TURBULENCE TRAINING BEGINNER LEVEL WORKOUT B

TTFL BEGINNER WORKOUT B from Turbulence Training on Vimeo.

Warm-up Circuit
Go through 2 times with no rest between exercises. Rest 30 seconds between circuits.
Prisoner Squat – 10 repetitions
Push Up or Kneeling Push Up – 8 repetitions
Stability Ball Leg Curl – 8 repetitions

Rest 30 seconds, then move on to Warm-up Superset.

Warm-up Superset

Go through this one time with no rest between exercises.
1A) DB Chest Press – 8 repetitions using 75% of the weight you will use in your “real” sets.
No rest.
1B) DB Step Ups – 8 repetitions using 75% of the weight you will use in your “real” sets.

Rest 1 minute, then move on to Superset #1.

Superset #1
1A) DB Chest Press – 10 repetitions
No rest.
1B) DB Step Ups – 10 repetitions per side
Rest 1 minute, then repeat 1 more time for a total of 2 supersets.

Rest 1 minute, then move on to Superset #2.

Superset #2
2A) Elevated Push Up or Kneeling Elevated Push Up - 6 repetitions per side
No rest.
2B) 1-Leg Hip Extension – 10 repetitions per side
Rest 1 minute, then repeat 1 more time for a total of 2 supersets.

Rest 1 minute, then move on to Superset #3.

Superset #3
3A) Plank - 30 second hold
No rest.
3B) Bird Dog - 6 repetitions per side
Rest 1 minute, then repeat 1 more time for a total of 2 supersets.

IF YOU'RE SMART, YOU'LL SKIP THE CARDIO AND LIFT WEIGHTS

CARBS ARE NOT YOUR BODY'S PREFERRED FUEL SOURCE...

...despite what you have been told.

We’ve all heard it time and time again – of the three macronutrients (protein, carbohydrates and fats) , our bodies prefer to burn carbs for energy. You can find that fact in medical textbooks, nutrition articles and just about anywhere else that you look. It’s pretty much accepted by everyone without any controversy.

The only problem is that it isn’t true.

So, if it’s not true, how has this idea managed to gain soooooo much traction? I mean you hear more about carbs being the body’s preferred fuel source than you do about Brangelina adopting little African children. What gives? The reason that this idea has gained momentum is because of some observations that have been made about the way the body handles each macronutrient when the body has all three of them. The observation is this: When all three macronutrients are available, the first thing to get metabolized are carbohydrates. From that, people made a pretty big leap in logic. They assumed that since the body burned the carbs first, it must prefer the carbs over the other macronutrients. But that would be like saying that a parent changes their child’s dirty diaper before dressing them because they prefer changing dirty diapers. When in truth, they change the dirty diaper first because it’s full of… well, you know.

Ok, I know what you’re thinking… How can I be so brazen as to buck the medical establishment like this. The whole army can’t be out of step and all of that, right? Well let’s see if I can get you to walk on the dark-side with me. Picture me, if you would, standing here mixing a martini with the cool calm of James Bond (shaken, not stirred) while I prepare my argument. And while you’re envisioning this, I want you to imagine a somewhat smug look on my face – the look of a man who knows he will win the argument even before it begins. How can I be so sure? Simple, I have a silver bullet.

What’s the silver bullet? Alcohol.

Alcohol has sometimes been called the fourth “macronutrient” as it is metabolized completely differently than carbs, proteins or fats. Alcohol provides 7 calories per gram versus 4 calories per gram for both protein and carbohydrate and 9 for fat. If you give the body all four substances at once (Alcohol, carbs, protein and fat) it will preferentially burn off the alcohol first, then the carbs, then the fat and protein. Does this mean that the body “prefers” alcohol? While I’m sure that all you party animals are thinking “Yes! Yes!”, as Cirrhosis of the liver and alcohol related fatalities will attest, alcohol is toxic. (Now picture me setting the martini down like it’s radioactive – and my liver cheering.)

Since we can all agree that alcohol is toxic, we can safely assume that the body doesn’t burn it first because it prefers it. Rather, it burns it first because your body knows that it has to handle the most toxic substance first. Now, armed with that information, re-ask the question of whether the body burns carbs before proteins and fat because it’s preferred or because it’s toxic. If you’re unsure, to further help you decide, chew on this – alcohol is often called a “super carb”. Also consider that you NEED protein and fat to survive. But you do NOT need carbs to survive. (Is that a smoking gun I see?)

So, if you don’t need carbs to survive, and in their “super” form they are toxic (even in small amounts), it becomes pretty difficult to believe that the body prefers them. (Now picture me taking the donut out of your hand like it’s radioactive.)

Still need more convincing? Just think about how OBSESSIVELY the body controls the amount of sugar it allows in the bloodstream. The average person has about 1,000 teaspoons of blood in their bodies. And in all that blood, the body will only allow A SINGLE teaspoon of sugar to be dispersed throughout. A mere one tenth of one percent. In fact, if you overload your body with carbs for long enough and end up diabetic, the only difference between you and a non-diabetic person is an additional ¼ of a teaspoon of sugar dispersed in your blood. (read my blog article You’re only 1/4 of a teaspoon of sugar away from being Diabetic. Seriously.) Any more than that and you are in serious trouble. Compare that to the huge amounts of protein and fat in your blood and you begin to see that as far as the body is concerned, not only are carbs NOT the body’s preferred fuel source as is so often stated, but instead potential poisons that have to be carefully handled.

To read the full article and comments, click here.

5 FITNESS HABITS YOU SHOULD STEAL FROM HIM - FITBIE

The secret to losing weight like a man: Work out like one. Pick up these gym lessons from the guys and watch the pounds melt away.

By Emily G. W. Chau

Lose Weight Like a Guy

When a guy decides to get back in shape, it takes just a few gym sessions before he sprouts muscles Hulk-style beneath his t-shirt. At least that’s what it feels like to us as we women sweat through daily spin classes without seeing a shred of difference.

The solution: Man up, and take your workout to the next level. Mother Nature may have given men the advantage when it comes to muscle-building and weight loss-promoting testosterone levels, but don’t chalk it all up to biology. Guys hit the gym harder and more frequently than women, says Jennifer Widerstrom, NASM-C.P.T., who trains celebrities at Pulse Fitness Studios in Los Angeles. Plus, they’re typically better at setting aside time and making physical fitness a priority.

To tip the scales in your favor, try adopting these five fitness habits of the opposite sex as your own. These “guy behaviors” will help rev up your metabolism, burn more calories, and get rid of those love handles for good.
 .
1.  Your Exercise Obsession

He: Beefs up only what he can see from waist up.
You: Are a leg curl away from fitting into your skinny jeans.

While guys load their workouts with exercises that’ll make their pecs pop, women tend to focus solely on ones that’ll get them a tight butt and toned legs, says Widerstrom. Men may overdo it in their single-minded quests for chiseled chests and rock-hard abs, but it pays to take a piece of this obsession. Focusing more attention to your abs will help you build a stronger core; mimicking his desire for big biceps will help get rid of arm flab. Plus, working your upper body will give you a sense of balance and proportion. Exercises that target your shoulders, back, and chest will help you stand taller and make your waist appear slimmer, so you’ll look more trim from head to toe.

2.  Your Cardio M.O.

He: Makes a mad dash and sprints mid-run.
You: Take it slow and steady for an hour.

Before you break out the celeb glossy and cycle on autopilot for an hour, consider adding intervals to your cardio session. “Guys include sprinting cardio in their program more often than women do,” observes Todd Durkin, owner of Fitness Quest 10 in San Diego and author of The IMPACT! Body Plan. “And women are missing out on all of the metabolism-boosting benefits.” Interval training—alternating between short bursts of intense activity and slower recovery periods—is one of the most efficient forms of exercise. Research shows that including as little as 10 minutes of interval training each time you work out helps increase your endurance and burns more calories than jogging at a more moderate clip. The takeaway: You’ll be out of the gym faster and see better results.

3.  Your Exercise Mindset

He: Will try to break his personal record if it’s the last thing he does.
You: Consider it a win if you’re on time to Pilates class.

Take a page from the boys’ book and put on your game face while you work out. “Men are better at tuning into the athlete within them, and they’re more likely to try new exercises,” says Widerstrom. “Women, on the other hand, often don’t give themselves credit for what they are capable of doing, and could really benefit from tapping into their competitive spirit.” Try tackling new a challenge by signing up for a boot camp class or a kettlebell workout. Instead of measuring your fitness success by the amount of time that you spend breaking a sweat, establish clear and measurable goals, such as improving your mile time or completing five chin-ups. Exercising with a partner or in a group can also motivate you to keep up with the Joneses in the gym.

4.  Your First Stop at the Gym

He: Hits the weight room to pump iron.
You: Pedal on the elliptical like there’s no tomorrow.

Look around any fitness center and you’ll see the weight and cardio rooms are as divided as a junior high dance. However, if you want to sculpt a tight and toned body, you’re going to have to venture off the treadmill. “One of the best exercise habits women could learn from men has got to be to lift heavy,” says Durkin. Women simply don’t have enough testosterone in their bodies to pack on large amounts of muscle that quickly, so picking up a barbell will help you get buff, not bulky. What’s more, lifting weights also helps fight against osteoporosis.

If you’re already enrolled in a resistance-training program, challenge yourself to increase your load. “If you can do 30 repetitions with a 15-pound weight, you’re probably wasting your time,” says Durkin. “You want to use a weight where you can do 8 to 15 repetitions, and really be challenged by the last 3 to 5 reps.” 

5.  Your Weekend Schedule

He: Brushes off the mounting laundry list of chores to get in a run.
You: Are never sitting on your bum, let alone have time to tone it.

Channel the male one-track mind when it comes to fitting in physical fitness. “Women, especially moms, have the tendency to put other things and people ahead of going to the gym, whereas men are far better at putting time aside for exercise and sticking to it,” says Widerstrom. However, your caretaking instincts can wind up inflicting major self-sabotage. It’s trite but true: You can’t take care of others if you don’t look after yourself first, so carve out a little “me-time” to boost energy and de-stress with regular physical activity. Treat exercise as you would any other commitment—pencil it into your planner and inform your family in advance that you have an appointment you can’t get out of. If that doesn’t work, get an exercise buddy or hire a trainer for a few sessions. Sometimes the knowledge that someone is depending on you is enough to prevent you from backing out.

Click here to read the full article.

CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT - CAN'T I JUST EAT TWIZZLERS?

I can't eat another calorie.  In fact, I have never eaten any calories.  None of us have.  A calorie is something that is measured in a laboratory, not in the human body.  The way a food burns in a dish and how quickly it raises the temperature of water has nothing to do with the reaction my body has when a portion of any food hits my tummy.

If it did, then it would not matter whether that so-called "calorie" came from a pat of butter, a bite of juicy steak or a spoonful of sugar.  And it most certainly does matter where those "calories" come from.

But I'm stuck - how do I measure the food I eat, and how do I know how much of each macronutrient to eat to achieve a healthy body fat percentage?  I know instinctively that it matters how much food I eat.  We all know that.  I am a petite woman (at least from top to bottom), and I can't eat as much as a football player eats and expect that it will have no consequence on my body fat and the storage of same.

But if it's not about "calories", what is it about?  I suspect that it's about grams of macronutients - fat, protein and carbohydrate.  I know that the body uses these things differently, and they affect fat storage and metabolism differently.  So how do I begin to calculate how much of those different things to insert into my complex system each day, if such a thing is even possible? 

It's a simple thing to look at an online calorie calculator and see how many of these things called "calories" I am supposed to eat each day to maintain my weight.  Right now, supposedly, that is 1,620 calories.  If I eat that amount, I will logically and scientifically (if I am obeying the First Law of Thermodynamics) stay at my present weight, and I would assume, my present body fat.  And if I gain weight on that 1,620 calories, you can bet that I will not be included in the statistics of the next big study that "proves", once and for all, that the "overconsumption" of calories is not merely a correlation when it comes to weight gain, but the direct cause.

First of all, that does not even begin to be true for me - for my body, my metabolism, my hormones or lack of them.  I have maintained my weight on 1,100 calories per day, and I have maintained my weight on 2,000 calories per day.  I have also lost and gained on those varying amounts and every amount in between.  And all with the same amount of exercise, which, until recently, has been none.

But just for argument's sake, let's say it is true that I need 1,620 calories per day to maintain my weight, and if I stick to that logical, scientific number, my weight will stay constant.

So how do I eat those calories, and does it even matter?  What if I decide to eat a half of a pound of butter today and nothing else?  That will get me pretty darn close to 1,620 calories with 99.5% of them coming straight from fat (the other 0.5% comes from protein).  Will that maintain my weight?

What if I'm in the mood for 100% Egg Protein?  Okay, that's unlikely, but it could happen.  Thirty-two tablespoons of that gritty, nasty powder will fill my "caloric needs" for the day, with 100% of it coming from protein.  How would my body like that?  How would my body use that?  Most importantly, would I maintain my weight eating nothing but that?

Actually, the thing that would make me the happiest right now is Twizzlers.  One pound of Twizzlers, to be exact.  That will get me my 1,620 calories and 87% of them would come from carbohydrate.  Even Twizzlers contain a little fat (9%) and a little protein (4%), which I'm sure got in there accidentally.  And who amongst us has not eaten a pound of Twizzlers in one sitting?  Surely, I am not the only one!


According to the theory of Calories In Calories Out, I would maintain my weight eating one pound of Twizzlers every day.  I might drop dead of diabetes or heart disease, but my body fat would not change and my weight would stay at 142 pounds.  Exactly.  It's science, right?

I used to believe in Calories In Calories Out.  And evidently, most regular people and nutritionists and personal trainers you might talk to still do.  I mean, after all, 3,500 calories equals a pound, and if you want to lose a pound a week, all you have to do is cut out 500 calories per day for a week, and you will lose a pound.  Even if all you eat is Twizzlers.

I'm going to continue measuring the amount of food that goes into my mouth by using the word "calorie", because it's the only word I know.  But as I do it, I am also keeping track of how many of those "calories" are fat, how many are protein and how many are carbohydrate, because it matters.  I tried once, on this blog, to stop using the word "calories", but I gave up and gave in.  You can't fight science.

I am hoping that the great minds out there who know what they are talking about will give me a better word to use.  A better science to use.  A science that actually makes sense.

With all of that said, I have decided to start eating 122 grams of fat, 95 grams of protein and 36 grams of carbohydrate each day for a while and see how my body likes it.  If you want to know how many calories that is, you'll have to do the math yourself.

TURBULENCE TRAINING BEGINNER LEVEL WORKOUT A

TTFL BEGINNER WORKOUT A from Turbulence Training on Vimeo.

Warm-up Circuit
Go through 2 times with no rest between exercises. Rest 30 seconds between circuits.
Prisoner Squat – 10 repetitions
Push Up or Kneeling Push Up – 8 repetitions
Stability Ball Leg Curl – 8 repetitions

Rest 30 seonds, then move on to Warm-up Superset.

Warm-up Superset

Go through this one time with no rest between exercises.
1A) DB Squat – 8 repetitions using 75% of the weight you will use in your “real” sets.
(I used a 5 pound dumbell in each hand.)
No rest.
1B) Push Up or Kneeling Push Up – 5 repetitions

Rest 1 minute and move on to Superset #1.

Superset #1
1A) DB Squat – 10 repetitions (I used a 7.5 pound weight in each hand.)
No rest.
1B) Push Up or Kneeling Push Up – 10 repetitions
Rest 1 minute & repeat 1 more time for a total of 2 supersets.

Rest 1 minute, then move on to Superset #2.

Superset #2
2A) DB Row – 10 repetitions per side (I used a 7.5 pound weight.)
No rest.
2B) Stability Ball Leg Curl – 12 repetitions
Rest 1 minute & repeat 1 more time for a total of 2 supersets.

Rest 1 minute, then move on to Superset #3.

Superset #3
3A) Ab Curl-up – 10 repetitions
No rest.
3B) Side Plank – 15 second hold per side
Rest 1 minute & repeat 1 more time for a total of 2 supersets.

TOM NAUGHTON EXPOSES "THE TWINKIE DIET"

Tom Naughton:  Over the past several weeks, I’ve received quite a few emails and comments about Kansas State nutrition professor Mark Haub and his “Twinkie Diet.” I became aware of professor Haub’s experiment awhile back because he emailed me about it.  He’s seen Fat Head, and if I remember correctly, he said he shows it to his students in class.

In case you haven’t heard about his experiment, here’s a typical headline, this one from a CNN article:


Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds.

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most — not the nutritional value of the food.

The premise held up: On his “convenience store diet,” he shed 27 pounds in two months.

As you might imagine, a lot of the emails and comments I received included a question along the lines of “How can this guy be losing weight when he’s living on all those refined carbohydrates?” I replied that I’d need to see a breakdown of what he actually ate. Fortunately, Professor Haub (unlike Morgan Spurlock) has nothing to hide and has made his food log and health assessments public. I finally spent some time going over them and crunching some numbers.

So, the answer to the question How can this guy be losing weight when he’s living on all all those refined carbohydrates? is … (wait for it):  By not actually consuming a high number of carbohydrates.
Despite the headlines, Professor Haub wasn’t living on a “Twinkie Diet” or a “Little Debbie Snack Cake Diet.”  He was on a diet that includes Twinkies and Little Debbie Snack Cakes.

First, let’s look at a couple of daily menus:

November 12
Pumpkin Spice Donut
Coffee
Protein shake
Onion Rings
Steak
Broccoli
Macaroni and Cheese
Baked potato casserole
Dynasty Lychees
Baby carrots
Peanut butter cookies
2% milk

October 29
Hostess cupcake
Coffee
Sesame chicken
Teriyaki chicken
Egg roll
Chicken nachos
Broccoli
Lemon zingers
Kit Kat

Like my Fat Head fast-food diet, nobody would mistake this for any kind of health-food diet.  The guy is definitely consuming sugar.  And yet he lost weight, lost body fat, raised his HDL, and lowered both his triglycerides and LDL.  How can that be?  Well, let’s look at the numbers.

I copied the daily nutrition totals into Excel and calculated Professor Haub’s average daily intake of calories and macronutrients over the 10 weeks he’s been on the diet:

Calories: 1457
Fat (g): 61
Carbohydrate (g): 173
Protein (g): 54

As a percent of daily calories, it works out to:
Fat: 38%
Carbohydrate:  47%
Protein:  15%

Now, 173 grams of carbohydrate per day certainly isn’t low, but it’s not high either. Depending on whose figures you use, that’s about half as many carbohydrates as an average American male consumes per day. It’s also at least 1,000 fewer daily calories than an average male consumes. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that Professor Haub lost weight on a “Twinkie Diet” that is actually moderate in carbohydrates and very low in calories. I’d lose weight on that diet, too.  (I’d hate it, but I’d lose weight.)

I would also lose muscle on such a low protein intake, and according to his health assessments posted on Facebook, Professor Haub did in fact lose 6 pounds of lean body mass over the 10 weeks. So we’re looking at a fat loss of 20 pounds in 10 weeks, or two pounds per week.

As with dieters everywhere, his weight loss appears to be slowing down as he goes along. During the first four weeks of the diet, according to his online data, he lost an average of 3.75 pounds per week, but slowed to 1.8 pounds per week over the next six weeks. That’s not surprising. There’s usually some initial water loss in the early phase of a diet, and of course once you begin to lose weight, your basal metabolism tends to drop. What would be interesting to see is how quickly he’d regain the weight if he went back up to 2500 calories per day and consumed more carbohydrates — not that I’d encourage him to try it.

Overall, it looks like an interesting experiment, and it’s certainly generated a lot of media buzz. It’s just too bad the buzzing media reporters aren’t taking a little closer look at the professor’s online food log. There’s certainly junk food in this diet, but it is not (as one headline described it) a Junk Food Binge. When you consume fewer than 1500 calories and 175 carbohydrates on an average day, it’s not any kind of binge.

NEW HORMONE DOCTOR - NEW PLAN

Dr. Michelle Schultz

Today I had a preliminary visit with the woman who is going to be my new hormone doctor.  Her name is Michelle Schultz, M.D., and she is with BodyLogicMD.   I need to call the office tomorrow and order labs for Bill and me.  After the tests are done, we will probably have our first visit in January.



I always wish I had a tape recorder for these visits, because so much is covered that I always forget part of it.  Here are some bits and pieces that I retained:

1.  I will probably still keep getting the testosterone implant, but it will be a stronger one than I have now, because my testosterone is still too low.  Getting more T will help me to burn fat and build muscle.

2.  I may start taking progesterone as a pill instead of the cream, because the cream can cause cortisol excess which can cause fat storage.

3.  I may start DHEA and Pregnenolone replacement, depending on my test results.

4.  I will be taken off of Armour Thyroid, which is 80% T4 and only 20% T3, which I am low in, and start T3 replacement.

5.  Low thyroid and adrenal fatigue are the main problems at the moment, and are keeping me from losing weight.

6.  After my test results, my doctor will choose one of three adrenal supplements to put me on for three months and then retest for adrenal fatigue.  For that first three months, I will stay with all the hormone dosages that I am doing now.  If after adrenal support, my thyroid has not improved on its own, I will start T3 replacement with just a little T4.

So there are definitely several things that this doctor wants to do differently.

Here is the bad part:  The doctor believes that gluconeogenesis  is causing my body to use muscle as fuel instead of fat.  So that is why I am losing muscle and gaining fat.  And that is not going to change until I get all balanced, which will be a few months.

So for me to drive myself crazy trying to lose weight right now is not a good idea.  As of right now, I am canceling my trial of The 6-Week Cure and going back to eating the way I was before I started.  It feels weird to start (or stop) something in the middle of the week, but I'm going to do it and just relax about it.

I'm going to continue with my weight training and use of l-Leucine, if only to try to maintain what muscle I have left until this thing turns around.

DAY 3 OF THE 6-WEEK CURE

Okay, I'm not doing it exactly as the book says to, so I want to say that right up front.  I could not get an answer from the Protein Power camp on why I had to drink shakes instead of just eating the same macronutrients of real, whole, fresh food.  So I calculated the macronutrients recommended for a woman my size, and came up with a plan that included a breakfast of bacon and eggs, a shake for lunch, and a regular dinner.

Here is where I started on the morning of Day 1:

141.6 pounds
30.75" waist
12.5" neck
40" hips
25.1 BMI
0.49 waist-to-height ratio
0.77 waist-to-hip-ratio
33.7% body fat (47.7 pounds)
66.3% lean mass (93.9 pounds)

Here is where I am now, on the morning of Day 4, after three full days:

141.6 pounds
31" waist
12.5" neck
40" hips
25.1 BMI
0.49 waist-to-height ratio
0.78 waist-to-hip-ratio
34% body fat (48.1 pounds)
66% lean mass (93.5 pounds)

In three days I have gained 0.4 pounds of body fat and lost 0.4 pounds of lean mass.  Not great results so far...

Even if you ignore the body fat calculator results, in the past three days I have lost nothing on the scale and have gained 1/4" around my waist.  I suppose those numbers are too close to call accurate, but still.  The 6-Week Cure book told me to expect to start losing weight from Day 1.

Here is what I have eaten in the first three days:

Day 1 - Bacon, eggs and butter and BCAA for breakfast, a shake, fiber and BCAA for lunch, and a pork chop, salad and BCAA for dinner.  True to the book, I was not hungry.

Day 2 - Bacon, eggs and butter and BCAA for breakfast, a shake, fiber and BCAA for lunch, and grilled salmon, cooked cabbage and BCAA for dinner.  Still no hunger.

Day 3 - A shake and BCAA for breakfast, and I was starving after about two hours.  A shake, fiber and BCAA for lunch, and again, I was starving after about two hours.  Pork "hamburgers" and salad for dinner.  After this meal of real food and no BCAA, I was fully satisfied until time for bed, when I took my final BCAA for the day. 

I do Atkins - I'm not used to starving!  I'm used to eating on schedule even though I am not really hungry.  I'm not used to counting the minutes on the clock until I can eat again!  And what's that weird noise coming from my midsection?  That's my stomach growling!  I haven't heard that in over a year and a half!

In the actual 6-Week Cure, you do not only have two shakes per day - you have three.  The problem there is that I am so small that I can only have four scoops of protein powder in one day.  If I have it in three shakes, that's only 1-1/3 scoop in each shake, which makes a pretty thin, watery shake.  So I thought that I would have two thicker, better tasting shakes, and the BCAA was supposed to suppress my appetite.  It didn't.

Just because I am a glutton for punishment and I might as well find out for sure, I'm going to do three watery shakes and a meal today, and see how my hunger does.  If I am still starving all day like yesterday, I will go back to meal-shake-meal the next day.

Starving all day - Mama don't play that game!  If I was losing fat and inches, I might play that game, but I am not.  I have been doing low carb for 19 months, and I do not have excess water weight to lose at the beginning, like most people who are trying the 6WC after eating the SAD (Standard American Diet).

And the BCAA - I'm not sure what I think of that.  I am actually getting used to the taste of it, and it no longer makes me gag, so that's good!  But is it suppressing my appetite and preserving my lean mass while I lose fat?  So far, not so much!

Plus, it does weird things to my body.  I read on the internet that it is supposed to energize you, but I am having the opposite reaction - it is putting me to sleep!  It actually makes me feel drowsy.  I took it last night after dinner, and within 20 minutes or so, my eyes were drooping and my throat, mouth and eyes were very dry!  I slept like a stone last night!

I am having one other problem with conforming to the plan - I have some sort of inflammation going on in my right calf, and the pain is so bad that it keeps me up at night and keeps me noticing it all day long.  So, against the rules of the diet, I have had to take an ibuprofen twice since starting.  The pain I am in is like 50% of a "charlie horse" and I can't just ignore it.  During the day, it's better, but lying in bed at night is torture.  Gotta have the drug.

I am willing to tough it out, but if I am still seeing no results by the end of seven days, I may decide to just put this "diet" into the scrap pile with all of my other failed diets.  I think seven days is a long enough trial.

PROTEIN POWER AND THE 6-WEEK CURE FOR THE MIDDLE-AGED MIDDLE

I read The 6-Week Cure for the Middle-Aged Middle the other day.  It is written by Dr. Michael R. Eades and Dr. Mary Dan Eades, the authors of all the Protein Power books.

The Drs. Eades were featured in the movie Fat Head, and I really liked everything they were saying, and disagreed with nothing.  So when I saw that they had this new (2009) book out, and I have stubborn belly fat, I got the book from the library.

The main point of the book is that, for some people, eating low carb is not enough, and some extra measures need to be taken to detox "fatty liver", also known as Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD).  The book goes into great detail explaining the difference between Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue (SAT) and Visceral Adipose Tissue (VAT), with VAT being the more dangerous to health of the two.  SAT is the fat the lives just under your skin, and VAT is the fat that lives in your abdomen and invades your vital organs.

According to the Eades, a fatty liver will not be able to deal with VAT because it is being overtaxed dealing with toxins and fat within itself.  Detoxing the liver, and getting the fat out of the liver, will very quickly return it to health and give it a chance to do its job, and VAT will be decreased.

So far, it's sounding pretty good, right?

Next up in the book was the method used to heal NAFLD:  The first two weeks of the plan involve drinking a special protein shake three times each day plus one very low carb meal once per day.  The calories for the day are around 1400, with 86g fat (55% of total calories), 127g protein (36% of calories) and 30g carbohydrate (9% of calories).  This information is not given in the book - I input what was suggested for a woman my size into www.fitday.com to get the values.  So this is definitely a lower calorie diet than what I am used to.  According to the book, the caloric restriction in combination with the Leucine is supposed to burn fat while preserving muscle.  During this two weeks, no caffeine, alcohol and certain drugs are permitted.

I googled Leucine, and found that it is a supplement taken by body builders to burn fat and increase muscle.  One of the effects of Leucine is to supress the appetite so that you are not starving while your calories are being reduced. 

The shake is any low carb protein shake you like, plus heavy cream, a little sweetener (optional) and a nice big dose (2500mg) of the amino acid l-Leucine.  Leucine is supposed to preserve muscle while the body is burning fat.  As an alternative to Leucine, you can use Branch Chain Amino Acids (BCAA), which contain l-Leucine, l-Isoleucine and l-Valine.  Either the Leucine or the BCAA can be taken in powder that you mix into a shake or water, or in capsule form.

The next two weeks of the plan involve eating a very low carb, low calorie diet consisting of three meals (and snacks, if you like) that exclude all dairy.  Caffeine and alcohol are permitted back in moderation.  I have not figured out the breakdown of macronutrients for this period, but looking at the suggested meal plans, it looks like what I am already eating.  One difference in the "meat weeks", as they are unofficially referred to, is that carbs are restricted to less than 20 or so net carbs, and that would consist of vegetables.

The final stage of the plan is very similar to Atkins Lifetime Maintenance, with dairy being allowed.

The book says that you can find information and a special 6WC forum at the Protein Power (PP) website, but when I went there, I found that, although the Eades had intended to create this forum, they had not actually done it.  I went to the regular PP forum, and found it very inactive, and all the discussion about 6WC had died down almost a year ago.

I tried asking a few questions about it and why it works, and was told that the Drs. Eades are the only ones who know the answers, and that I can try contacting them directly to see if they will answer.  I did ask one question on Dr. Michael Eades' blog and got an answer, but my followup questions to him have not been answered.  Maybe he will answer in time.

My own personal opinion is that the presence of VAT in my own body may be the reason I have not been able to lose a big portion of my body fat, and why I have a large belly that just won't go down.  So I am very interested in trying this, but my main question, which no one on the PP forum could answer, and which Dr. Mike has not answered (yet), is this:  Why do I have to drink protein shakes?  If the reason behind the success of the plan is the increase of protein and the decrease of fat and carbs along with the supplementation with Leucine, then why can't I just eat whole foods that give me the same breakdown of macronutrients?

The best answer - actually, the only answer - I got on the PP forum was a variation of "Don't worry your pretty little head about why you can't just eat food in the right breakdown of fat, protein and carbs.  Just do it and don't ask questions!"

Hmmm...  That's not good enough for me, and I am not willing to hand over the responsibility for my health to someone who wrote a book and will not tell me why it works.

But, in the interest of possibly getting rid of my belly, once and for all, and decreasing my VAT, which is really dangerous to my health, I have decided to try my own adaptation of the 6-week cure.  Here is what I plan to do, and as a matter of fact, I started yesterday:

I am going to eat a combination of real food and only one daily shake and take BCAA.  I will eat bacon and eggs with butter for breakfast, along with BCAA, a shake and some fiber for lunch, along with BCAA, and some sort of fresh protein and veggies for dinner, along with BCAA.

The way I was eating:
1800 calories
137g fat (69%)
107g protein (23.5%)
34g total carbs (7.5%)
16g fiber
18g net carbs

The way I will eat for the next two weeks:
1400 calories
86g fat (55%)
127g protein (36%)
30g total carbs (9%)
20g fiber
10g net carbs

Basically, I will be cutting fat by 51 grams, increasing protein by 20 grams and my carbs will be staying pretty much the same.  It's actually not that different than what I was advised by Colette Heimowitz, the Atkins nutritionist, to do this past summer.  Atkins Induction fat intake is supposed to be 60-70%, and mine will be 55% - very slightly lower, and still a far cry from low fat or even moderate fat.  And the protein recommended in the new Atkins book for a woman my height is 71-149 grams per day, so at 127, I am within that range. 

Using my new body fat calculator (in the right hand column on this blog), my starting point yesterday morning was this:

141.6 pounds
30.75" waist
12.5" neck
40" hips
25.1 BMI
0.49 waist-to-height ratio
0.77 waist-to-hip ratio
33.7% body fat (47.7 pounds)
66.3% lean mass (93.9 pounds)

As time goes on, I will give an update on how it is going.  So far, so good, in that I did this yesterday, and I was not hungry.  However, I found the taste of the BCAA pretty disgusting - kind of like grinding up a nasty-tasting pill and putting it in your mouth.  But not so gross as to not do it.

One thing did happen yesterday, and I don't know how much of it to ascribe to the BCAA - After my first dose with breakfast, I felt somewhat energized, which is what all the google information said would happen.  But after working out and having lunch and more BCAA, I suddenly got tired.  Maybe it was just the workout.  But then, when I took the BCAA after dinner, I got sleepy.  There was no doubt about it this time!

I'll let you know if I have the same experience today, on a non-workout day.

JACKIE EVANCHO SINGS "PIE JESU" - BREATHTAKING!

NOVEMBER 14 - WEEK 87 RESULTS

One week ago, my actual scale weight was 142.2.

Today, my actual scale weight is 141.6.

I lost 0.6 pounds this past week.

 One week ago, my average weight for the week was 142.9.

Today, my average weight for the week is 142.9.

I lost 0 pounds this past week.

I tracked my food on fitday every day this past week, and here are the averages of what I ate:

1800 calories

137.2g fat (69%)

106.9g protein

34.4g total carbs

16.4g fiber

18g net carbs, of which 10.7g were from veggies

2766g sodium

Today is my weekly measuring day. In the past 7 days:

I gained 1/2" around my bicep
I lost 1/4" around my waist
I lost 1/4" around my navel
I gained 1/4" around my calf.

To get back to my smallest size on June 13, 2010, I need to lose:

1/4" from my bust

1/4" from my waist

1/4" from my navel

1-1/4" from my hips

1/4" from my thigh

Here is what I have lost so far, since starting to lose weight in February 2009:

Neck - 13.75" to 12.5" - down 1.25"

Bicep - 11.75" to 11.75" - lost fat and gained muscle

Forearm - 9" - no change

Bust - 38.25" to 35.75" - down 2.5"

Midriff - 32.25" to 29.5" - down 2.75"

Waist - 31.5" to 29" - down 2.5"

Navel - 38.25" to 32.25" - down 6"

Hips - 42" to 39.5" - down 2.5"

Thigh - 24.5" to 22.25" - down 2.25"

Calf - 14.5" to 13.75" - down 0.75" - lost fat and gained muscle

BODY COMPOSITION

AT THE BEGINNING OF WEIGHT LOSS 2/22/09

158 pounds
35" waist
13.75" neck
45.5" hips
28.0 BMI
0.56 waist-to-height ratio
0.77 waist-to-hip ratio
44.8% body fat

TODAY

141.6 pounds
30.75" waist
12.5" neck
40" hips
25.1 BMI
0.49 waist-to-height ratio
0.77 waist-to-hip ratio
33.7% body fat

So far, I have lost 16.4 pounds on the scale, 4.25" around my waist, 1.25" around my neck and 5.5" around my hips.  I have lost 23.1 pounds of fat and I have gained 6.7 pounds of lean mass.

MY NEXT GOAL

140 pounds
30" waist
12.5" neck
39.75" hips
24.9 BMI
0.48 waist-to-height ratio
0.75 waist-to-hip ratio
32.5% body fat

To achieve this, I need to lose 2.2 pounds of fat and gain 0.6 pounds of lean mass.  I need to lose 3/4" around my waist and 1/4" around my hips.

MY ULTIMATE DREAM GOAL

130 pounds
26.5" waist
12.5" neck
37.5" hips
23.1 BMI
0.42 waist-to-height ratio
0.71 waist-to-hip ratio
25% body fat

To achieve this, I need to lose 15.2 more pounds of fat and gain 3.6 more pounds of lean mass.  I need to lose another 4.25" around my waist and another 2.5" around my hips.

If I reach this goal, I will have lost a total of 38.3 pounds of fat and gained a total of 10.3 pounds of lean mass since my highest weight on February 22, 2009.  I will have also lost 8.5" around my waist, 1.25" around my neck and 8" around my hips.

MUSCLE DOES NOT WEIGHT MORE THAN FAT

Muscle does not weigh more than fat - five pounds is five pounds - but it is much nicer to look at!

As you can see, the 5 lbs. of fat is much bulkier than the 5 lbs. of muscle, but five pounds is still five pounds. Muscle does not weigh more than fat. Fat is bulky and lumpy so if you carry an extra five pounds of fat, you'll be lumpier than with five pounds more muscle. A five pound pile of fat will take up more space (volume) than a five pound pile of muscle; but five pounds is still five pounds, so for those of you that don't "get" English, you cannot say one thing weighing a certain weight weighs more than another thing at that same weight. It's a common joke to play on an 8-year old. The correct way to state the muscle weighs more than fat scenario is, "Muscle is heavier by volume than fat." A woman weighing 150 pounds with 19% fat will look much smaller (and be much healthier) than a woman at 150 pounds with 35% fat. They weigh the same, yet the composition is different. Because muscle is more dense than fat the person with less fat and more muscle will look smaller. Stop being so obsessed with body weight and start paying attention to body composition. How much body fat do you have compared to muscle? Simply seeing how much you weigh isn't very helpful. To read the full article, click here.

HAPPY VETERANS DAY!

My husband, then and now.

MY NEXT MINI GOAL - 140 POUNDS WITH 33.7% BODY FAT

I've been playing around with my new Body Fat Percentage Calculator (look right and scroll down to the yellow calculator) and tried to come up with a new goal.

I've always just thought of weight loss as a number on a scale, and never considered it an amount of inches.  Who knows how big my waist would be at a certain weight?  Well, I input different numbers, and came up with something I think might be reasonable.

140 pounds
30" waist
12.5" neck
39.75" hips
24.9 BMI
0.48 waist-to-height ratio
0.75 waist-to-hip ratio
32.5% body fat

To achieve this, I need to lose 4.5 more pounds of fat, I need to gain 1.6 pounds of muscle and I need to lose 1" from around my waist and 1" from around my hips.  I do not have a time frame for this goal - I learned a long time ago that my body will do what it's going to do in its own time.  However long it takes, it takes.

These numbers really seem possible, especially now that I am working out again, and it's helpful to see how that would really look on my body, instead of just looking for a number on the scale.

If all goes well and I hit this goal, I will try for another 3 pounds and another 3% off of my body fat.

WHOLE FOODS MARKET SAMPLING - BIG MISTAKE!

Boy, did I just blow it!  I went to Whole Foods Market and allowed myself to have a few free samples.  I keep trying to tell myself that if I do not put it on Fitday, it means it doesn't count.

Here is what I ate at the store:

8 chocolate covered almonds
1/2 oz. of cheese
1/2 slice of multi-grain bread
1 Tbs. pumpkin butter

Now, I had already made up my menu for the day, and there was no room for any of that nonsense. Here is what I am having to add to my day:

303 calories
14.9g fat
18.5g protein
23.6g total carbs
2.6g fiber
21g net carbs!!!! AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

I will never do that again.

Any time in the past when I have done that, I have always thought, "Well, I'm sure it was not too much." Now I know.

LUBRICANT - DR.MICHAEL EADES

QUESTION: Please can you advise on a matter that, although seemingly trivial, is causing some tension in our household. Like many families, rather than spreading butter on our toast at breakfast time, we have switched to one of the supposedly healthier alternative low-fat spreads. Our problem is by what name should we refer to this new product? My wife continues to ask if I’d please pass the butter, but as it isn’t butter, I find this irksome. If I refer to it as margarine, she is annoyed by the implication that we are using some inferior low-quality butter substitute. To request that someone passes the low-fat spread is hardly elegant. Please, Mary, can you advise on the correct terminology?

C.S., Woodbridge, Suffolk

ANSWER: Why not use the word ‘lubricant’? The products to which you refer are, technically, lubricants, and when you have guests they will enjoy laughing at your use of this term.

Hilarious, no? And a great idea. We never, ever use margarine or its low-fat equivalent, but now I wish we did just so I could call it ‘lubricant.’ Perhaps from now on I’ll start asking: Is this butter or is it lubricant?’ The possibilities are endless. I encourage everyone to start using the term.’ Makes this schlock sound like what it really is.

To read the full article by Dr. Eades, right click here.

NO HUMAN SOCIETY HAS EVER LIVED ON HIGH CARB. UNTIL NOW.

CAN YOU BE FAT AND HEALTHY?

The content of this video made my head tilt! What do you think?

WHY DO WE GET HUNGRY? TOM NAUGHTON & DRS. EADES

Here is a great video that explains the mechanisms at work in hunger, and how a low carb diet controls hunger.