I was planning on ordering a walnut and avocado salad, when the 9″ pizza menu caught my eye.

The ‘Rustic Veggie Pizza’ sounded really, really good.

So when it was my turn to order I asked the young girl behind the counter:

“How filling is the Pizza”

her response was that she could easily finish one.

I looked over at the guy standing beside her, and he said “Yeah, it’s small, it’s a lunch portion”

So I ordered it.

I wish I took pictures!

I could have easily split this pizza with another person.

Think about that for a second.

It was more than DOUBLE the amount of food I needed.

Easily.

Here’s the plate beside my laptop as a comparison.

Now, sure it was ‘good for me’…

Loaded with veggies, whole wheat crust, no cheese, a great tomato/pesto type sauce….

But overall…it was too much..way too much.

So here’s the point of this post.

Keep your calories low.

That’s it…

When dining out this can be hard, but it needs to be said.

If the portion sizes are too big (and they almost always are) then be creative.

Share.

Leave some.

Take some home.

(I kept half the pizza for dinner tonight, but I could have EASILY ate it.)

so just remember, weight loss, health, you feeling good about yourself, it can all be accomplished with 4 words:

Keep your Calories low…

BP

Now, normally I don’t ‘report’ on this kind of thing, but I really, really liked this email.

Why?

Because it made me realize that I’m NOT taking crazy pills!

See when I wrote Anabolic Again and was doing my research behind Anabolic Slow Down I felt like I was the only one who cared about this phenomena…but now seeing that big time fitness people like Vince Delmonte are also recognizing that their is something putting the breaks on muscle growth in experienced lifters…well it makes me happy in a weird sorta way.

Now, Vince’s theories and solutions are muc different then mine, but at least it proves a point.

If you take a look at this page http://bhlikes.it/mymb the message is obvious: Muscle growth eventually slows down.

But it’s not just the slow down I’m intrigued with.

It’s the different RATES (or speeds) that people seem to inately have for muscle growth…

Have you ever wondered why there is such a DIFFERENCE in the way people respond to their workouts?

Why some people ‘grow like weeds’ while others train as hard as they can for months on end and don’t see any progress.

This is one of my main areas of interest when it comes to muscle growth..

And I know the answer ISN’T protein!

That’s not to say that protein doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with your muscle building (because it does), but the point is that adding MORE protein doesn’t necessarily mean MORE muscle.

In a recently published trial using a very interesting method, this exact point was driven home in my mind.

60 subjects were put through a 16 week long, 3 day per week workout.

After the workout the subjects were divided into three groups based on the increase in their muscle cross sectional area.

Non responders saw no change or even negative change (-16 um2)

Moderate responders saw some decent gains (+1,111 um2)

Extreme responders…well they would make most of us really jealous (+2,475 um2)

(That’s 123% larger then the moderate people!)

After the groups were divided up the researchers looked for some explanation for the differences in size gains.

So what did they find?

Well…

• There was no difference in protein intake (fell right in  the range I recommend in How Much Protein)
• There was no difference in Essential Amino Acid intake
• No difference in BCAA intake
• No Difference in Leucine intake
• No difference in Calories.

Furthermore,

• There was no difference inr reported training volume
• There was no difference in reported training intensity.

So what can we conclude for this research.

1. It’s not the calories you eat or the protein (within reason).
2. It’s not even how MUCH you workout (again within reason).

This leaves me with only two real conclusions when it comes to what decides the rate at which you can build muscle:

The first is genetics, which unfortunately, you really can’t control.

Genetics may be the amount of receptors your muscles have, the amount of certain hormones you have, or even the amount of satelitte cells you have available for muscle growth.

Sadly, most, if not all of these things are decided at or near birth.

The second is the quality of your workout.

This is the only part you can control. If it’s not nutrition (again within reason) then it must have to do with the quality, design or implementation of your workout program…

Unfortunately this is also the part I don’t have an answer for.

Because everyone is different.

If you want something super advanced I have Anabolic Again, and if you are looking for something really targeted I have the Adonis
Index.

But if you are just looking for what will work BEST for you then I have to give you the following advice:

TRIAL AND ERROR.

Honestly, it would be SUPER EASY for me to tell you that my workouts are the best and all the rest are garbage, but really this wouldn’t be true.

So here’s the trick…

The thing that sets people apart in the gym…people who see success and people who don’t…is Metrics.

Try something and measure it. If you are improving then stick with it for as long as you keep improving.

If you are not improving then BE HONEST with yourself and LET IT GO.

Don’t worry about the marketing or pseudoscience or the arguments in forums about what is right and what is wrong, just get a workout and give it a try.

Find something that works then stick with it until it stops working.

I really can’t give any better advice then that (when it comes to muscle buiding)

If muscle building is your goal (and steroids are not an option for you) then why not try every workout you can get your hands on until you find what works for you…because as we learned above, what works for some people DOESN’T WORK AT ALL for others…and vice versa.

And since you can’t control the genetics part, you may as well do everything you can to control the work out part…

Just be sure to keep measurements so you can actually track progress.

Without metrics, all the work and trial and error is pointless.

As my friend ‘Pip’ said:

‘try and test’ the info and then ‘keep or reject’

BP

Now, I’m not going to review this latest trial showing ‘near equivalent’ anabolic signaling between a Low Weight high Volume Training protocol and a High Weight Low Volume protocol, because it has already been done all over the internet.

For a complete review check here –> http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot.com/2010/08/if-youre-going-to-claim-to-improve.html

And to read the actual paper –> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918506/?tool=pubmed

So the point isn’t a review as much as it is presenting an Alternative Conclusion.

If you look around on-line what you will find is mostly a collection of arguments against the study design, or the claims being made by the researchers, but what I would like to present is a little different…

Assumptions:

I’m going to assume that for the most part the results found were correct and the methods were acceptable.

I’m also going to assume that the typical “BroScience” is correct. You know…the notion that the 5-15 rep range will build more muscle mass than the 20-50 rep range, regardless of whether or not the workload is equal.

In other words I’m going with the assumption that doing 5 sets of 5 reps with 425 pounds on the Squat is more ‘Anabolic’ then doing 5 sets of 25 reps with 85 pounds, even though the total amount of work done is the same (10,625 total pounds lifted).

What this study found was that Low-Weight High-Volume training caused the same changes in markers of muscle growth as High-Weight Low-Volume training as long as total work was the same.

So the alternative conclusion is this:

This research provides further evidence that there is a disassociation between the measures of Anabolic protein signaling (Such as the mTOR pathway) and actual long-term measurable muscle growth.

So even though we all enjoy reading about things like mTOR, AKT, and amino acid incorporation, these markers do not necessarily reflect long term changes in muscle growth.

Something else regulates the growth of muscle.

Something ‘down stream’ or something that happens at a later time.

In my opinion if you look at this study from this vantage point it becomes incredibly important because it shows us that while measuring these markers is extremely important in understanding human physiology, it only gives us a small fraction of the total muscle building story.

Food for thought.

BP

Now, I’m not going to review this latest trial showing ‘near equivalent’ anabolic signaling between a Low Weight high Volume Training protocol and a High Weight Low Volume protocol, because it has already been done all over the internet.

For a complete review check here –> http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot.com/2010/08/if-youre-going-to-claim-to-improve.html

And to read the actual paper –> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918506/?tool=pubmed

So the point isn’t a review as much as it is presenting an Alternative Conclusion.

If you look around on-line what you will find is mostly a collection of arguments against the study design, or the claims being made by the researchers, but what I would like to present is a little different…

Assumptions:

I’m going to assume that for the most part the results found were correct and the methods were acceptable.

I’m also going to assume that the typical “BroScience” is correct. You know…the notion that the 5-15 rep range will build more muscle mass than the 20-50 rep range, regardless of whether or not the workload is equal.

In other words I’m going with the assumption that doing 5 sets of 5 reps with 425 pounds on the Squat is more ‘Anabolic’ then doing 5 sets of 25 reps with 85 pounds, even though the total amount of work done is the same (10,625 total pounds lifted).

What this study found was that Low-Weight High-Volume training caused the same changes in markers of muscle growth as High-Weight Low-Volume training as long as total work was the same.

So the alternative conclusion is this:

This research provides further evidence that there is a disassociation between the measures of Anabolic protein signaling (Such as the mTOR pathway) and actual long-term measurable muscle growth.

So even though we all enjoy reading about things like mTOR, AKT, and amino acid incorporation, these markers do not necessarily reflect long term changes in muscle growth.

Something else regulates the growth of muscle.

Something ‘down stream’ or something that happens at a later time.

In my opinion if you look at this study from this vantage point it becomes incredibly important because it shows us that while measuring these markers is extremely important in understanding human physiology, it only gives us a small fraction of the total muscle building story.

Food for thought.

BP

From allergenic foods to anti-inflammatory foods, I’ve gone through most of the major theories.

And you know what I’ve found?

In terms of risk of chronic disease, inflammation, oxidative stress, and quality of life nothing beats simply eating less.

In fact, most diet styles from Vegetarian to Paleo can be extremely healthy, especially when combined with eating less (or at least not overeating).

So this begs the question – What the hell are we doing with these confusing ‘food pyramids’?

I mean really – do they help or do they simply confuse?

In my mind their main benefit seems to be their ability to ignore the giant pink elephant that is calorie intake.

So, I’m going to throw my hat into the ring and present what I think would be a food pyramid that would actually create a massive benefit in the health of a nation that would choose to adopt it.

(Please keep in mind this a work in progress and is meant for the general population – so elite athletes and many disease states would be excluded)

So here we go…the Pilon Pyramid:

In this example the number IN THE PYRAMID represents the AVERAGE number of meals taken per day, with a ‘meal’ being any food or drink consumed that meet a certain minimum caloric requirement, which would be dependent on the age category.

As an example 25+ years of age would have a meal being anything over 200 Calories, where as for the 2-15 range a meal couple be anything over 50 Calories (this is just a ‘guess’ as my expertise is NOT pediatrics or children’s nutrition).

Focusing on the adults, the basic plan would work like this, anything under 200 would be free and not count as a meal.

Anything over is a meal, so if you are going to go over and have a 400 Calories super-mocha-caramel-frappa-coffee you may as well have a sandwich because this is going to count as one of your meals.

The goal would be to greatly reduce ’snacking’ and hidden calories, increasing time spent ‘not eating’ and cutting down on the overall calories an adult eats.

This plan would allow for all sorts of eating styles, from Eat Stop Eat, to Veganism to Paleo to you name it.

It graduates the frequent eating needs of infants into a less frequent style of eating for adults who have finished growing in height and have greatly reduced needs for frequent meals.

Obviously the idea is rough, but by focusing on meals we can focus on creative and constructive ways to address the actual problem (calories) while still being open to most major forms and styles of eating.

Simple but effective?

(and again – a work in progress)

BP

And really, something that I myself don’t fully comprehend:

If we are worried about overpopulation and sustainable living, then why is one of our goals in health fitness “To eat as much as I can and still lose weight?”

Isn’t that kind of greedy?

Eat 5,000 or 10,000  or even 20,000 calories a day and still look great….Sounds like a good plan

Until you stop and think – those 20,000 calories could have fed a family 4 for at least 3 days.

Shouldn’t our goal be “I want to eat as little as possible, enjoy the foods I eat and be in perfect health”?

If we can get by on 1,000 Calories a day and still be in optimal health…shouldn’t this be something to consider?

[I'm not saying 1,000 is a proven number, just something I picked for illustration]

If you stop to think about the long term impact of our health and fitness goals, they actually seem pretty…selfish.

After all, shouldn’t ‘health and fitness’ include everyone?

If we can get by on eating less and even exercising less and still look exactly the way we want to and be as healthy as we need to be..shouldn’t we?

[Of course, doing these two things may greatly increase your lifespan, which opens up a whole new discussion]

Love to hear your thoughts on this…

BP

This group could include your best friend, family members or even trusted on-line fitness personalities.

And while they mean well…their advice can lead you disastrously astray.

This group is known as “The Early Adopters”

Have you ever heard something along the lines of:

Hey Jim, how’s that new workout you are trying?

Oh man, it’s AMAZING, the fat is practically MELTING off of me

If you answered yes, then you have met an Early Adopter.

Early Adopters are people who advise on how ‘awesome’ something is, they are only doing so  because it’s something NEW.

You are getting great feedback on the sole basis that the topic is NEW and EXCITING.

[You are also typically getting feedback that is exaggerated or even impossible based on the time lines...especially when it comes to muscle building. Muscle grows very slowly, so anyone telling you their new workout is giving them MIND blowing results in the first 3 days is a person you may want to check back with in a couple of months to see if they are still as enthusiastic]

Take what they’re saying with a grain of salt (who knows they might just do a total 180 on you in a month from now)

So rule of thumb:

Your friend just started CrossFit and is Raving about it – Ask him again in  6 months time just to be sure.

Your Mom just started Eat Stop Eat and thinks it the BEST DIET EVER

- Great but ask her again in 6 months time just to be sure.

[This is especially true for all diets - a good diet will last the test of time]

Your little brother swears that he’s packing on muscle because he upped his protein intake -

-Check in on how he looks in 6 months time to be sure.

Early Adopters are almost always the people you find on the net,  commenting on blogs and waging wars in forums, but they are not
the best people to take advice from.

When you see ‘too good to be true’ reviews always ask yourself “I wonder if this is just early adopter talk?”

[The flip side of this is the rose-colored glasses that people have when remembering far off events, like that time they 'gained 50 pounds of pure muscle and were shredded' that was actually 15 years ago...you'll find exaggerations in these situations too]

Wait until the polish has warn off then ask them again for their advice or opinions.

Chances are, you may get a slightly more honest response.

BP

[One I'm always curious about is people who adopt the super brief workout program of one set per muscle group, followed by 10 or 11 days of rest, I always wonder if they are as keen on the program 6 months later, or if they have moved on]

This group could include your best friend, family members or even trusted on-line fitness personalities.

And while they mean well…their advice can lead you disastrously astray.

This group is known as “The Early Adopters”

Have you ever heard something along the lines of:

Hey Jim, how’s that new workout you are trying?

Oh man, it’s AMAZING, the fat is practically MELTING off of me

If you answered yes, then you have met an Early Adopter.

Early Adopters are people who advise on how ‘awesome’ something is, they are only doing so  because it’s something NEW.

You are getting great feedback on the sole basis that the topic is NEW and EXCITING.

Take what they’re saying with a grain of salt (who knows they might just do a total 180 on you in a month from now)

So rule of thumb:

Your friend just started CrossFit and is Raving about it – Ask him again in  6 months time just to be sure.

Your Mom just started Eat Stop Eat and thinks it the BEST DIET EVER

- Great but ask her again in 6 months time just to be sure.

Your little brother swears that he’s packing on muscle because he upped his protein intake -

-Check in on how he looks in 6 months time to be sure.

Early Adopters are almost always the people you find on the net,  commenting on blogs and waging wars in forums, but they are not
the best people to take advice from.

When you see ‘too good to be true’ reviews always ask yourself “I wonder if this is just early adopter talk?”

Wait until the polish has warn off then ask them again for their advice or opinions.

Chances are, you may get a slightly more honest response.

BP

(My extra comments in the members section)

The general theory is that by exercising you increase your muscle mass and your metabolic rate to a point where you can actually lose weight without eating less.

Unfortunately this theory has been met by considerable roadblocks when put to the test of clinical research.

To begin with, every extra pound of muscle you build burns an extra 5-6 Calories per day.

So even adding an extra 10 pounds of muscle would only increase your Resting Metabolic Rate by about 60 Calories.

This fact alone seems to limit the ‘muscle boosting metabolism’ theory, as most of us aren’t going to add 40 pounds of muscle to our frames, and even if we did the extra ‘burn’ would account for roughly 250 Calories…less calories than in a Snickers Bar.

The theory that exercise can increase your metabolic rate throughout the day is also true…but is also much more limited than we have been led to expect.

After intense exercise there is a residual ‘metabolic boost’, but generally this results in an extra 10-25 Calories worth of ‘burn’ over a 5 hour period.

Combined with the fact that a well-trained body is actually a more efficient body and tends to burn LESS calories during exercise than an out-of-shape body and the possibility that exercise can cause a massive boost in our metabolism is starting to look pretty grim.

However, there is one fact that is extremely important that is often overlooked.

A Healthy person moves more.

Now this is just my theory, but I think it has merit.

‘Conditioning’ is something that we build through exercise. And really, conditioning is the ability to move your body.

The conditioning you create from exercise reaches all aspects of your life – so if exercise improves your capacity to move, (if it makes it easier) you are more likely to do it.

So really – exercise and adding muscle creates a body that moves more.

And collectively – that little bit of extra muscle, that itty-bit of after workout metabolic boost, combined with more movement during the day (simply because you can)… add up.

Now, I still don’t think that this would be enough of a boost to cause weight loss without a diet. However, it certainly could help DURING a diet and I could also see it being beneficial in trying to maintain a new (hopefully lower body weight).

Basically, exercise makes you prone to being active, being active makes it more likely that you will move more during the day…its a snowball effect of overall ‘movement’.

BP

Feel Free to comment in the members section.

The general theory is that by exercising you increase your muscle mass and your metabolic rate to a point where you can actually lose weight without eating less.

Unfortunately this theory has been met by considerable roadblocks when put to the test of clinical research.

To begin with, every extra pound of muscle you build burns an extra 5-6 Calories per day.

So even adding an extra 10 pounds of muscle would only increase your Resting Metabolic Rate by about 60 Calories.

This fact alone seems to limit the ‘muscle boosting metabolism’ theory, as most of us aren’t going to add 40 pounds of muscle to our frames, and even if we did the extra ‘burn’ would account for roughly 250 Calories…less calories than in a Snickers Bar.

The theory that exercise can increase your metabolic rate throughout the day is also true…but is also much more limited than we have been led to expect.

After intense exercise there is a residual ‘metabolic boost’, but generally this results in an extra 10-25 Calories worth of ‘burn’ over a 5 hour period.

Combined with the fact that a well-trained body is actually a more efficient body and tends to burn LESS calories during exercise than an out-of-shape body and the possibility that exercise can cause a massive boost in our metabolism is starting to look pretty grim.

However, there is one fact that is extremely important that is often overlooked.

A Healthy person moves more.

Now this is just my theory, but I think it has merit.

‘Conditioning’ is something that we build through exercise. And really, conditioning is the ability to move your body.

The conditioning you create from exercise reaches all aspects of your life – so if exercise improves your capacity to move, (if it makes it easier) you are more likely to do it.

So really – exercise and adding muscle creates a body that moves more.

And collectively – that little bit of extra muscle, that itty-bit of after workout metabolic boost, combined with more movement during the day (simply because you can)… add up.

Now, I still don’t think that this would be enough of a boost to cause weight loss without a diet. However, it certainly could help DURING a diet and I could also see it being beneficial in trying to maintain a new (hopefully lower body weight).

Basically, exercise makes you prone to being active, being active makes it more likely that you will move more during the day…its a snowball effect of overall ‘movement’.

BP

Feel Free to comment in the members section.