The 2008 Fat Loss Roundtable, Part I
Featuring Dr. Christopher R. Mohr,
Mike Roussell, and Chris Shugart
Moderated by the Testosterone Editors
In the early 90's, it was low fat and low fat only. Rice cakes and fat-free Twinkies for everybody! Then,
as the decade progressed, carbs started to fall out of fashion and the
nutrition world turned itself upside down with low carbs and low carbs
only. Great, let's eat Crisco by the spoonful! What's next?
We almost hate to think about it, so we sat down with Dr. Christopher
Mohr, Mike Roussell, and Chris Shugart and asked them to think about
it. Here's what happened.
Testosterone: It's now 2008 and the low-carb trend is fading. Why all the macronutrient confusion? And can you predict any new trends? Mike Roussell: The
confusion in nutrition arises because food and fat loss are big money
industries and extreme stuff sells. It's really interesting if you look
back to the original food guide pyramid that was created in the heart
of the low-fat craze. The cover of the pamphlet handed out by the
government said, "Limit Fat to 30% of Calories."
The
media takes pieces of science and blows them up. "Limit fat" became
"cut all the fat out of your diet!" Bodybuilders adopted this and it
worked for them. But in reality most things work for bodybuilders
because we're such an extreme and dedicated culture.
But
now we're coming back to reality and embracing the role of fat in the
diet. Fats are powerful compounds as they can modulate gene expression
and hormonal responses in ways that carbs and protein never dreamed
about.
You're right about the low-carb craze
being gone in the mainstream. I knew it was over when Hood changed Carb
Countdown Milk to
Calorie Countdown Milk.
I
think the future for most people is going to be what we're doing here
on T-Nation right now. Effective fat loss programs are going to be
characterized by moderate carbohydrate intake but low or no starch
intake.
There are studies slowly being
published that show this is the best way for people to lose fat
(especially overweight insulin-resistant people). In the late 90s and
early 2000 there was a lot of fuss about the Glycemic Index. I think
that the future is Glycemic Load (Glycemic Index x grams of carbs)
because that takes into account both the type and amount of
carbohydrates. Dr. Christopher R. Mohr: Great
points, Mike, although the Glycemic Index is too confusing itself for
most people. I once had a client who didn't know oatmeal was a
carbohydrate (honestly!) and I bet she's not alone. I can't then turn
around and say, "Okay, well, oatmeal
is a carb and now let's calculate the Glycemic Load of your meal with oatmeal."
You
know, the confusion lies in the fact that everyone is looking for a
quick fix. Low fat worked, for a period of time, because it was a way
for people to decrease their calories. When you decrease your calories,
you lose weight. Period.
Now, I'm not saying this is the best approach. I'd like to have people focus more than on a scale, but while
Testosteronereaders
might understand that and realize the importance of body composition,
the average Joe simply wants to weigh less. So companies started making
everything fat free: pastries, donuts, cookies, you name it!
But
as savvy consumers started reading food labels, they realized that "fat
free" actually meant "high sugar" and often the fat-free varieties had
more calories than their regular-fat counterparts!
We
then had the same thing with carbs when the pendulum swung in the other
direction. All of a sudden, we had carb-free bagels, pasta, and bread.
Um, these foods
are carbohydrates — they shouldn't be akin to
cardboard and carb free. Again, it's a novel way of cutting back on
calories by limiting choices. Just like I said before, cut back on
calories, lose weight.
Then just like the
low-fat craze, the novelty of the low-carb craze wore off and we're
back to the middle. What's interesting is that the number of overweight
and obese people just continues to creep higher and higher. Is it
really about carbs or fat?
Here's my
prediction: a balanced approach to eating! Crazy, isn't it? Now keep in
mind I'm talking about the average person here, not someone stepping on
stage in their skivvies. I'm talking to the masses. Chris Shugart: Mike
nailed it here. The confusion comes in when the media glances over a
certain dietary issue, then either waters it down or misrepresents it.
But let's not blanket the evil media with blame; it's the public's
fault for only reading the dumbed-down headlines, then rationalizing to
excuse their poor food choices.
Example:
Bitter, dark chocolate contains some healthy compounds like phenols and
antioxidants. This translates to the headline, "Health Benefits of
Chocolate", and the fat-ass Wal-Mart consumer says, "Well, golly,
chocolate is good for you now! I'll just load up on Hershey Bars and
Cocoa Puffs!"
This is an example of willful
ignorance combined with rationalization. It's pathetic. Need
antioxidants? Take a fucking pill and skip the chocolate, fatty.
As
for new trends, I agree with Dr. Mohr. The pendulum has swung in every
direction now, so the only thing left (I hope) is a sensible approach.
Let's just pray that low-protein diets aren't next. Everyone would look
like vegetarians. And that would be tragic.
Testosterone:Okay, there's often a lot of discussion regarding post-workout
nutrition for strength gains, but what about during periods of fat
loss? Do you recommend Surge during periods of fat loss? Should people throw simple carbs down their throat during this time? Dr. Mohr: I
do. The key is timing these simple carbs around their workout. I want
people to work out as hard as possible, not be struggling to make it
through their workout because they're carb and/or calorie deprived.
With
that said, the recommendation to use Surge during/after a workout is
for people who work out hard. I was in the gym this morning and was
next to an overweight woman (with her "trainer") who was drinking a
sports drink between her alternating sets of wrist curls and calf
raises. Folks, I
wish I could make stories like that up. Now,
did she really need several extra hundred calories of sugar-water for
her workout? Consider your market and who you're dealing with. Someone
trying to get leaner and improve his/her body comp, I'm fine with
something like Surge, when you can ramp up the intensity! For the
regular person who's not in the condition to work out intensely and is
simply trying to lose some body mass, leave the recovery drinks on the
shelf. Roussell: I
try to keep my clients using Surge and workout carbs as long as
possible. We know now that effective fat loss isn't about how many
total calories or how many calories from fat we burn during a given
session. It's about boosting total 24-hour energy expenditure and
cranking up your metabolism.
I've found
that for most of the people I deal with they can train harder with
carbs before/during their workouts. The harder you train, the more
you'll boost your metabolism, and the more fat you'll lose. So keep the
Surge.
Accueil 
