Ive decided to slim down....

I must warn you in advance, many of these ideas are ‘controversial’ in that they don’t go along with current nutrition trends. I promised myself when starting this project that I would not just ‘accept’ the current rules of nutrition just because they happened to be the rules that are currently en vogue. After all, as our bodybuilders in the example prove, many different styles of nutrition have resulted in the development of astonishing physiques

So what did all of my research uncover? Well I can tell you that there are indeed two absolute truths when it comes to nutrition and weight loss.
1) Prolonged caloric restriction is the only proven nutritional method of weight loss
and
2) Human beings (nutritionally speaking) can only be in one of the following states: fed or fasted.

Fasting is the simplest method our body has for maintaining its caloric balance. Store a little when we eat, burn a little when we don’t eat. The problem is that recent research suggests that we spend as much as 20 hours a day in the fed state3. We are constantly eating and storing food and we never really give ourselves a chance to burn it off.So the yin and yang of fed and fasted has been replaced by a constant fed state, where we helplessly try to figure out how to continue eating, and somehow lose weight at the same time. This is a very scary scenario when you consider the fact that our bodies are designed to store fat.Because we were meant to be in a constant cycle of feeding and fasting, our bodies are designed to store fat when we over eat, so we can burn it later, when we have no choice but to under eat.

Think of all the diet suggestions you know. They all rely on the continued intake of food. Eat six small meals a day. Eat high protein. Eat breakfast (It’s the most important meal of the day). Eat cereal. Eat high calcium. Eat whole wheat. Take diet pills. Whatever the recommendation, it always revolves around us constantly consuming food and food supplements.

In a day and age where so many people are trying and failing to lose weight, it seems improbable that the answer is simply dieting. In fact, in his very controversial book “The Obesity Myth” Author Paul Campos states that he does not believe that dieting is an effective method of weight loss. Indeed, Mr. Campos goes so far as to say the idea that “People could lose weight if they really wanted to” is in fact, a lie6.Now, I’m not willing to go quite as far as Mr. Campos; however, I am willing to say that every single one of today’s popular diets is doomed to fail in the long term. In my opinion, no matter how strong your willpower, it will eventually be overridden by the power of marketing, advertising, and the lure of great tasting food. After all, no one really wants to diet, we just want to look better with less fat on our bodies (Dieting just happens to be a means to this end).All of this begs the question – ‘have we been led to overlook the simplest form of reducing calories and losing weight - short periods of fasting, in an effort to keep us consuming?’ The answer seems to be a resounding ‘Yes!’

In my review of fasting, I found some very interesting information, most of which flies directly in the face of much of today’s accepted ‘rules of nutrition’. Most startling is the fact that being in a fasted state for short periods of time does not decrease your metabolism.If you have read any of today’s popular diets, you know that they are all based on this idea. The story they are telling goes like this; if you lower your calories too much, then you will stop losing fat because your body has entered ‘starvation mode’ and your metabolic rate will slow to a stand-still. This is the nutrition ‘gospel’. However, it turns out that this is actually not true.Let me explain.Our metabolism is based on the energetic costs of keeping the cells in our bodies alive. For example, let’s say we put you in a fancy lab and measured the amount of calories you burned in one day sitting on a couch doing nothing. Let’s assume that number was 2000 Calories. This would be called your basal metabolic rate; 2000 Calories would be the amount of Calories you need to eat to match the amount you burn simply being you.Now, lets say you moved around that day, perhaps 30 minutes of walking, you might burn an extra 100 calories bringing your daily total to 2100 burnt calories. Your basal metabolic rate is always 2000, and then any extra energy you expend moving your body (such as exercise) is added to that number.So in this example, you are going to burn 2000 calories per day no matter what you do. So why are we being told that our metabolism will slow down if we don’t eat for an extended period of time? The answer lies with an interesting metabolic process of eating called “The thermic effect of food”, and some clever interpretation of this rather simple process.

The research on metabolism and calorie intake is remarkably conclusive. I was able to find the following research studies that measured metabolic rate in people that were either fasting, or on very low calorie diets:In one study, researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change7. This is 72 hours without food. So much for needing to eat every three hours!In another study by a different group of researchers, people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate8.In addition, people who were on very low calorie diets and on a resistance exercise program (i.e. lifting weights) did not see a decrease in resting metabolic rate, and these people were only eating 800 Calories a day for 12 weeks!

In another interesting study, women who ate half the amount of food that they normally eat for 3 days saw no change in their metabolism either9.In still more studies, there was no change in the metabolic rate of people who skipped breakfast, or people who ate 2 meals a day compared to 7 meals per day10,11.The bottom line is food has virtually nothing to do with your metabolism. In fact, your metabolism is much more closely tied to your bodyweight. If your weight goes up or down, so does your metabolism. The only other thing that can affect your metabolism (in both the short term and longer term) is exercise and weight loss. Even in the complete absence of food for three days, your metabolism remains unchanged.I find it troubling that every physiologist, medical doctor and PhD that I have talked to seems to understand this, but many of the personal trainers, nutrition gurus and supplement sales people are completely unaware of this scientific fact. This is truly a testament to the amazing marketing that can be found on the internet, and in fitness and nutrition magazines.This got me thinking; if food intake has no effect on metabolic rate, what other myths have I been led to believe as ‘scientific facts’?

Your muscle cells have the ability to store sugar as something called ‘glycogen’. The interesting thing about this process is that your muscles lack the ability to pass this stored sugar back into the blood stream. For example the glycogen stored in your right leg muscles can only be used by your right leg muscles. It cannot be ‘donated’ to your liver or brain or any other part of your body. This basic rule goes for all of your muscles.During a period of fasting, the systems of your body are relying on fat, and the sugar that is stored in your liver for energy. Your muscles still have their own sugar that they need for exercising. The sugar in your muscles is used up quickly during high intensity exercises like weight training and sprinting.Research completed back in 1987 found that a three and a half day fast caused minimal impairments in physical performance measures such as isometric strength, anaerobic capacity or aerobic endurance13. In other words, they found that a three-day fast had no negative effects on how strongly your muscles can contract, your ability to do short-term high intensity exercises, or your ability to exercise at moderate intensity for a long duration.This means fasting does not negatively affect anaerobic short-burst exercise such as lifting weights, nor does it have a negative effect on typical ‘cardio’ training.

The other great myth about dieting and fasting is that you will lose your muscle mass while you diet. This is completely false. Not only does reducing your caloric intake not cause your metabolism to slow down, it also does not result in a loss of your hard-earned muscle.There is one imperative rule that goes along with this statement: you have to be involved in some sort of resistance exercise, like lifting weights.While long term caloric restriction on its own can cause you to lose muscle mass (such is the case with hospital patients who are on a low calorie diet and confined to bed rest), the combination of caloric restriction with resistance exercises has been proven to be very effective at preserving your muscle mass.Research on men and women undertaking a very low calorie diet found that even with a 12 week long diet consisting of only 800 Calories and only 80 grams of protein per day, the people in the study were able to maintain their muscle mass as long as they were exercising with weights three times per week19.In another study, men restricted their caloric intake by eating 1,000 Calories less per day than they normally ate for 16 weeks. They took part in a weight training program 3 days a week and were able to maintain all their muscle mass while losing over 20 pounds of body fat!20In yet another study, women undertaking a reduced calorie diet for 16 weeks were also able to maintain their muscle mass by training with weights three times per week21.
As long as you are using your muscles, they will not waste away during short periods of dieting.