Exercise and health sciences are a problematic breed. Physics is right up the top of the food chain in terms of solid, reliable science, and yet what's believed to be true in physics today could be proven false tomorrow. Exercise and health sciences are way down the other end of the spectrum, due to the nature of the field. The fact that this field deals with humans and all our variables makes it much harder to pinpoint specific, solid scientific theories. Often times, the information we want to know in this field is limited to correlations and trends, instead of exact cause and effect principles. It's important that we understand this as we approach information on fitness and nutrition to keep ourselves level-headed.
In light of that, what should we make of the so-called "rules" and the so-called "myths" in the fitness and nutrition industry?
I feel that it's important for us to recognise that there's more than one way to get from where we are to where we're going. In his video Nick Horton (weightlifting coach) addresses the way we tend to think about exercise and diet programs, vs how we should actually think about it. We tend to think of the issue as trying to get from point A to point B in the most efficient way possible, on the assumption that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. However, what we should be thinking is that point A is the north pole, point B is the south pole, and we're traveling along a sphere, allowing there to be an infinite number of shortest distances from point A to point B. Each shortest distance probably works around similar rules or principles, but may have vastly different tools at play to act on those rules.
An example of this is meal frequency. Many trainers treat it as a rule that you have to eat a certain amount of food every certain amount of hours. 30g protein per meal and 6 meals a day scaled to your calorie needs seems to be a common "rule." But is it really a rule, or is it a tool? Well, a whole lot of correlations and trends indicate that this methodology is a tool, not a rule, and the same results can be achieved with completely different meal timings.
So, what exactly are the rules for exercise nutrition?
The first rule is to refer back to the opening paragraph, and acknowledge that what I treat as facts in this writing today may be proven false tomorrow. But based on current evidence, the following things need to be adhered to:
1. Calories. Calories are a measurement of energy, and when energy is condensed it becomes mass. This is why calorie consumption (and, more directly, calorie uptake) is so important in influencing our body weight. If we uptake fewer calories than we use, then we'll dig into our own body mass to convert it into energy for survival. If we uptake more calories than we use, then the extra calories will be converted into body mass (primarily in the form of muscle and fat, not necessarily in that order).
2. Marco-nutrients. The requirements here are less clear, but for an active person, meeting every kilogram of bodyweight with 2g protein and 1g fat per day seems to have good results with regards to body composition (whether weight gained/lost is in the form of muscle or fat) and hormone profiles. Some say there is extra benefit to consuming more than this much protein and fat each day, others say that even this much is more than enough, still others regard these numbers as optimal. I've noticed that those who call these numbers too low tend to be trying to sell a certain diet, book or supplement, those who call these bumbers too high tend to be trying to sell a vegan diet, and those who say these numbers are about right tend to be trying to get you fitter and stronger, so I'd say (for now) that these numbers are probably a safe bet.
As for carbohydrates, whatever calories you don't get from protein and fat will be coming from carbs. If we assume that the above numbers are accurate and relevant, then carbs become the easiest macro-nutrient to play around with within your calorie needs. At this level, high carb, moderate carb, low carb and no carb diets become tools, not rules.
3. Micro-nutrients. These are mostly your vitamins and minerals. I'm not going to recite the RDI's for these, but you should be consuming a healthy dose of them daily.
4. Poison. Avoid eating it. Consumption generally doesn't end well.
So long as these 4 points are covered, adherence to your diet will usually work. Your diet should adhere to your calorie needs, your macro-nutrient needs, your micro-nutrient needs, and your need to not get poisoned. Whether that means going paleo, following the Zone diet, Atkins, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, eating 10 meals a day, eating only once or twice a day....these are all tools. If the tools result in your following the rules, it's all good. If not, it isn't. So my recommendation then becomes to figure out what tools allow you to stick to the rules in order to achieve your goals. If eating lots of small meals allows you to lose weight and physically feel good at the same time, you have my permission to eat lots of small meals. If doing so makes you feel like a zombie, try a different method. If intermittent fasting results in you physically feeling good and achieve your goals, do it. If not, move on.
In light of that, what should we make of the so-called "rules" and the so-called "myths" in the fitness and nutrition industry?
I feel that it's important for us to recognise that there's more than one way to get from where we are to where we're going. In his video Nick Horton (weightlifting coach) addresses the way we tend to think about exercise and diet programs, vs how we should actually think about it. We tend to think of the issue as trying to get from point A to point B in the most efficient way possible, on the assumption that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. However, what we should be thinking is that point A is the north pole, point B is the south pole, and we're traveling along a sphere, allowing there to be an infinite number of shortest distances from point A to point B. Each shortest distance probably works around similar rules or principles, but may have vastly different tools at play to act on those rules.
An example of this is meal frequency. Many trainers treat it as a rule that you have to eat a certain amount of food every certain amount of hours. 30g protein per meal and 6 meals a day scaled to your calorie needs seems to be a common "rule." But is it really a rule, or is it a tool? Well, a whole lot of correlations and trends indicate that this methodology is a tool, not a rule, and the same results can be achieved with completely different meal timings.
So, what exactly are the rules for exercise nutrition?
The first rule is to refer back to the opening paragraph, and acknowledge that what I treat as facts in this writing today may be proven false tomorrow. But based on current evidence, the following things need to be adhered to:
1. Calories. Calories are a measurement of energy, and when energy is condensed it becomes mass. This is why calorie consumption (and, more directly, calorie uptake) is so important in influencing our body weight. If we uptake fewer calories than we use, then we'll dig into our own body mass to convert it into energy for survival. If we uptake more calories than we use, then the extra calories will be converted into body mass (primarily in the form of muscle and fat, not necessarily in that order).
2. Marco-nutrients. The requirements here are less clear, but for an active person, meeting every kilogram of bodyweight with 2g protein and 1g fat per day seems to have good results with regards to body composition (whether weight gained/lost is in the form of muscle or fat) and hormone profiles. Some say there is extra benefit to consuming more than this much protein and fat each day, others say that even this much is more than enough, still others regard these numbers as optimal. I've noticed that those who call these numbers too low tend to be trying to sell a certain diet, book or supplement, those who call these bumbers too high tend to be trying to sell a vegan diet, and those who say these numbers are about right tend to be trying to get you fitter and stronger, so I'd say (for now) that these numbers are probably a safe bet.
As for carbohydrates, whatever calories you don't get from protein and fat will be coming from carbs. If we assume that the above numbers are accurate and relevant, then carbs become the easiest macro-nutrient to play around with within your calorie needs. At this level, high carb, moderate carb, low carb and no carb diets become tools, not rules.
3. Micro-nutrients. These are mostly your vitamins and minerals. I'm not going to recite the RDI's for these, but you should be consuming a healthy dose of them daily.
4. Poison. Avoid eating it. Consumption generally doesn't end well.
So long as these 4 points are covered, adherence to your diet will usually work. Your diet should adhere to your calorie needs, your macro-nutrient needs, your micro-nutrient needs, and your need to not get poisoned. Whether that means going paleo, following the Zone diet, Atkins, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, eating 10 meals a day, eating only once or twice a day....these are all tools. If the tools result in your following the rules, it's all good. If not, it isn't. So my recommendation then becomes to figure out what tools allow you to stick to the rules in order to achieve your goals. If eating lots of small meals allows you to lose weight and physically feel good at the same time, you have my permission to eat lots of small meals. If doing so makes you feel like a zombie, try a different method. If intermittent fasting results in you physically feeling good and achieve your goals, do it. If not, move on.