What You Should Know About Tea

by Ryan Andrews
Nowadays, pretty much everyone has accepted that tea (especially the green kind) confers some tremendous health benefits.

Indeed, as recent as two years ago, you could hardly find green tea in most grocery stories, convenience stores, or restaurants.

Now, the stuff is ubiquitous. Anywhere you turn, if you want a green tea, you can find it. You can even find it in some fast food restaurants.

So in this newsletter, we’d like to talk about tea – what it is, why it’s good for you, and what benefits it offers.

What is tea?

Tea is a beverage made by steeping leaves, twigs, or buds of Camellia sinensis, the common tea plant, in hot water for 1 to 5 minutes.

The fermentation of a tea determines its color. White tea is the least fermented form. Black tea is the most fermented form.

Interestingly, when the tea is fully dried, fermentation stops, and that’s how tea leaves retain their color (white, green, black) once dried.

So how does a tea leaf go from its natural state to your tea cup? Well, the leaves undergo fermentation, and are then heated and dried. During this process, flavor enhancers such as herbs, spices, fruits and flowers can also be added.

Note: when the label describes the tea as “herbal tea,” it’s referring to a beverage that contains only fruits and/or herbs with no actual tea leaves. So don’t get duped. Most “herbal teas” contain no actual tea.

Tea contains no calories and is a rich source of phytochemicals as well as a specific group of chemicals called methylxanthines (e.g., theophylline, caffeine, etc – although the methylxanthine content is much lower than in coffee and other caffeinated beverages).

How tea works in the body
Tea offers a host of health benefits, which will be outlined shortly. Many of the beneficial effects of tea are due to the flavonoids it contains.

Flavonoids belong to a grouping of chemicals that have strong antioxidant properties and can reduce free radical damage (free radicals produce what we call “oxidative stress” and can contribute to chronic disease).

When thinking flavonoids, think of catechins, specifically EGCG. The catechins are one type of powerful flavoniods that occur naturally in tea. And many believe it’s these flavonoids that contribute most of the benefits associated with tea.

In addition to the flavonoids, as mentioned above, tea contains methylxanthines (caffeine is a methylxanthine). The caffeine content in tea is lower than that of coffee and does not have an abrupt effect. Prospective jitters and withdrawal symptoms are unlikely.

How Milk May Ruin Tea
Interestingly, milk has long been added to tea to neutralize tannins (which are the most bitter components of tea) and reduce their acidity – leading to a smoother taste.

However, research has indicated that casein in milk will negate many of the beneficial components of tea. So don’t ruin your tea by adding milk. Order it straight up. And if you don’t like the flavor, mix your regular tea with a mint or herbal tea.

JB’s favorite is a mixture of loose green tea leaves and a bag of mint or pear flavored green tea.

Loose Tea vs. Bags
Tea is commonly packaged in “tea bags” for convenience. Among tea experts, this tea is known as “dust,” due to its poor quality.

The tea in bags is considered a waste product left over from sorting the higher quality loose leaf teas. Furthermore, tea in bags may be prone to oxidation and not steep as well due to the restricted form of the bag.

Now, if you enjoy tea that comes in bags – don’t stress – it can still offer similar benefits. However, we encourage you to try loose tea (or some combination of loose and bagged) to see how you like it.

If you’re new to loose tea, check out these infusers below or even a tea press. They’ll help you avoid picking leaves out of your teeth!

Tea Infuser A

Tea Infuser B

Tea Infuser C

Tea Press

The shelf life of tea varies based on the degree of processing. Black tea has a longer shelf life than green tea. The shelf life of herbal tea is usually the shortest.

To prevent oxidation, tea should be stored in an air-tight container and placed in a dry, cool and dark location.

Tea Temperature

Recommended water temperatures for steeping tea are as follows:

White tea: 140-165 degrees
Green tea: 170-180 degrees
Oolong tea: 190-205 degrees
Black tea: Above 200 degrees

Don’t get stressed if you don’t feel like breaking out the thermometer every morning. Bring water just short of boiling. That will usually do the trick.

Note: The more fermented teas require higher water temperatures. When water temperatures are too low, the leaves can be devoid of oxygen and the taste can be bland and flat.

Supplements and Extracts

While we’re not against using green tea supplements, we want to make sure you don’t go getting too happy with green tea extract consumption.

Case reports have been published indicating that a very high consumption of these extracts can induce liver damage. This has yet to be validated in well-controlled studies but it’s worth thinking about.

Here’s some additional info on this:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/me…ead.php?t=6771

The Benefits of Regular Tea Consumption

Now, let’s outline some of the benefits attributed to regular tea consumption.

Note: These benefits were outlined at the 2007 “Tea and Health” symposium, a conference in which tea researchers world-wide got together and provided some definitive answers on what tea does and what it doesn’t do – at least, according to what we know today.

We’ll list these benefits by category…

Tea and body composition

• Green tea increased 24-hour energy expenditure and fat oxidation
• 3-months of tea consumption decreased waist circumference by 4.5%

Tea and cardiovascular health

• Tea increased lipid oxidation
• Tea improved blood vessel function
• Those who consumed 3 or more cups of black tea per day had a reduced risk of heart disease and stroke
• Drinking 6 or more cups of black tea per day was associated with decreased serum cholesterol and triglycerides
• Those who drank a cup or more of black tea daily had a 44% reduction in the risk of heart attack compared to non-tea drinkers
• Those who consumed tea during the year prior to a heart attack were up to 44% more likely to survive following the cardiac event
• Japanese men and women who consumed just over 2 cups of green tea per day reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 22 – 33%
• 5 cups of black tea per day reduced LDL cholesterol by 11% and total cholesterol by 6.5% compared to placebo beverages
• Those who consumed 4 cups of tea per day had a 69% lower risk of atherosclerosis
• Tea restored blood vessel function in those with coronary artery disease
• Tea helped to prevent atherosclerosis
• Tea enhanced dilation of blood vessels
• Regular tea drinkers had a 65% reduced risk of developing high blood pressure

Tea and cancer

• Tea inhibited oxidative damage
• Tea decreased the growth of abnormal cells and inhibited uncontrolled cell growth
• Drinking tea combated free radical damage
• Tea boosted the immune system
• Tea helped prevent prostate cancer
• Those who drank tea had a reduced risk of skin cancer
• Tea assisted in the regression of oral cancer
• Tea drinkers had decreased ovarian cancer risk

Tea and immune function

• Tea boosted natural resistance to microbial infection

Tea and oral health

• Tea inhibited the plaque forming ability of oral bacteria

Tea and bone health

• Although caffeine intake has been suggested to be a risk factor for reduced bone mineral density, research indicated that drinking tea does not negatively affect bone mineral density
• Older women who drank tea had a higher bone mineral density than those who did not drink tea

Tea and kidney stones

• Those who drank tea had a lower risk of developing kidney stones

Tea and neurological decline

• Drinking tea resulted in a reduced risk of Parkinsons disease

Tea and spouse selection

• Those who drank 5 cups of green tea each day had a more attractive spouse (are you still paying attention to my article? This one has yet to be confirmed by research – but you never know).

Tea Recipes

When talking to folks who don’t consume enough tea, their excuse is usually that they don’t like the taste. However, this excuse is fairly lame.

Just like with other healthy meals and drinks, you’ve gotta be a little creative. To this end, here are a few recipes that can make including tea in your diet a delicious proposition:

Mint Chocolate Shake

Ingredients:

1/2 cup strongly brewed green tea with mint
1 cup ice
2 scoops chocolate whey protein
1 cup low-fat plain yogurt
1 tbsp flaxseed oil or vanilla flavored fish oil
1 tbsp semi-sweet chocolate chips or cocoa nibs

Instructions:

Prepare green tea by steeping for 5 minutes or using tea press/infuser. Allow to cool.

Pour tea in the blender and add 1 cup of ice.

Add to the blender, protein, yogurt, oil, and chocolate.

Blend on high until mixture is smooth and creamy.

Nutrition Information:

Makes 1 large 593kcal shake (22fat, 36carb, 61 protein) or 2 small 296kcal shakes (11fat, 18carb, 30 protein).

Blueberry Oatmeal

Ingredients:

1/2 cup strongly brewed green tea with berry flavor
1 cup of water
1/2 cup Old fashioned large flake oats
2 tbsp ground flax seeds
1 tbsp pure honey
1/4 cup low fat milk or soy milk
1 scoop vanilla protein
1/4 cup frozen berries

Instructions:

Prepare green tea by steeping for 5 minutes or using tea press/infuser. Allow to cool.

Pour tea and 1 cup water into a pot.

Bring pot to a boil on high heat and add the oats.

Reduce the heat to medium-low and simmer until liquid is absorbed (approx 7-10 mins).

Remove from heat and stir in flax and honey.

Combine milk and protein in a blender and pour over oatmeal.

Add frozen berries.

Nutrition Information:

Makes 1 large 472kcal serving (10fat, 60carb, 35 protein) or 2 small 236kcal servings (5fat, 30carb, 15 protein).

——————————————————
Note: for 120 delicious, physique-friendly recipes like these, pick up a copy of our new Gourmet Nutrition – The Cookbook for the Fit Food Lover.
www.gourmetnutrition.com

Also note that if you purchase a copy of our highly acclaimed Gourmet Nutrition cookbook anytime between

today and the end of this month, 10% of the proceeds will go directly to the Healthy Food Bank.

Now you can eat delicious food yourself while helping feed

someone who’s hungry.
——————————————————

Final thoughts
Most benefits are seen with around 3 – 4 cups of green or black tea per day. So make sure you start there there.

In the research, regularly steeped tea was used in most trials. To this end, be careful with pre-bottled teas as they may have excessive amounts of added sweeteners and degraded beneficial compounds. Therefore they may not offer the same benefits as regularly stepped tea. __________________

Posted By:
John Berardi, PhD, CSCS
President, Precision Nutrition

A Balanced Diet Isn’t Enough

by John M Berardi, PhD, CSCS

What The Heck Is A Balanced Diet?
You hear it all the time – from your mom, from dietitians, from doctors, from coaches, heck, even from your uncle Jimmy.

Just eat a “balanced diet” and you should be fine.

Of course, the fact that no one ever mentions what actually constitutes a “balanced diet” only adds to the mystique and allure of this mythical creature.

To your mom, a balanced diet pretty much means whatever she puts on your plate. To your dietitian and doctor, it pretty much means to eat less saturated fat and cholesterol. To your coach, it means whatever keeps you from getting fatter. And to your uncle Jimmy, it means skipping breakfast, having fries and a burger for lunch, and having a 6-pack of Coors Light after work.

For most people, a balanced diet is simply a buzz word for “eating whatever I want to eat.” The phrase is beautifully vague enough to be able to justify their own personal choices with amazing vehemence and rationalization. It’s vague enough to convince folks that no changes are necessary in their daily intake. It’s vague enough for dietitians to suggest that no supplements are required to meet our daily needs.

Yet it’s also vague enough to be utterly useless and void of all utility or meaning. And it’s vague enough to ensure that the rates of diabetes and heart disease consistently increase.

Truth be told, as you’ve probably guessed by now, I hate the phrase “balanced diet.” Indeed, if there were one phrase that should be banned from our collective nutritional lexicon, this is the one. It’s a useless term that is often used to justify counterproductive habits.

How About A Dietary Analysis
To help illustrate my point, just the other day I was searching the medical databases for a host of diet analysis studies.

My goal was to find studies done on athletes, recreational exercisers, and sedentary folks.

And my intention was to find out whether or not their so-called “balanced diets” were actually providing them with the minimum level of nutritional intake established by the very conservative American Dietetics Association.

You see, the ADA establishes nutrition standards for the population at large.

For example, assuming a 2000kcal diet, the average person should be getting the following macronutrients each day, according to the ADA:

Total Fat 65 g
Saturated fatty acids 20 g
Cholesterol 300 mg
Sodium 2400 mg
Potassium 4700 mg
Total carbohydrate 300 g
Fiber 25 g
Protein 50 g

And in terms of micronutrients, here’s what we should be getting to achieve 100% of our recommended daily intake, according to the ADA.

Vitamin A 5000 IU
Vitamin C 60 mg
Calcium 1000 mg
Iron 18 mg
Vitamin D 400 IU
Vitamin E 30 IU
Vitamin K 80 μg
Thiamin 1.5 mg
Riboflavin 1.7 mg
Niacin 20 mg
Vitamin B6 2 mg
Folate 400 μg
Vitamin B12 6 μg
Biotin 300 μg
Pantothenic acid 10 mg
Phosphorus 1000 mg
Iodine 150 μg
Magnesium 400 mg
Zinc 15 mg
Selenium 70 μg
Copper 2 mg
Manganese 2 mg
Chromium 120 μg
Molybdenum 75 μg
Chloride 3400 mg

Again, these numbers are conservative. They’ve been established by the ADA as rock-bottom minimums required to prevent us from contracting nasty diseases.

They say nothing about optimization, mind you. However, they are still useful. After all, if we dip below these levels, we’re in nutritional deficiency land. Cue up pirate songs, eye patches, and the talk of scurvy.

So, in beginning the research review mentioned above, my goal was to uncover some of the published literature, to see if anyone ever actually achieves a “balanced diet” in the real world.

My criterion, of course, would be something measurable. I’d be using a real dietary analysis to determine just what “balanced” actually meant.

My Experience
Now, my experience told me that I’d be pretty disappointed in this notion of a so-called “balanced” diet.

When at the University of Western Ontario working on my PhD, I assisted Dr Peter Lemon with an advanced Exercise Nutrition course. And, as part of the class, every year we had 150-200 students do a personal dietary analysis.

So, for 3 years straight, it was my job to collect these analyses and plug them into a database for further review. And, over the course of 3 years, and over 500 exercise and nutrition students, it was my experience that very, very few of them achieved 100% of the recommended intake of all the macro- and micro-nutrients.

In general, only about 10-15% of them met all of their dietary needs. The other 85-90% were deficient in one or more key nutrients – whether it was zinc, magnesium, omega 3 fatty acids, or protein.

Interestingly, in my hunt above, I found an interesting study published in 2006. This study, published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, corroborated my experience perfectly.

Here’s what the researchers found.

Seventy diets were computer analyzed from the menu of athletes or sedentary subjects seeking to improve the quality of micronutrient intake from food choices. All of these dietary analyses fell short of the recommended 100% RDA micronutrient level from food alone.

In other words, over 70 diets were analyzed from individuals actively trying to improve their nutritional intake. And not a single one even achieved the minimum micronutrient suggested by the ADA!

The Study
If you’re interested in checking out the study details, which I think you should be, here’s the paper for your review.

J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006; 3(1): 51–55.
Food Alone May Not Provide Sufficient Micronutrients for Preventing Deficiency
Bill Misner

Introduction
Reference Daily Intakes (RDI) is a new term that replaces the familiar U.S. Recommended Daily Allowances (U.S. RDA). RDIs are based on a population-weighted average of the latest RDAs for vitamins and minerals for healthy Americans over 4 years old.

RDIs are not recommended optimal daily intake figures for any particular age group or sex. Government-established Reference Daily Intake guidelines (RDI) are designed to prevent nutrient-deficiency diseases.

Most nutritionally oriented professionals imply that a balanced variety of foods selected from the Food Guide Pyramid (FGP) will supply all micronutrients at the RDA or new RDI levels necessary to maintain optimal health and prevent nutrient-deficiency diseases. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has proposed a conservative strategy for managing dietary micronutrient deficiency and sufficiency:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association (ADA) that the best nutritional strategy for promoting optimal health and reducing the risk of chronic disease is to wisely choose a wide variety of foods. Additional nutrients from fortified foods and/or supplements can help some people meet their nutritional needs as specified by science-based nutrition standards such as the Dietary Reference Intakes. This position paper addresses increasing the nutrient density of foods or diets through fortification or supplementation when diets fail to deliver consistently adequate amounts of vitamins and minerals.”

Between 1996 and 2005, 70 diets were computer analyzed from the menu of athletes or sedentary subjects seeking to improve the quality of micronutrient intake from food choices.

Surprisingly, all of these dietary analyses fell short of the recommended 100% RDA micronutrient level from food alone.

Therefore, based on diets analyzed for adequacy or inadequacy of macronutrients and micronutrients, a challenging question is proposed: “Does food selection alone provide 100% of the former RDA or newer RDI micronutrient recommended daily requirement?”

Methods
From 70 computer-generated dietary analyses, 20 subjects’ diets were selected based on the highest number of foods analyzed from 10 men (ages 25–50 y) and 10 women (ages 24–50 y).

A First Data Bank Nutritionist IV computer-program default was utilized, defaulted to apply the Harris-Benedict equation, a formula that determines energy expense against RDA micronutrient requirement, by age, gender, and body mass index (BMI).

The purpose of this study was to determine if food intake alone provided the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) requirements for 10 vitamins and 7 minerals. The ten vitamins analyzed were Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, Vitamin K, Vitamin B-1, Vitamin B-2, Vitamin B-3, Vitamin B-6, Vitamin B-12, and Folate. The seven minerals analyzed were Iodine, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Zinc, and Selenium.

The 20 Individual Diets analyzed originated from the following subjects:

1. Two professional cyclists athletes (A)
2. Three amateur cyclists athletes (A)
3. Three amateur triathletes athletes (A)
4. Five eco-challenge amateur athletes (A)
5. One amateur runner athlete (A)
6. Six sedentary non-athletes (S)

Hence, fourteen (14) athletes’ (A) and six (6) sedentary subjects’ (S) diets were analyzed for calorie and RDA-micronutrient adequacy or inadequacy.

Results
Based on each subject’s activity level (caloric expense), age, gender, and body mass index (BMI), 10 of the diets were found calorie-excessive, above energy requirements (4 men and 6 women), but the remaining 10 diets were found calorie-deficient, not meeting 100% of their energy requirements (6 men and 4 women).

When total calorie intake percents were averaged by gender, men consumed only 92.6% of the calories required for their total energy requirements, while women consumed only 97.3% of the calories required to meet their energy requirements.

Of the 20 diets analyzed, 50% were calorie-sufficient and 50% calorie-deficient resulting in an overall -7.4% deficiency for men and a -2.7% deficiency in women (Table 1.).

CLICK HERE FOR TABLE 1

Calorie deficient diets tended to record a greater number of micronutrient deficiencies as compared to the calorie-sufficient diets.

Of the 340 micronutrient entries generated from 17 micronutrients analyzed, all 20 subjects presented between 3 and 15 deficiencies each based on the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) value from food intake alone.

Males averaged deficiencies in 40% of the vitamins and 54.2% of the minerals required.

Females averaged deficiencies in 29% of the vitamins and 44.2% of the minerals Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) required.

The male food intake was RDA-deficient in 78 out of 170 micronutrient entries, or 45.8% of the 10 vitamins and 7 minerals analyzed.

The female dietary intake was RDA-deficient in 60 out of 170 micronutrients or 35.2% of the 10 vitamins and 7 minerals analyzed. Both male and females as a single entity recorded 138 micronutrient deficiencies out of the possible 340 micronutrients analyzed, or 40.5% micronutrient RDA-deficiency from food intake alone. (Table 2.)

CLICK HERE FOR TABLE 2

Accuracy of the individual food-weighed measures, accuracy in reporting foods consumed, and the accuracy of the computer-generated software are factors that affect the accuracy of the results reported in this observational study.

The effect of activity on calorie deficiency in this contingent demonstrates an increased micronutrient deficiency in athletes (A) and surprisingly, the sedentary subjects (S) in this study also posted food-borne micronutrient deficiencies.

Each chronic deficiency proportionately increases the risk of nutrient-deficiency diseases. In highly active athletes (A), micronutrient deficiencies occur at higher rates because calorie deficits are associated with exercise expense.

Food alone in all 20 subjects did not meet the minimal Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) micronutrient requirements for preventing nutrient-deficiency diseases. The more active the person, the greater the need to employ a variety of balanced micronutrient-enriched foods including micronutrient supplementation as a preventative protocol for preventing these observed deficiencies. (Tables 3, 4, 5).

CLICK HERE FOR TABLE 3

CLICK HERE FOR TABLE 4

CLICK HERE FOR TABLE 5

Concern for micronutrient adequacy from food alone is not a new question. Excerpts 70 years ago (1936) from the 2nd Session of the 74th USA Congressional Record (excerpts) stated:

“Laboratory tests prove that the fruits, the vegetables, the grains, the eggs and even the milk and the meats of today are not what they were a few generations ago (which doubtless explains how our forefathers thrived on a selection of foods that would starve us today).

It is bad news to learn from our leading authorities that 99% of the American people are deficient in these minerals, and that a marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in disease. Any upset of the balance, any considerable lack of one or another element, however microscopic the body requirement may be, and we sicken, suffer, and shorten our lives.”

This twenty-subject dietary analysis study is not representative of the entire population, however the results supported by the 1936 congressional record, beg the question:
“Does food selection alone provide 100% of the former RDA or newer RDI micronutrient recommended daily requirement?”

It may be that chronic micronutrient insufficiency from food alone is more fact than fantasy. This study calls for a dietary analysis of a larger contingent of the population to determine if there is an association between chronic suboptimal RDI-micronutrient deficiency and suboptimal health disorders that may digress into disease.

Our Conclusions
In the end, the take home message here is quite clear.

Most people trying their best to achieve a “balanced diet” are falling short, creating personal deficiencies in vitamins, minerals, and more.

In the study above, the nutrients folks were most at risk for deficiency in were:

Iodine – 100% of the diets were deficient in iodine
Vitamin D – 95% of the diets were deficient in vitamin D
Zinc – 80% of the diets were deficient in zinc
Vitamin E – 65% of the diets were deficient in vitamin E
Calories – 50% of the diets were deficient in calories
Calcium – 50% of the diets were deficient in calcium

Of course, this doesn’t mean that nutritional supplements are necessary as a first line of defense. Indeed, recent data have clearly demonstrated that the vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals found in real food, dose per dose, often outperform those found in pills and capsules.

What it does mean, however, is that if you’re not getting the advice of a nutrition professional, or if you’re not following a sound eating protocol that’s designed specifically to overcome nutrient deficiencies, you’d better get cracking.

The longer you wait, the more at risk you’ll become for a host of nutritional deficiency related diseases and disorders, diseases and disorders you could have prevented simply by changing just a few eating habits.

———————————————————————–

To learn more about how to improve your own nutritional intake and avoid nutrient deficiencies — I encourage you to pick up a copy of Precision Nutrition.

This comprehensive nutrition program is designed to teach you everything you need to know to look fantastic, feel your best, and perform at the top of your game.

Protein Problems: When You Need To Say Bye-Bye To Your Current Brand of Protein

by Dr John Berardi, CSCS

This week I’m out in Calgary working with Canada’s top bobsleigh and skeleton athletes. And right now, the athletes are in the midst of a testing camp, meaning that they’re all here competing for a position on this year’s upcoming World Cup and Europa Cup squads.

As nutritional support for their hard training is a must, I spend a lot of time with these athletes making sure everything is in place for success – food amount, food type, food timing, and appropriate supplement intake.

Interestingly, as most of the athletes use some type of protein supplement to help meet their high protein needs, every time I’m out here I’m reminded of how many folks are hypersensitive to protein powders – especially whey protein.

In fact, during this trip alone, I’ve had to take 5 athletes off whey protein because of their negative reactions to the stuff – even the so-called “high quality” whey isolates.

One athlete, for example, had extreme bloating and gas from their whey protein supplement. Within 30 minutes of drinking their shake, a big, smelly cloud would fill the room and their belly would bloat up to about 125% of its normal size.

Another athlete, who has used whey protein during training sessions for the last year, thought – FOR THE ENTIRE TIME – that he had a low-grade, chronic head cold due to the extreme stuffy-ness he’d experienced during every workout.

Another athlete, after every serving of whey protein, would build up a thick coating of mucous in their throat as a result of their protein supplement.

And the list goes on…

These symptoms, of course, are commonly associated with food allergies and/or food intolerances. And unfortunately, they are symptoms many of them, and likely many of you, have either failed to recognize, ignored, or just simply learned to live with.

But, as I told my athletes, these symptoms are not normal and should not be brushed aside. Rather, they should be dealt with and eliminated.

So, at this point, let me pose these 4 questions:

How often do you feel gassy and bloated?

How often do you suffer from flatulence?

How often do you have a stuffy nose?

How often do you feel excess mucous production in your head and throat?

If these symptoms above are part of your normal day, it’s time to look to your food intake to see what might be causing the problem or problems.

Specific to protein problems, the symptoms above are typically the result of one or both of the following:

Lactose Intolerance
In certain individuals (those without enough lactase enzyme activity), undigested lactose passes through the stomach into the intestines where it must be fermented. Through this process, lots of gas is formed, causing stomach cramps, bloating, flatulence, and diarrhea.

Protein Allergy/Intolerance
In addition to the above, symptoms can be a result of milk protein allergy/intolerance. While casein protein has been implicated in more cases of milk protein problems than whey, both milk proteins can cause similar issues. This is due to the fact that in some individuals, casein and whey can cause an excessive inflammatory immune response. This leads to mucous production. And high mucous means blocked airways, stuffy noses, and thick throats.

Now, I know. Your supplement manufacturer swears that the protein they’re selling you is a “high quality” isolate. And yes, true high-quality isolates contain very little lactose. But again, it may or may not be the lactose that’s the problem. It could be the protein isolate itself that’s causing the issue.

But, consider this as well…any protein powder that contains “whey protein concentrates” still contains lactose – even if the manufacturer claims it’s a high quality isolate. Therefore if it’s got concentrates, it’s got lactose.

In addition, many protein industry insiders believe that some companies are lying about the quality of their product to increase profit margins. They claim that since it’s much cheaper to use lower quality whey protein concentrate than it is to use a high quality whey protein isolate, some companies are adding concentrate without listing it on the label.

Sneaky, sneaky.

Of course, I’m not trying to kick off a conspiracy theory – rather, I’m just trying to help you look and feel better by avoiding potential dietary problems. And, like I said above, even if you’ve got high quality protein product that is lactose free, you could actually have a protein allergy/intolerance. Therefore the protein type itself would have to go.

Now, without making things too complicated here, let’s get practical with a few suggestions for those of you who think you’re having problems with your protein supplements.

1) Switch Protein Brands
If you consistently get gassy and bloated or stuffy and mucousy after having a supplemental milk protein product, it may be time to switch brands. Your brand might have too much lactose or too high a concentration of certain protein products and either of these could be detrimental.

Indeed, this week one of my athletes switched protein powders from a whey protein isolate to a milk protein blend and within 1 day all of their complaints disappeared. Heck, I’ve even seen athletes switch from one brand of whey isolate to another and have an improvement in function and a removal of symptoms.

2) Switch Protein Types
If you switch protein brands and that doesn’t help, you may legitimately have an intolerance to the milk protein itself.

In such case, you might try switching to rice protein isolates. Rice protein isolates are hypoallergenic and are nowadays fortified to contain a complete compliment of amino acids.

3) Think About Your Dairy
One other thing to also consider if you’re suffering the symptoms above is your dairy intake. Maybe, instead of your protein being the problem, you’re having a problem with milk, cheese, yogurt, etc. Again, the lactose or protein fractions in dairy products may be the culprit, so don’t rule either out.

If it turns out that dairy is the problem, you could switch to non-cow’s milk dairy (goat or sheep’s milk dairy), or you could switch to soy-based dairy like milk, yogurt, etc.

In the end, the point of this article isn’t to make you a dairy or protein hypochondriac. Don’t invent symptoms that don’t exist. However, I do encourage you to think about your protein and dairy intake and consider whether your protein supplements and dairy are helping or hurting you.

If you’re aware of the link between what you eat and how you feel, it’s much easier to begin to change things up if a particular food is problematic.

—————————————————————–

For more discussion on this topic, feel free to post your thoughts and questions below.

__________________

Posted By:
John Berardi, PhD, CSCS
President, Precision Nutrition

How To Gain Body Fat While Exercising 14 Hours a Week

by John Berardi, PhD, CSCS

Exercise Without Diet
A few weeks back I shared with you an article called “When Exercise Doesn’t Work.”

And in this article, I reviewed some fascinating new research demonstrating that, without a dietary intervention, exercise doesn’t have much of an impact on body composition.

Even to the tune of 6 hours per week…

Even when it’s high intensity exercise….

…participants following an exercise plan, without being cognizant of their nutritional intake, only tend to lose an extra pound of fat vs. those folks who do nothing for the same 12-16 weeks.

Disheartening, I know.

But oh so true.

Especially when supported by this new information I’m going to share with you today.

More Support For the “No Diet Hypothesis”
Just yesterday, I received an interesting email from Dr Gary Homann, a faculty member at Lincoln University in Jefferson City, MO.

(Some of you may recall that we collaborated with Dr Homann a few years back and came up with some interesting insights, spotlighted here: Long Haul Training)

Gary, intrigued by my last article, shared with me the results from a very telling study he completed back in 2003. Here’s what he found.

2 Hours a Day and They Still Got Fatter!
In Dr Homann’s study, 56 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 – all of whom were in a program run by the South Dakota Department of Corrections – volunteered to get involved in a 4-6 month wellness program.

The idea was to have the girls exercise for about 14 hours per week (2 hours per day consisting of various activities such as hiking, running, circuit training, step aerobics and basketball) while following the USDA Food Guide, as it appeared in 2003.

At the beginning of the study and again at the end, a host of measures were recorded, including:

A step test and timed mile for cardiovascular fitness

Height, weight, body mass index (BMI), skinfolds (for % body fat), waist and hips circumference for body composition

Shuttle run for agility

Standing jump, sit-ups and bench press test for muscular strength and endurance

And sit-and-reach and straddle tests for flexibility

So, what happened?

Well, as expected, cardiovascular fitness, muscular strength and endurance, agility, and flexibility all improved. That’s great!

What’s not so great is that body composition measures worsened.

Instead of losing body weight and fat, these girls, on average, gained 6lbs, increased their waist circumference by 1/2 and inch, increased their hip circumference by 3/4 of an inch, and increased their body fat by over 1/2 a percentage point.

Now, I don’t know about you.

But this isn’t exactly what I’d expect to happen if I went on a 14 hour per week exercise binge!

The USDA Food Pyramid circa 2003
(note: the pyramid has since been updated…thank god!)

Exercise + The Food Pyramid
As you’d imagine, I’m kinda disappointed to learn that it’s actually possible to gain body fat when exercising 2 hours per day, every single day. You’re probably disappointed too.

However, what’s even more disappointing is the fact that it’s possible while actually following a nutrition plan!

Remember, participants in this study were following the recommendations of the USDA – you know, that famous food pyramid that everyone talks about. The one that dietitians across the land recommend that we follow. The one recommending 6-11 servings of breads, cereals, and pastas each day.

(Now, it is true that the USDA has since changed their recommendations – for the better. But can you blame me if I’m a little gun shy on backing their new recommendations? Especially after the checkered history of the last food pyramid?)

Questions
Now, you might have some questions about the study design…as I did when first reading it.

After all, maybe the girls didn’t follow the USDA plan to a “T”…

Or maybe they were going thru puberty at the time of the study and that explains the fat gain…

Or maybe being put in a detention center isn’t exactly condusive to fat loss in the first place.

Well, after speaking with Dr Homann, I’m pretty confident that these factors can’t really explain away the fact that these girls exercised for 2 hours every single day, while following the USDA’s guidelines, and got fatter.

For starters, the girls were living in a detention center and they were provided all their meals. So there wasn’t much room to cheat.

Further, the girls were starting out quite over fat. Indeed, their average body fat was just over 30% to begin with. So they did have fat to lose. And their fat gain can’t be explained by simply “getting older” or “puberty”.

Let’s Bottom Line This
I could probably go on and on here…but I’ll spare you that. Instead, I’d like to simply say the following.

The data are pouring in.

And they paint a pretty clear picture. If you want to look better, feel better, and perform at the top of your game, you definitely have to exercise…(although 14 hours a week probably isn’t necessary).

But, even more importantly, you’ve got to look after your nutrition – specifically what you eat, how much you eat, and when you eat it.

Indeed, without the right nutritional intake, you simply can’t expect inspiring, noticeable results. Heck, in some cases, you might even expect to get worse!

So don’t leave your nutrition up to chance.

And if you need some help getting your nutritional intake straight, Precision Nutrition can help.

__________________

Posted By:
John Berardi, PhD, CSCS
President, Precision Nutrition

When Exercise Doesn’t Work

by John M Berardi, PhD, CSCS

This week I’ve got no fancy introduction. I’ve got no “journalistic hook.” You see, I recently had an “ah ha” moment that I’ve simply got to share with you. And here it is…

Exercise doesn’t work.

Now that might sound shocking coming from a guy with big biceps and 8% body fat; from a guy that recommends lots of exercise, at least 5 hours per week.

So if this all seems incongruent, I guess I should qualify the statement above. I guess I should have probably said:

Exercise, ALONE, doesn’t work.

My Wake-Up Call
My coming to this realization wasn’t an easy process.

I’ve been working with clients for over 15 years now and although I always knew that diet was an important part of the training equation, I also always harbored some subconscious notion that if I worked my clients hard enough, their lack of dietary effort would be overcome by my super-effective training programs.

Sure, I wanted them to eat well. But if they didn’t (more like, wouldn’t), somewhere deep inside it seemed ok. I figured in the battle of training vs. diet, training would win.

Now, I never said this aloud. However, somewhere I’m sure I felt it. So it wasn’t until I was slapped in the face with some cold, hard, objective data that I realized how wrong I’d been.

The Texas Study
These data came in the form of a study I recently worked on at the University of Texas.

In this study, nearly 100 initially sedentary participants either stayed sedentary (about half of them) OR began exercising (the other half). They exercisers were given a program to follow that added up to about 5 1/2 to 6 hours of activity per week and that lasted for a total of 12 weeks. The non-exercisers did nothing for the 12 weeks except show up for measurement sessions.

These individuals, as stated above, did no exercise before the study began. As a result of this sedentary lifestyle, they averaged between 35% and 40% body fat (according to DEXA scans).

Once the study began, the training group gathered together for 3 weight training sessions per week and 2 group exercise / interval sessions per week. All the training was designed by myself and overseen by a weightlifting coach and group exercise coach. So there was a pretty high level of quality control there.

Now, it’s important to note that we didn’t alter the participant’s eating at all. And we did this on purpose. We wanted to test the effects of exercise alone – without diet. In other words, the question became:

“Without a dietary intervention, can exercise alone reshape a person’s body?”

At the end of the 12 week study, we got our answer:

“Not so much…”

That’s right, when analyzing the data, I was shocked to find that even with 3+ hours of training per week with a weightlifting coach and 2+ hours of training per week with a body-weight circuit instructor didn’t really work. The formerly sedentary participants didn’t do much better than their couch-sitting counterparts.

That’s right, without dietary control, 12 weeks of high intensity training produced a fairly disappointing 1% loss of body fat. In terms of raw data, the participants lost only 1 pound of fat and gained 2 pounds of lean vs. the placebo group.

Frankly, that sucks.

The Machete Perspective
Now, imagine you’re overweight (about 38% body fat) and you decide to take the plunge, to hire a personal trainer, and to get in shape for perhaps the first time in your life.

So, you decide to buy a training package, one that contains 60 sessions (5 sessions per week for 12 weeks). The cost, per session, is 50 bucks, the going rate. So you plunk down 3 grand and start your initial 12 week fitness journey.

You don’t expect big things…you just expect to start moving in the right direction. So you’re patient. You attend all your training sessions, you get to know your trainer really well, spending over 60 hours with him or her. You stay off the scale, not wanting to jinx yourself.

Then, at the end of the 12 weeks, you weigh-in.

Body weight –
You were overweight, obese in fact, to start with. Well, if you simply exercised (without changing your diet and following the protocol above) you now weigh one pound more!

About to go crazy, your trainer talks you down off the cliff. You probably gained a lot of muscle while losing a lot of fat, he or she says. So it’s time to do a body comp test.

Fat weight –
Ok, here’s the moment of truth. You’re sure there must have been some fat loss. Drumroll please…

If you followed the protocol from above, you’re down one, uninspiring, unnoticable pound of fat.

“What the heck!? Can I NOW be pissed?”

Lean weight –
Because you weigh one pound more, and lost one pound of fat, that means that your formerly sedentary butt put on 2 lbs of lean mass.

That’s nice and all. But that wasn’t the goal! You wanted to lose fat. This is when your anger kicks in.

So, you spent 3000 bucks and 60 hours working your ass off in the gym. And your ass didn’t change one bit! Is it time to grab a machete and take that good for nothing trainer’s head clean off?

It’s Not A Fluke
Now, when I first saw these data, I thought they were a fluke. I got the research team together on the phone and chewed them out. There must have been a data mix-up.

I mean, seriously, 12 weeks of hard training and only one pound of fat lost vs. no training at all. Was this some sort joke? Did they screw up the data collection? Did the research participants skip out on sessions? What was the deal?!?

Despite my insistence, there were no errors. The participants showed up. They trained hard. The data were collected properly. The participants just didn’t progress. And, for the first time, I started asking the question honestly.

Can a solid training program alone get people into great shape?

Note I said “solid” training program. In the past I figured people weren’t getting results because their training program was awful and perhaps so was their diet.

But, as a result of this new study, a study in which the training protocol was solid, the answer appeared to be no. A solid training program alone wasn’t enough to get people into great shape.

Other Research Support
With a new sense of purpose, I started digging around in the research. And I quickly found another recent study suggesting the exact same thing.

This study, published in the April 2008 issue of Nutrition and Metabolism, demonstrated that after 10 weeks of training (3 endurance sessions and 2 strength sessions per week – the flip flop of our study), 38 previously overweight, sedentary subjects also saw minimal changes in body composition with training.

Body Weight –
In this study, neither the control (no exercise) group or the exercise group significantly changed their body weight. Both groups saw about a 0.6lb loss in body weight on average. But again, neither change was significant.

Fat Mass –
When it came to fat mass, the exercise group lost 2.4lbs while the control group lost 0.9lbs. This means that the 50 exercise sessions lead to a mere 1.5lb fat loss vs doing nothing. Better than a kick in the teeth, I guess. But not all that stellar.

Lean Mass –
The exercise group grained 1.7lbs of lean mass while the control group gained 0.2lbs of lean mass. This means that the 50 exercise sessions led to a 1.5lb gain in lean mass vs doing nothing at all. Again, not bad. But not great either.

Different vs. Important
Sure, in both studies, the changes were “statistically significant.” In other words, participants did lose more fat and gain more lean mass when training vs. not training. However, let’s not confuse different with important. After all, these changes are small, really small. And I would suggest, unimportant.

I mean, come on now, people exercise to actually change their bodies in noticeable, measurable ways. They want to fit better into their clothes. They want to go from overweight to normal weight. They want to be able to walk up the stairs without getting winded. They want to lower their cholesterol.

In my estimation, and it might just be me, they’re just not all that interested in dumping big dollars and lots of time into something that leads to a one pound fat loss. Seriously, that’s not all that good.

The Lesson – No, It’s Not To Stop Exercising!
At this point you might be wondering if it’s my advice to stop exercising. Of course not! Exercise is critically important to looking better, feeling better, and performing better every single day. And don’t you forget it!

However, my point is that exercise ALONE just doesn’t cut it. What you really need is exercise PLUS a sound nutritional program. Now that’s just what the doctor ordered.

Consider what happens when people actually eat well…

In our recent Precision Nutrition Body Transformation Challenge, the average fat loss for all of our participants was 1/2% (or 1lb) lost per week! Remember, in the studies above, they lost about 1 to 1.5lbs in 10-12 weeks!

That’s almost at 10-fold increase in effectiveness when people added the Precision Nutrition plan to their training system.

Further, our finalists (the top performers) saw the following results:

• Finalist #1 lost about 30lbs in 16 weeks – losing 23lbs of fat, or about 1.4lbs of fat per week.

• Finalist #2 – lost about 16lbs in 16 weeks – losing 23lbs of fat, or about 1.4lbs of fat per week.

• Finalist #3 – lost 37lbs in 16 weeks – losing 27lbs of fat, or about 1.7 lbs of fat per week.

• Finalist #4 – lost 25lbs during 16 weeks – losing 35lbs of fat, or about 2.2lbs of fat per week.

• Finalist #5 – lost 37lbs during 16 weeks – losing 31lbs of fat, or about 1.9lbs of fat.

Note: each of our finalists followed one of the training programs available in the PN Member’s Resource Section (member’s only) and our nutritional guidelines outlined in the Precision Nutrition System.

Also consider the research study discussed above, the one published in Nutrition and Metabolism.

In this study, there was actually a 3rd group. And this group, in addition to exercising, supplemented each day with 2 nutrient-dense meal replacement supplements. Each supplement contained 300 calories, 5g fat, 25g carbs, and 40g protein and a host of vitamins and minerals. And while the exercise-only group saw small fat losses and muscle gains, the exercise plus supplement group, was a different story.

Body Weight –
The exercise+supplement group lost 4lbs of total body weight. This compared to the 0.6lbs lost in the exercise alone group.

Fat Mass –
The exercise+supplement group also lost 6lbs of total body fat. This compared to the 2.4lbs lost in the exercise alone group.

Lean Mass –
The exercise+supplement group gained about 1.8lbs of total lean body mass. This compared to the 1.7lb gained in the exercise alone group.

So, as you can see, even something as simple as adding a high quality protein drink or MRP can improve fat loss vs. exercise alone.

But, again, nothing is as effective as following a solid nutrition program while exercising properly.

Trainers Take Note
At this point, I’ve gotta serve notice to trainers. Folks, if you’re not providing nutrition advice to your clients, that’s a real problem.

A trainer selling a client exercise alone is equivalent to a car salesman selling a car with no engine. As you’ve already seen, the thing just won’t go.

Now, I don’t want to seem as if I’m taking shots at ALL trainers because I love the service many of them provide. However, I do have something to say to those trainers who don’t have a nutrition system in place.

Take my advice…incorporating nutrition isn’t a “nice to have,” it’s a “need to have”. So don’t miss the boat. Start thinking about how you can get your clients training hard AND eating better right away.

For some great ideas, click here…

Exercisers, Also Take Note
For you folks who aren’t trainers yet who are looking to look better, feel better, and perform at the top of your game, the lesson should be obvious.

You can train as hard as you want. However, without some attention to your nutritional intake, you simply can’t expect inspiring, noticeable results.

To get your nutrition program straight, click here…

__________________

Posted By:
John Berardi, PhD, CSCS
President, Precision Nutrition