 1:3 ratio of exercise to rest.

Typically I recommend 30 seconds of all out exercise followed by 90 seconds of passive (low intensity exercise). If you use running as your mode of exercise, I suggest running at your max for 30 seconds and then at 50% of your max for 90 seconds. If running isn't your bag, rowing and cycling are also good modes of exercise for your anaerobic training (however it's more difficult to determine your max on these modes of exercise). Your total duration for your anaerobic workouts should be 30 minutes, meaning that you'll complete 15 sprints during this time. Ouch!

Aerobic Training (1 hour - 13%)

And finally, the aerobic phase of this program is in place for the following reasons:

1. Aerobic exercise is the most energy costly exercise.
2. Aerobic exercise can increase maximal oxygen consumption during any given work intensity (and therefore fat metabolism during any sub maximal work intensity)
3. Aerobic exercise can increase the aerobic/oxidative enzymes by 40-50%. This leads to better fat burning at rest and during exercise.
4. Aerobic exercise can lead to an increase in capillary density by 50%. This means more blood flow to the working muscles.
5. Aerobic exercise can lead to an increased reliance on fat metabolism while sparing glycogen.

Fortunately, the aerobic exercise prescription is much easier to follow than the anaerobic prescription. Using your heart rate as an indirect marker of oxygen consumption and intensity, I suggest that clients exercise at 84% of their heart rate max (calculated as 220-age) for 30 minutes. Again, rowing, cycling, and running are great modes of exercise here.

Putting It All Together

With the rationale for each training component in place, I'd like to show you what an example training week would look like.

Monday

Upper Body Workout (1.25 hour)-14 to 16 total sets (focus on pulling movements)
Anaerobic Training (30min)

Tuesday

Lower Body Workout (1.25 hour) - 14 to 16 total sets (focus on quad dominant)
Aerobic Training (30min)

Wednesday - Off

Thursday

Upper Body Workout (1.25 hour) - 14 to 16 total sets (focus on pushing movements)
Anaerobic Training (30min)

Friday

Lower Body Workout (1.25 hour)-14 to 16 total sets (focus on hip dominant) Aerobic Training (30 min)

Saturday

Anaerobic Training (30 min)

Sunday - Off

NOTE: Aerobic and anaerobic workouts are optimally done separately from the weight workouts. However, they can be done immediately after weight training if you're particularly masochistic. The most important thing here is that you do them, not necessarily when you do them.

Nutrition Errors

After correcting any exercise problems, the next step in evaluating a client's fat loss strategy is to examine their nutritional intake. But again, even in this respect, the client comes to me with faulty thinking. They believe that if I could just tell them exactly how many calories to eat, they'll start dropping pounds quickly. However, I again do the opposite of what they expect I'll do. Instead of counting calories, I evaluate their food choices. Again, there seems to be a common theme in those who fail to get in great shape. They focus on the wrong variables and make these three common mistakes:

1. They count calories but eat poor-quality food.
2. They misunderstand what makes up good-quality food.
3. They fail to realize that lean individuals live lean year-round; they don't just try to get lean once in a while (by bulking up and dieting down).

Awhile ago, a guy came to me after getting fat while "following" my Don't Diet plan. While he got the calorie counting part down, he was choosing atrocious foods to eat while "on the program." And this led to fat gain instead of loss! Now, although there are some of you stubborn-heads out there who still believe that a calorie is a calorie and therefore the food choices have little to do with weight loss as long as you're eating a hypocaloric diet, that's not the case!

Now, don't make the mistake of thinking that calories aren't important. I'm simply suggesting that you can eat more while still losing weight if you choose the right foods.

Anyhow, by eating more, you'll be sparing your metabolic rate, your lean mass, and your athletic performance.

Nutrition Model

With the errors of nutrition addressed, here's how you should go about determining your caloric intake.

[RMR (Resting metabolic rate) X Activity Factor] + Thermic Effect of Food= Maintenance Calorie Intake {[22 x (LBM in kg) + 500] X Activity Factor} + (TEF)

Where RMR = 22 x (LBM in kg) + 500

And Activity Factors =
1.2-1.3 for Very Light (bed rest)
1.5-1.6 for Light (office work/watching TV)
1.6-1.7 for Moderate (some activity during day)
1.9-2.1 for Heavy (labor type work)

TEF (thermic effect of food)= 10-15% X RMR

Once you get your maintenance intake, you'll multiply it by 0.85 to get your fat loss intake (additional instructions below).

Here's an example of the calculations for a 180 lb (82kg) male at 13% body fat. To determine the lean mass figure in kg, we take 82kg and multiplying that by 0.87 (0.87 is for the lean mass component; the fat mass component would be 0.13), we end up with 71kg of lean mass. The activity factor for this individual will be 1.55 (light work).

*"Maintenance" Intake =
{[22 x (LBM in kg) + 500] X 1.55} + (10-15% X RMR)
(22 x 71) + 500 = [2062]
[2062] x 1.55 = [3196]
[3196] + (0.15 x 2062) = 3505

*Fat Loss Intake =
Maintenance x 85% = 3505 x 0.85 = 2979

*Since these calculations haven't factored in the cost of the exercise you're doing, many of my clients find that eating at the "maintenance intake" every day still produces fat loss when exercising as prescribed above. Therefore my suggestion is to start at the "maintenance intake" and eat at this level each day. Then, if fat loss is too slow, drop calories down to the fat loss intake level and increase calories as needed to stabilize. For those eating at the fat loss intake, increase calories to the maintenance intake level. For those eating at the maintenance intake level, increase calories by approximately 500.

The next important variable is the macronutrient breakdown of the eating plan. With the recommended exercise program, the diet should contain a good proportion of carbohydrate energy to sustain the intense anaerobic exercise (40% - 50%). Therefore, with this eating plan you should be getting the approximate breakdown seen below (+/- 5% for each variable).

Protein 29% (217g)
Carbohydrate 47% (350g)
Fat 24% (80g fat)

And finally, let's get down to the variable I've been stressing in several of my articles: food selection. Here's a list of the very best foods. These foods should make up about 80% of your daily diet and you should be eating many of these foods each day, not simply picking one or two selections to eat all the time.

Protein Foods:

• Fish (salmon, tuna, cod)
  
• Eggs
  
• Chicken breast
  
• Cottage cheese
  
• Milk protein isolates
  
• Whey protein isolates
  
• Lean red meat

Carbohydrate Foods

• Vegetables
• Mixed beans
  
• Low glycemic index fruits
  
• Oatmeal/oat bran
  
• Mixed grain bread
  
• Small amounts of protein-enriched pasta

Fat Foods

• Flax oil
  
• EPA/DHA
  
• Olive oil
  
• Mixed nuts (no peanuts)

For active individuals, an additional 20% of your daily calories should come from the following sources (in order to enhance your recovery from intense exercise). Note: The liquid meal should come during and after a workout while the second high carb meal should come about 1-2 hours later.

During workout and immediately post workout meal:

Protein: whey isolates
Carbohydrate: High GI liquid glucose (dextrose) / maltodextrin

NOTE: These ingredients, in exact proportions, along with a specific blend of branched chain amino acids, are contained in Biotest's Surge.

1-2 hours post workout meal:

Protein: plain yogurt or cottage cheese
Carbohydrate: High GI solid fiber cereal

In addition, here is the other list that I give to my clients. These are foods to avoid at all costs:

Protein foods to avoid:

• Fatty meats
  
• Fatty dairy foods
  
• Most lunch meat
  
• Whole milk
  
• A lot of soy

Carbohydrate foods to avoid:

• Regular bread
  
• Sugar added foods
  
• Most cereals
  
• Soda
  
• Fruit juice
  
• Bagels
  
• Fruit bars
  
• Candy

Fat foods to avoid:

• Margarine
  
• Vegetable oil
  
• Corn oil
  
• Heated or fried oils in general

Some great rules I've found for making food selections are as follows:

• Eat predominantly food (don't subsist entirely on shakes).
  
• Avoid meals high in both carbohydrate and fat.
  
• Always eat protein with each low GI carbohydrate or good fat meal.
  
• Eat fiber with each meal (especially with your shake meals).
  
• Drink water with each meal (at least 500ml).
  
• Avoid real soda, fruit juice, and any beverages containing calories.

And finally, what you're really looking for, here is an example of a diet that meets the above criterion. It's about 2800kcal (25%P, 45%C, 30%F) and is made up of the best food choices.

*6 egg whites
1/2 cup mixed beans
1 thin slice real cheese
1 cup Veggies
2 oz mixed nuts
1g EPA/DHA

6 egg whites
1/2 cup beans
1 thin slice real cheese
1 cup Veggies
1 tbsp. flax oil
1g EPA/DHA

1 can salmon
1 tbsp. Olive oil
1 cup Veggies
1/2 cup beans
2 oz mixed nuts
1g EPA/DHA

Workout Drinks:
(During)
1 L water
0.5 servings of Surge

(Post)
1 L water
0.5 servings of Surge

1st meal post workout:
Mixed berries
1/2 container cottage cheese
0.5 scoop Grow!
1 cup cereal

2nd meal post workout:
1/2 cup oat bran
1 scoop Grow!
Veggies
1 piece fruit

*You'll notice that some of these meals seem to "break" the massive-eating food combination rules (particularly the meals with beans). That's okay. Remember, the massive eating combinations were laid out to help you understand that high carb meals containing a high fat content should be avoided. In this plan, although some meals have modest amounts of carbohydrate and fat, they certainly aren't excessive. In addition, some of the very high fiber, low glycemic foods (like beans) are sort of an exception to the massive eating rule as they barely raise blood sugar (and blood insulin) anyway.

*In addition, if you do decide to split up your weight training and aerobic/anaerobic training, you do not need to have 2 servings of Biotest Surge per day. Keep it simple and eat the same basic diet each day, taking your dose of exercise when you can.

According to my calculations, I believe this article is now complete. Now that you have the eating and exercise plan for success, go out and get lean!

About the Author

John M Berardi is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human performance and nutrition. His company, Science Link, provides unique and highly effective training, nutrition, and supplementation programs for high level athletes as well as recreational exercisers. John is a prolific author and a sought after speaker and consultant. Visit www.johnberardi.com for more information about John and his team. Also, check out his new DVD entitled No Nonsense Nutrition:

Tags: abs dieting exercise fat-loss low-carb metabolism nutrition weight-loss