Starvation Mode. Real or myth?

It's a bit of a tricky question honestly.

Do you ever see these social media posts from fitness influencer types going "oh ho ho ho, starvation mode isn't real! Let's not be silly! Here's what's really going on..." and then they go on to explain and describe... uhh... pretty much what you thought starvation mode was to begin with, am I right?

Here's the thing. 

For a while starvation mode was a hypothesis for which there wasn't a lot of clinical evidence. Therefore many self professed "evidence based" fitness types rejected it outright, regardless of anyone else's personal experiences or observations. Because "that's just anecdotal".

Over the past few years though, we've started to understand a little more about Adaptive Thermogenesis, about the Constrained Model Of Energy Expenditure, and so on.

So... you'll see a few posts out there these days explaining "Starvation mode isn't a real thing that exists, but Adaptive Thermogenesis is", but from your perspective there's no fucking difference between one and the other. These people just don't want to own up to having put out shit content and shit advice for years. That's my take.

What IS Adaptive Thermogenesis, though?

First... humour me for a moment and imagine the following.

You haven't really exercised in a few years. You sign up for group fitness or you buy a home workout DVD or whatever. 15 minutes in... you're out of breath, heart pounding through your chest, sweaty, and feeling a little faint from low blood sugar.

Easy to imagine, right? Possibly something you've experienced.

You keep doing this workout 3x per week though and before long, you can make it through the whole thing and you actually enjoy it rather than feeling like you might puke, pass out, or die.

That's kinda what "getting fit" is.
At first, you're not terribly fit and it takes a LOT of oxygen and energy to get through a little of that workout.
But after a while... not so much.

As you get used it, you can perform the same amount of activity with less energy expenditure.

A reasonably acceptable hypothesis, right? The amount of energy expenditure required to perform a certain activity is not a fixed amount.

OK so let's continue.

One of the things that we now understand a little bit better about maintaining weight loss is... it's harder when you have a lower percentage of fat free mass than when you have a higher percentage of fat free mass. We also know that significant weight regain is more likely when energy intake has been low, compared to when "energy flux" is high. AKA high energy in, high energy expenditure. We also know that beyond a certain level, more activity does not equate to higher energy expenditure.

There are various mechanisms at play here but like we talked about and agreed upon above, energy expenditure is variable. So when you participate in exercise and activity while restricting to insufficient levels of intake, what you're training the body to do is to get better at performing that activity with that amount of energy to draw upon, and eventually to do it while drawing less and less from what is available.

But, you're training the body to cope with that level of exercise. Not so much to benefit from it.

Theoretically if you "eat less calories than you burn", you should lose weight. 

In practice that may happen to begin with, but rather than drawing more energy from fat stores to make up the shortfall, the body starts to conserve energy instead. Rather than a reduction in body weight, you have a reduction in Resting Metabolic Rate. You have a reduction in the Thermal Effect of Food (aka the energy cost of digesting and metabolising food) as you're not eating much of it, and the energy that you would otherwise be expending at training is simply absent and unavailable, so your workouts kinda suck, you don't make consistent improvements in performance like you otherwise might, your enthusiasm runs out out sooner, you start to cut your sessions shorter, and you're less likely to be energetic and active throughout the rest of the day as well. 

This Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis is likely to be the biggest loss of expenditure to compensate for starvation... and I'd simply describe it as... you know, the difference between kinda dragging your feet doing what you have to do throughout the day, or having a bit of an extra spring in your step as you move around, dancing around a little bit as you're doing the housework, maybe feeling more inclined to do a little extra outside in the garden as well... vs just being fucken knackered all the time lacking the will to get up off the couch. Don't get me wrong though, I love my couch too and couch time is also valuable.

While you're over exercising and underfueling, what you're also doing is NOT making energy and resources available to add to your muscle and bone mass, which as we discussed earlier is what sets you up for greater weight gain when you run out of enthusiasm and gravitate back towards more sedentary habits.

So... call it what you want.
"Adaptive Thermogenesis" is the more scientifically valid term but it's pretty much the same difference.
What it does NOT mean though is "if you're late for a meal you go into starvation mode and get fat" sort of thing as you might have read at some point in time somewhere else.

How "Calories In / Calories Out" works is... if your energy intake is in EXCESS of your requirements, you get fatter. If your energy intake is IN DEFICIT (aka you take in less than you burn) you'd expect to lose weight, but if you're too severely underfueled for too long, your body reduces expenditure to compensate. It's a seemingly paradoxical situation of "no longer being in deficit due to insufficient energy provision, and needing to increase energy intake to get back into deficit by giving the body relief from the need to compensate and conserve expenditure".

For results we want to be fueled at a BENEFICIAL level where the body has the luxury of taking up all that we put in, and putting it all to good use in improving performance, replenishing glycogen stores, adding muscle mass, and improving bone density. Obviously to also see fat loss this needs to be short of the point of excess... but we want to train the body to productively utilise MORE and more fuel via foods, so as we become more proficient at exercise, as we progress to more challenging choices of exercise, more demanding training routines, and from performing at beginner level to intermediate level training enthusiasts, that point of excess gets higher and higher.

Read More

How To Easily Remove Rust And Restore Old Gym Gear

So, who'd have known that starting a garage gym on a coastal property would mean rust problems?

If you're starting your own training space at home with some previously neglected gear, or you already have some stuff that is starting show signs of age with a little (or a lot of) surface rust creeping in... well, it's actually surprisingly easy to remove rust and restore old gym gear to it's former condition and give it a new lease on life.

My gym is mix of stuff that I bought new, stuff that I bought used but in good condition, stuff that I bought used and in rough condition further inland before I moved, and stuff that I bought used and in rough condition locally.

Predictably the stuff that I bought locally has been the hardest hit. Even the stuff I bought and scrubbed up before moving hasn't really needed a second treatment.  Take a look at these before and afters of my smith machine, leg press, and weight tree and then I'll tell you how I did it.

Not bad eh?

OK here's the process:

1. Pour some cleaning vinegar into a bowl or bucket.
   "Cleaning vinegar" is not distilled like the vinegar you might have on your chips, and it's more acidic. You might find regular vinegar still works but I wouldn't be especially confident.
2. Soak some paper towel in the vinegar, then wrap around the rust effected piece of gear.
3. Wrap that in plastic cling wrap. I just used plastic bags for a few things because I'm lazy and frugal.
4. Leave over night, for about 24 hours.
5. Pull everything off and most of the rust will be gone. Give any remaining rusty areas a good rub with the gross and soggy paper towels as you pull it off, and that will take care of most of it.
6. In more severe cases you might need to apply a little effort with some steel wool, a wire brush, or emery paper at this point.
7. Wipe it all dry with a clean rag.

What you'll find though is that a little bit of the rust will start to come back within a few days, especially if you don't remove any trace of vinegar.

Therefore, repeat the whole process with a citric acid solution. You can get citric acid from the baking aisle of your supermarket. Experiment with different strengths but I find about 5 teaspoons to a liter of water seems to do the job quite well.

Do that, and as you can see in the picture of my leg press, some long suffering old gear will shine like new again.

Caveats:

• Stuff with knurling that is particularly well used might take a few treatments to really get clean.
• Do NOT use the vinegar on anything with a powder coating, as it'll take that off along with the rust.

Read More

Just putting it out there; I want to coach a wrestler in strength and nutrition.

That's my dream at this point of my life.

I've done pretty much everything else I wanted to do already. I've been a professional coach for 10 years, which was my dream. I've played guitar on six or... wait is it seven albums now? There's a new one as of last week. I always wanted to semi-retire early to a little place with not too many people, ideally within sight of Wilson's Promontory National Park and put my own private strength gym together on site... and I did that just under two year ago as well.

As a coach I've ... well... I've coached fitness enthusiasts, martial artists, strength athletes, endurance athletes, personal trainers and fitness instructors, nutritionists, dietitians, doctors and other health professionals. Usually what I do is take people OFF restrictive diets that are making them miserable, and I get them on the right track with better training programs and fueling strategies for better results that they can maintain and continue to build upon for life.

But what I have yet to do is coach a pro wrestler.

Which now that I think of it... I used to see a lot of wrestlers at Doherty's Gym while I ran my PT business there. But of course... you know, people are there to train, not to have some PT try to ingratiate himself to them and sell a program, right?

First of all though for the uninitiated, let's clear something up before we continue; yes, it is indeed "all fake".

Here's the thing about that though.
You ever watch an action film with a big fight scene? Also fake.
Maybe a knife fight, or a gun fight. People literally dodging bullets, jumping through the air defying gravity and the laws of physics, CGI effects and what not? Also fake. Maybe you thought light sabers existed though, I don't know.

Actually I just googled "how long does it take to film a fight scene" and the answer seems to be anything from 5 hours to 10 days.

So... ok... rather than that, go out and do it live in one take. No CGI, green screen, or other digital effects, no post production editing, no "cut, go again". Do it live in front of an audience who will quickly devolve into real life versions of the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons if you botch a few spots. Or if their favourite doesn't win. Or if their favourite wins too often.

Look, if you can suspend your disbelief when a TV show puts a dozen women into a mansion or an island and tells them "the prize you are competing for is the love of this male over here" and all the women immediately decide "I love him so much I will be devastated if he chooses someone else"... or for for that matter when a politician speaks on the news or whatever... then you don't get to FUCKEN judge me for watching wrestling, alright?

That said... as a fan, for every time you're thinking "now THIS is a match I'd show to someone who wanted to know why I like this stuff" there's probably 2 or 3 times when you're thinking "thank GOD I don't have a guest here right now" as well. But you know... it's our thing even though it's a bit silly sometimes and even if (especially in my case) we're way too old for it and should have grown out of it a long time ago. It's ok if other people don't get it. I don't get those "two strangers get married for some reason" shows. God how atrocious. What a time to be alive.

Anyway though. WRESTLING.

Modern era wrestling has some of the best athletic performances in memory. There's been a return of more technical styles with legitimate holds and fluent chain wrestling, and more high flying acrobatic action particularly with the return of the cruiserweight divisions. Hands down the biggest change in recent years is the evolution of the women's wrestling. Which brings us to this article, as I mostly tend to coach women.

Here's the thing about coaching female athletes, in my experience.

They aint eating enough.
Non competitive fitness enthusiasts? They also aint eating enough.
Qualified professionals in fitness, nutrition, or other health vocations? They aint eating enough.
People trying to lose weight? Usually the amount they think they should be eating is also entirely insufficient which is why they tend to end up in a cycle of restriction and excess. Because you can't stick to what's insufficient, and it fucks up both your metabolism AND your relationship with food and eating.

Now... when I started out 10 years ago people didn't really get this stuff.
When I started out, it was "you can't out run a bad diet and if you don't eat clean you can't get results", and some time after that, it was "you just have to be in caloric deficit, and if you're not seeing fat loss you need fewer calories and more activity".

The first of those statements is entirely garbage. The second is kinda sorta on the right track but also garbage.

More recently a few more people are starting catch on and there's a little more of an awareness of the risks of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (aka RED-S). So that's nice. The medium to long term consequences of RED-S include amenorrhoea, osteoporosis and osteopenia, usually preceded by binge eating disorders and (not always but far too often) bulimia. They used to refer to this as "the female athlete triad". Honestly, it's starting to become prolific in males as well... especially since this nonsense "fasting" fad caught on over the past couple of years.

Something else that a client explained to me is the conflicting feelings and the sense of guilt over... you know... believing in body positivity and in celebrating size diversity, never wanting any other woman to suffer from poor body image or feel pressured to diet harder to a smaller size, lower weight, or leaner condition... but at the same time having that feeling of "for how much I train and for how little I eat I should be more shredded than this", right?

So... that's in general but let's talk wrestling. Or more specifically let's talk about what I would have in mind when coaching a pro wrestling superstar.

I always think of... I think it was the first season of Tough Enough. It was a long time ago and I've been hit in the head a lot since and also there was that thing with the carbon monoxide poisoning last year so sometimes my recollection of things is a little off... but I feel like it was the first season of Tough Enough, and they had all these legit athletes (aka not just body builders or swimwear models) trying out, and a few saying "my cardio is going to set me apart". Then they get told to run the ropes... and dudes start dropping like flies, puking, the works. All thoroughly mystified and demoralised like "I don't get it, i thought I was so fit from my sport".

So I watch some instagram stories of wrestlers who I follow in training... running the ropes, leapfrog, repeat, repeat, repeat. Fast paced, too. I dunno exactly how much time is spent like that but to my observation that is a cut above and more physically demanding than most forms of athletic training or your standard sort of HIIT drill. You need to account for this on top of the strength training when calculating an energy intake target.

Now... people come in different heights and different sizes. Some will be lean and in athletic shape in a more petite condition and a lower healthy body mass. Others will see leanest and healthiest athletic condition at a higher body mass relative to height. For some being especially lean is not the priority anyway. Either way is fine but we must account for this when calculating an intake target. The more naturally petite athlete probably does not need to (although she may desire to) "bulk" to a higher body mass. More importantly the taller athlete with a natural proclivity towards more muscle density should not be trying to diet down to a low body mass even if that body mass might not be unhealthy for someone else. We need to have this in mind when calculating an energy intake target.

We talked about the "caloric deficit" above.

This theory is mostly true. It doesn't really matter what foods you prefer, so long as your daily energy intake is not excessive, and protein is adequate.

However, and with that said... you do require an adequate total energy intake, and an insufficient one isn't going to cut it. And when you take 4 or 6 serious strength training sessions per week in the gym with some level of proficiency and prowess at the big lifts, and you add wrestling training on top of that, and assuming a taller and more muscular young woman... the potential for "not being in deficit" is fairly unlikely. For a shorter woman with a more petite build... I mean it's not inconceivable but if you take level of activity into account you will still have some quite reasonable numbers to work to.

What the average jabroni trying to pass themselves of as some kind of "macros coach" usually doesn't get is the Constrained Model Of Energy Expenditure. Which means... if you're highly active with some proficiency at productive strength training and attempting to restrict to 1400 calories per day to "stay in deficit"... the reason you might cease to see leaner condition is absolutely not because "1400 is your maintenance and you need to slash further to get back into deficit", but because the body adapts to somehow cope with the workload without expending the energy that it would under normal circumsances. Also refered to as Adaptive Thermogenesis. But when you put more energy in, you're then able to expend more energy. It does not mean "1400 is maintenance and 1600 would be bulking", right?

How most of these chumps out there seem to calculate calorie targets is to choose a too low BMI to begin with, not account for activity at all much less a high AMOUNT or high QUALITY of activity at a high LEVEL of athletic prowess, and then slash 500 calories from that and tell you "you're lying" when the shit doesn't work and ruins your life, am I right?

When fueled more adequately, you're able to expend more energy at training, which means you set new personal bests on your big lifts more regularly. When fueled more adequately, you also expend more energy throughout the day just moving about with a bit more of a spring in your step and in a better mood. When you're more adequately fueled, you're able to recover from and adapt to training with the creation of more lean mass rather than it all coming at the expense of your bone density. Also when you approach this strategically, you build a healthy appetite for higher and more optimal levels of energy provision rather than feeling like you are force feeding yourself... that's the other crucial aspect that I honestly don't think anyone else gets.

The best thing for all people is to get into a productive form of training for enjoyment and with their long term physical and mental health in mind. It is a tragedy that for so many people, what should be one of the best things that adds so much quality and a positive direction to your life becomes the very opposite, because of that "dieting" mentality that we're conditioned towards. In highly active people and especially in athletes with a more advanced level of physical prowess, best physical athletic condition will come with a healthy appetite, a healthy relationship with food and with eating, and while working closer to a more adventurous estimate of the highest energy intake you can benefit from, rather than the most conservative estimate of the lowest energy intake you can struggle to get by on.

Anyway this kind of turned into the same as every other entry I ever wrote on this blog about how over restriction is bad and no one else is as good at macros as I am. But geez how good would it be to work with a pro wrestler towards some really suitably optimal intake targets, see her get happy and strong, do some fun social media stuff, decorate my private gym with some memorabilia, and live vicariously a little from my off grid doomsday compound here at the edge of the Earth?

Read More