Mainstream news needs to stop publicising crap like "bulletproof coffee"

Shoutouts to Mike Howard for
this more honest version of
the book cover.

And by "crap" what I mean is "blatant, pro-eating disorder scams based on nonsense".

So... yesterday one of the mainstream news websites posted an article on "bulletproof coffee", and in the ensuing facebook discussion I had a woman explain to me how she uses it as part of an "intermittent fasting" plan for weightloss, and it's great because it means she can last until 2pm without eating. Also it "keeps you in fat burning mode while you are fasting".

No.

There are so many problems with this.

#1 is the idea she's picked up somewhere (and has decided to spread to others) that not eating until 2pm is an in some way admirable or beneficial habit to develop. It isn't. You've got shit to do and your body requires fuel to do it with.

#2 since you're actually getting approx 400 - 600 calories out of that ridiculous butter & mct oil infused concoction you've been duped into believing is good for you... you're not actually fasting anyway. You're getting a similar amount of total energy. You're just not getting from a "meal" in the conventional sense.

#3 intermittent fasting has been shown to not be inherently beneficial anyway, other than that it may offer some individuals a strategic advantage in setting a schedule that allows them to meet but not exceed their energy requirements.
As we discussed in a post last week, what is strategically advantageous for one person might not be so convenient for another.

So... since the best case scenario for ANY diet or other "system" is that it works as a method to achieve suitable total intake without overeating... why wouldn't you just do that by scheduling regular meals and snacks of foods you enjoy, to an amount that meets but does not exceed your total energy requirements? What seems so outlandish and unlikely about that?

Whenever these sort of approaches are discussed, the common element in the conversation is the suggestion that it is a good way to manage avoiding a meal for a longer portion of the day. Or that it is a healthier option than conventional, officially recommended dietary habits involving... you know... actual meals of actual foods. This is very problematic.

We live in an information age, and the age of social media at that. Information that is actually correct, that has been scientifically tested and verified as correct to the best of our collective understanding, is often drowned out or lost in the mix of unqualified opinion, urban myth, or just blatant lies and misinformation. We unfortunately have not yet reached a stage where the public as a community recognise their responsibility to not further the spread of bad information that is not only scientifically false, but that may be to the detriment of anyone who acts upon it.

The sort of people I described above aren't to blame, even though they are spreading bad information to the effect of "to lose weight, avoid eating meals" which is highly problematic.  They aren't to blame, and if anything they are the victims. The blame lies primarily with the blatant scam artists like Dave Asprey and Vani Hari, and disingenuous charlatans like Pete Evans and Christine Cronau who make a living writing these books and going on speaking tours promoting a disordered view on food, health and nutrition through fear mongering, peer pressure and pseudo-science.

However just as bad are the mainstream news agencies; the TV, print and internet media who run stories on these frauds that actually loan them the appearance of credibility, rather than exposing them as the snake oil merchants that they are.

Read More

Are you really lacking in discipline, or just enthusiasm?

Here's a little fitsporation for you. I made it as narcissistic and obnoxious as possible.

"Discipline", right? Ooh I'm so disciplined. I turn up every day to do something I really enjoy, in order to achieve something that I'm going to be happy about. If only everyone else was as disciplined as me!

What a load of shit.

Discipline is turning up on time to a job that you don't really like and resisting the urge to murder any of the annoying ass motherfuckers who show up apparently just to make things as difficult as possible for you. THAT takes strength of character.

Doing something you want to do anyway, because you enjoy it and are getting something out if it and giving yourself an interest in life? I don't see how it takes discipline. And I don't see how that's helpful to the people who are still trying to develop their passion for training, either.

ENTHUSIASM would be a much better quality to encourage and associate with training. Not to take anything away from highly disciplined, elite level athletes who do deserve our admiration. It does take discipline to dial in such a tight nutrition plan and grueling training schedule, and to adhere to both with such consistency. That level of discipline however, is borne out of enthusiasm and self belief, and those are the two far more empowering ideas that are more appropriate for the rest of us to be concerned with.

Perhaps not to "elite" levels, but you will certainly see GREAT results from enthusiastic participation in an effective training program, with a flexible and moderate approach to nutrition. It does not take so much discipline, as it takes enthusiasm, motivation and momentum. With an effective training program, you will see results and build momentum, and will not lose enthusiasm.

The people who have not been successful in pursuit of their fitness and body condition goals in the past? I doubt they are lacking in discipline. Perhaps they have run out of enthusiasm, or lack some belief or optimism in their own potential. In my observation, this is usually through little fault of their own, and more due to simply never having been given a training strategy that would actually be effective and appropriate to their individual circumstances.

The idea that people need to "just be more disciplined" is egotistical and self serving when you are judging them as "undisciplined" for not doing what requires no discipline at all of yourself, as it is something you are enthusiastic about and which suits you as an individual. I see this attitude a lot from certain types of trainers and coaches pushing a "one size fits all" set of restrictions on food choices, for example.

For the people out there looking to get started: what you need is an effective training system,that is designed for results, for people who actually want to get stuck into it.
For the people already putting in the effort but without satisfactory results: you probably just need a more strategic approach, and more optimal (probably increased) energy intake.

My Flexible Fueling Program is all about being enthusiastic about training effectively without restrictive low calorie dieting. You can get more information right here, or click that link for VIP Access next season.

Read More

The Strategic Advantage Of Flexible Dieting

How a human body will respond to effective training and appropriate nutrition is pretty easy to predict, most of the time.

You wanna know what’s tricky though?

Brains. Brains are tricky. Our minds are what make us truly unique individuals, all seeing the world a little differently to each other. All with a unique perspective, unique experiences that have shaped us, different tastes and preferences, and different sets of circumstances. We will excel under a certain set of conditions, and struggle with another. The next person along may prefer the opposite conditions entirely.

There is no “right or wrong” and no “better or worse” in any of this.

In training for a goal of changing your body condition, you require an effective training program first and foremost. To enable performance and a positive adaptation to training, you require appropriate total energy and macronutrient intake. In other words, “enough, but not too much” food.

Everything else is merely a means to achieving that end of training regularly and effectively, and habitually consuming a suitable amount of energy and nutritional resources that encourages your body to preserve lean mass at the expense of adipose. Muscle and bone at the expense of body fat.

Now… there are a bunch of ways a lot of people think you are supposed to do this. Especially when people get into the business and set up shop as a PT, there’s a certain mold we tend to think we need to fit into. The same goes for people who are influenced by guilt or shame driven marketing approaches, we’re given a certain standard we’re expected to measure up to, and that’s what it takes to earn results and make a physical transformation as per your goal.

So… think for a moment of all the habits and behaviours you might associate with a person who has successfully gotten into (or perhaps just always been in) great athletic shape. Some you might consider extreme and obsessive, and be thinking to yourself “hey I do want to get into shape, but I don’t want to turn into one of those people”. Others you might consider admirable qualities that you feel you should aspire to being more like yourself, because that’s what it takes to achieve your goal, right?

Well, not necessarily.

As we discussed; to achieve your goal body condition requires two things. An effective training program, and appropriate total intake. All other factors are only important in that they may offer a strategic advantage in maintaining enthusiasm and consistent adherence to your training program and intake targets.

We’re all different. We’re all wired a little differently in the brain, and what might be advantageous in maintaining enthusiasm to one person might be a pain in the arse to another. What might be the most convenient time to train or to eat for one person, might be entirely undoable for someone else. The foods that I like to eat and find easy to fit into a plan to meet my requirements might be entirely unappealing to you, not to mention that my requirements are likely to be very different to yours in the first place.

The Strategic Advantage Of Flexible Dieting


I’m a Flexible Dieting coach and advocate as you know. Obviously, I believe that actually knowing what your total energy & macronutrient requirements are likely to be is enormously advantageous. Knowing what those targets are, you can plan to meet them with the choice of foods that best suits you, without fearing that any particular choice is going to spoil your chances of progress due to some inherent “badness” it supposedly has.

There is more to Flexible Dieting, however, than just flexibility in your choices of foods. The flexible nature also extends to the timing of meals as well. Research has shown that the frequency and number of meals consumed is of no significant importance so long as total intake is appropriate and training is effective. All of the “6 small meals a day to keep your metabolism running” and “no carbs in the evening” type of myths are just that, myths. While they may offer some people a strategic advantage in maintaining an appropriate total intake, there is no scientific credibility to any claim that any particular meal schedule is “the best” much less “only” way of doing things.

What is important is that total intake is appropriate, and you can set the meal schedule that offers you the best strategic advantage as an individual, taking your own circumstances and preferences into account.

Leave the “supposed to” and “moral judgement” type stuff out of it.

What is necessary is effective training and appropriate total intake. What is advantageous is a strategy that is conducive to consistent enthusiasm and adherence.

If that means training first thing in the morning, then that’s great. But training in the evening or the middle of the day is just as good. If it means a bowl of cereal and a cup of tea for breakfast, or a veggie omelet and a glass of fruit juice, those are both fine choices and there are probably a hundred more you could also consider. If you prefer 3 meals a day, do that. If you prefer 6 meals a day, that’s perfect too. If it means meticulous meal planning and preparation, that’s awesome. But if you prefer to wing it a little and still stay on track, that’s fantastic as well.

There is no sense in knowing what will suit you best, but choosing something else on the grounds that it’s what we’re “supposed to” do. Other people may insist or try to persuade you that there’s one “right” or “morally superior” choice than another… but that is just down to their own ego. Make no mistake, they are doing what best suits their personality… it doesn’t mean anyone is less deserving, or less likely to succeed for preferring a different approach.

So what does it really take to make a physical transformation?

Effective training. Appropriate total intake, with a suitable balance of macronutrients, enough fiber, and plenty of fruit and veg. Everything else however best suits you. That’s all.

You can register for VIP Access and a bunch of information about my Flexible Fueling Program right here, or via my brand new website by following this link.

Read More

1200 Calories. Zero Results

No.

Alright let's cut to it.

Last week I promised I'd write an article for all the people who are dieting on 1200 calories a day, minus however many they burn off doing "cardio" exercise... but STILL aren't seeing any progress.

Why not? What gives? And why was "cardio" in quotation marks like that?

Well, I will tell you.

First of all, if you're on 1200 calories a day and only eating healthy foods, but still not seeing results... your lack of progress isn't because of the odd isolated day when you inevitably end up going over your 1200 calorie limit, and it isn't because of that one day last week when you ate something not on the "clean eating" list you got from some fkn idiot's facebook or pinterest page. Some clueless fkn idiot barely capable of a thought who has woke up one morning and decided "hey I'm a health and wellness and nutrition expert now all of a sudden". No. No you fucking well are not.

There's cardio, and then there's “cardio”.

It might be helpful to draw a distinction between different ideas about cardio (or more correctly “cardiovascular exercise”) before we continue. Let's break it down roughly into three categories.

1. Training with a specific aim of increasing cardiovascular health and fitness. I'll throw lung capacity in as well for good measure. These are good and sensible things.
2. Training to improve fitness and performance to compete or participate in a particular event. For example to run a half marathon.
3. What most people seem to be doing.

We'll come back to this in due course.

Actually, trying to work out exactly how to tackle this topic is tricky because there's just SO MUCH WRONG with a 1200 calorie recommendation that is is difficult to know where to start. To begin with, it is just a blanket, one size fits all recommendation that doesn't take individual characteristics into account. I had in mind that I would compare to the average recommended intake, which is about 2000 calories for an adult. That's problematic as again, it is an average amount which might not be suitable to you currently reading this entry. Taller people require more than shorter people, males typically more than females, and so on. So depending on your physical characteristics, 2000 might be too much for you, or it might not be enough.

1200 though? 1200 is not enough for anyone. Ever.

I did some work on a new plan for a new client this morning. The client is a younger female adult of average height and already within a historically normal weight range, who is looking for better results from more strategic training. Using the established mathematical equations I determine that her Basal Metabolic Rate is 1400 calories per day.

Basal Metabolic Rate is the amount of energy you will burn through in a day, just in the process of being alive. Without taking any level of activity into account. Without so much as rolling over in bed all day, that's the amount of energy required just to maintain body temperature, run your organs, grow your fingernails and so forth. Yours is quite likely to be higher than the 1400 I'm taking about here, which in case you didn't notice, is already higher than 1200 calories as well.

Now let's back up. Those first two categories I broke “cardio” down into... you're either training for the health benefits, or to participate in sport or an event, or both. For some reason, you've been lead to believe that you should be able to do this and expect excellent results, on LESS fuel than a person who's not training for a specific goal would require just to go about their day? Forget that though, because on 1200 calories we're literally talking about expecting results from training while limiting to less energy intake than would be required to not even get out of bed all day.

How on Earth can this appear to make any sense?

Now... we're talking about people limiting to 1200 calories a day, doing “cardio” in inverted commas and being frustrated with a lack of results for all of their deprivation, discipline and physical effort. Above we talked about people training for a specific result or to be able to participate in a particular event, but I also pointed out that this isn't “what most people seem to be doing”.

What most people are doing when they talk about “cardio” isn't really cardio at all, in the true sense of having the goal of improving cardiovascular health and fitness. Usually these days, people are encouraged to participate in activity simply with the aim of “burning calories”.

This is problematic. We're not training to change our body composition, to reap the benefits of physical exercise, or to participate in sport. It is merely “to burn calories”, because we've been conditioned to associate “calories” with “getting fat”. We've been conditioned to associate “eating food” with “getting fat”, and so we are encouraged to “burn off” whatever energy we do take in, to make up for having eaten. “Burn off the guilt” is an even more problematic marketing angle I see a lot of, too.

It is horrendous.

Inactivity and consistently excessive intake will make you fat. This does not mean that getting fat is something we need to be afraid of at all times, and need to avoid with strict discipline in adhering to low calorie, low carb, or other restrictive forms of dieting. It will not, and simply can not happen to an active person who is not in the habit of consistent and dramatic over consumption.

For best results, you need both a balanced training program and a balanced diet. The training program should be suited to your goal, whether that is a body condition goal or a sports participation goal. Best performance and results from training and at sport simply cannot occur via deprivation of energy and other nutritional resources on low calorie diets.

There is zero potential for getting fat while training effectively and fuelling appropriately for performance and results. It is simply physiologically impossible.

Ignore the fear mongers and the shame peddlers. You require energy to survive and to thrive. Even a less active person would require a certain amount of energy. As an active person training strategically towards your specific goal, you require MORE, not less.

Register for VIP Access To My Flexible Fueling Program, and say goodbye to restrictive low calorie dieting and hello to tremendous results from training.

Read More

If your flour comes from a windmill is it still an unhealthy processed food?

How cool are windmills though?

Apparently the history of windmills goes all the way back to sometime around AD 650 or so. They use 'em to mill grain, if you didn't know. Grind grain up between massive stones to make flour, which you could then make bread out of.

I've been noticing so much vilification of "processed grains" and their presence in the healthy eating guidelines. Since apparently being "processed" means all the nutritional value is removed.

Before modern times, we had been processing grains in windmills and waterwheels for hundreds of years, and grinding them by hand for thousands before that. In fact, there is a strong argument to be made that it was the development of grain agriculture that enabled civilisation as we know it. For that matter... if you've ever played the computer game "Civilisation" you'll know that building a granary was one of the first crucial achievements you needed to make, for the survival of your people.

Of course... something being in a computer game doesn't make it a fact, by any stretch of the imagination. Let's see what wikipedia says on the subject though:

Because grains are small, hard and dry, they can be stored, measured, and transported more readily than can other kinds of food crops such as fresh fruits, roots and tubers. The development of grain agriculture allowed excess food to be produced and stored easily which could have led to the creation of the first permanent settlements and the division of society into classes.

That's good enough for me.

Suddenly though, grains and processed grains in particular are supposed to be horrendously unhealthy for us. The claims that "historically" our ancestors would not have had a carbohydrate rich diet that included grains have long been debunked... depending on your ancestry of course. People do like to remind me of the Inuit people, for example.

So, I can only deduce that it must be something to do with modern, electric powered machinery in the process of turning grain into flour that must make it unhealthy. Since it was fine when the processing was wind or river powered.

It doesn't really make any sense though, does it? hmm.

Read More