Why Calories Remain Pivotal For Fat Loss

January 12, 2016 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

FitGreyStrong fact: Weight gain occurs when total caloric daily consumption exceeds total daily energy expenditure. To achieve weight or fat loss there must be an energy or caloric deficit. Over 80 years of scientific research has confirmed this to be fact.

FitGreyStrong Advice: Don’t believe the hype. Food quality is a must and essential to good health. However, weight or fat loss will not be realised no matter how good your diet is unless an energy deficit exists. Increased total physical activity during all waking hours and an energy-deficit diet that is wholesome, natural, minimally-processed and nutrient-dense will provide a significant opportunity for weight loss to be achieved.

I’m going to make a confession. I have laboured over the last month to write this blog. I’ve spent hour upon hour trying my best to explain what I think is a simple concept. The strangest thing is the evidence published so far is conclusive but with so much shit floating around anyone looking to lose a few kilo’s in the New Year is faced with a major challenge. What info is good and what is bad? How does one decipher what advice to act on and what advice to send to the computer’s recycle bin?

As I explained recently the media and ‘rogue’ researchers have, in some ways, muddied the weight loss debate by promoting the idea that exercise doesn’t help (see here). There are many examples of the media misleading consumers by sensationalising material that has been poorly researched, lacks objectivity and obfuscates the facts.

Ironically, it is this type of questionable and controversial material that gains the most traction with the public. The confusion created by such reporting has had a truly dreadful impact on the public’s perception regarding the role of exercise for weight loss. Many health care professionals working in the field have also raised serious concerns about this too because there is the feeling that some people may simply avoid physical activity altogether.

Notwithstanding that compensatory mechanisms mitigate the efficacy of exercise in some people (see here), widespread consensus remains elusive regarding the very basic underpinnings of weight loss. It seems incredible in fact that in the year 2016 vigorous debate and disagreement continues to swirl. However, I believe that the writing was on the wall when Generation X’s were still kids. There was sufficient scientific research carried out from the 1930s to the 1980s to put to bed and move on from some of the most hotly contested questions relevant to weight loss. The two questions which continue to inspire fierce debate are:

1. Do calories really matter?

2. Is weight loss simply a matter of expending more energy than you consume?

Before outlining what the specific focus of this blog is I need to digress. I want to make clear that it is not my intention here to assess whether manipulating the macronutrient makeup of the diet – e.g. high fat versus high carb diets – yields superior benefits on metabolic outcomes such as fasting blood glucose or lipid profile. Of course, this is a very important question to address but I’ll have bitten off way more than I can chew to do this justice, so I’ll come back to this another time.

The only thing I will say is that the actual published research is mixed. Three meta-analyses and systematic reviews have been completed over the last 18 months assessing whether metabolic outcomes are affected by manipulating macronutrient composition. Two of the these (see here and here) concluded that there were no differences on metabolic outcomes when the protein, carbohydrate and fat composition of the diet was varied; whilst the other paper (see here) suggested the opposite stating that dietary manipulation did alter metabolic outcomes.

Ok, let’s get back to what the focus of this blog is then.

inactivity and fat gain — Is obesity a disease?

The aim of the following is to shine a spotlight on and explore the mechanistic aspect of weight loss. You may be wondering…………. what the bloody hell does that mean? What I mean by ‘mechanistic’ is the basic physiological state required – in our species, Homo sapiens – to bring about weight loss.

To state this as simply as possible, when it comes to weight loss the single most important factor from a physiological perspective is that there exists an energy or caloric deficit. Eighty-five years of scientific research and investigation has demonstrated without equivocation that for weight loss to occur an energy deficit must exist. Total daily energy expenditure has to exceed total daily energy intake for any reduction in body mass to occur or vice versa for any increase to occur. Regardless of one’s age, race or gender this holds true. This really is the only conclusion you can draw if you actually read the studies that have been published in reputable peer-reviewed medical journals relevant to this area (see here).

Now some of you may disagree with me on this and you are not alone. Unfortunately, in my view, there are a number of dissenting voices from a variety of quarters that simply don’t believe this to be true. They passionately dispute this and contend that the total energy provided by the diet matters very little. What really counts is the metabolic effect food has on our body. An example of this type of thinking can be found here.

Supporters of such thinking, decouple weight loss and calories. They propose that the “metabolic propensity” to increase and store fat in the adipose cells is driven primarily by the quality of the foodstuffs ingested and the proportion of protein, carbohydrates and fat in the diet. “A calorie is not a calorie” because different foods of different qualities have different effects on our digestion, hormones, biochemistry, metabolism, thermogenesis, physiology and associated internal feedback loops.

Whilst the total energy or calorie content of food matters, what is significantly more important is the metabolic effect that food has on our body. All calories are not created equal, therefore, with the quality and type of food choices made and the subsequent metabolic effect that such choices have on our body ultimately determining if fat loss is successful or not.

The most significant and telling problem with this line of thinking is that there are virtually no respected and acknowledged researchers who believe it. I see this as a telltale sign that the dissenters are simply barking up the wrong tree. Virtually all leading obesity experts worldwide concur that unless there is an energy deficit, decreases to weight or fat mass are not possible irrespective of how good the diet is. The question needs to be asked, why is this the case?

FitGreyStrong’s take-home message to you up to this point is:

Unless you expend more than you take-in you ain’t going to see any changes to your weight or fat.

Weight training for fat loss — Resistance and weight training shows great promise to maximise fat loss

There exists consensus amongst nearly all scientists because of the following. Research undertaken with participants confined to an in-patient hospital setting or in facilities known as metabolic units are currently the most accurate way to scientifically determine the specific energy requirements needed for weight change. Such studies are usually expensive because they are very resource and equipment intensive. However, what they allow researchers to do is measure what is being consumed (energy in) and what is being expended (energy out) quite precisely – or at least, a lot more precisely than studies that involve free-living subjects.

In brief, the methodology of such studies looks something like this:

For the duration of the trial subjects have to remain in the hospital or unit.
Participants of these studies are allocated and given all consumables (food and drink) for the duration of the intervention.
The caloric content of what is consumed is a known entity and has been prepared and accurately measured.
The macronutrient percentages of the diet for protein, carbs and fat has been determined.
Physical activity is closely monitored, measured and accounted for.
Resting energy expenditure (REE) and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) is estimated as accurately as possible based on the equipment utilised and methods employed in the study.

With energy intake and energy expenditure measured as close to actual as possible, investigators can now establish whether the prerequisite for weight loss is an energy deficit. Over the last 80 years or so there have been over 20 studies carried out that have assessed the effect of calorie and macronutrient manipulation on weight loss whilst in the strict confines of hospital or metabolic unit.

Evaluation of such research has shown that no major differences have been found for weight or fat loss when diets of different macronutrient composition but with the same amount of energy (i.e. isoenergetic diets) were compared. Results from these studies show beyond dispute that the key determinant for decreased weight is a caloric or energy deficit, not diet composition.

To look at the evidence another way, not one of these trials – not even one – has ever demonstrated an increase in body weight when daily energy intake is less than daily energy expenditure. Likewise, no such study has ever shown a decrease in body weight when daily energy intake exceeds daily energy expenditure. This remains so irrespective of the macronutrient breakdown.

To give you a taste of the studies that have incorporated some of the methods referred to above, let’s take a quick look at a few of these:

Study 1 – Graves and colleagues conducted a randomized trial comparing an energy-restricted high-protein versus high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in the morbidly obese which was published in the Obesity Journal (see here). Eighty-eight obese participants (mean age, 46.7; mean BMI, 45.6 kg m squared) were enrolled in a 3-week inpatient and 48-week outpatient treatment. The study was novel in that it included cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment. All subjects consumed a restricted diet (1,200 kcal/day for women, 1,500 kcal/day for men; 20% energy from fat, <10% saturated fat). The high-protein diet derived 34% energy from proteins, 46% from carbohydrates; the high carb diet derived 17% from proteins, 64% from carbohydrates. The primary outcome was 1-year percent weight loss and secondary outcomes were attrition rates, changes in cardiovascular risk factors and psychological profile. The three week in-patient period closely monitored and provided all food with the total energy content and macronutrient composition known.

No difference in BMI or weight reduction was detected for this period between each diet.

The authors concluded (pg.1774) that:

“the relative carbohydrate and protein content of the diet, when combined with intensive CBT, does not significantly affect attrition rate, weight loss and psychosocial outcome in patients with severe obesity”.

Study 2 – Golay and co-workers compared diets equally low in energy (1000 kcal) but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbs on body weight reduction in 43 obese adults during a 6-week period of hospitalisation (see here). The diets were composed of 32% protein, 15% carb and 53% fat versus 29% protein, 45% carb and 26% fat. The first diet could be described quite well as a low-carb, high-fat diet and the second diet as a more balanced diet. After 6 weeks no significant differences were seen for weight loss, fat loss or waist-to-hip circumference. Energy intake, not nutrient composition, determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets.

Study 3 – Leibel and co-workers established in 1992 that even during very wide variations in the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake) there was no significant variation in energy need and changes in body weight (see here). Sixteen human subjects were confined to a metabolic ward for an average of 33 days and fed precisely known liquid diets with protein derived from milk and fat varied from different amounts of corn oil. Total energy intake, not diet composition was once again the key determinant in modulating energy balance.

I could continue and summarise the other studies published but the overall findings are much the same as that described above. For a more extensive review of these type of studies please see here.

Confusion around this topic, I think, has been created by other research and weight loss trials that don’t take place in the confines of a hospital or metabolic unit, but rather use free-living subjects. These studies cannot accurately quantify energy intake and expenditure and they are hence plagued by problems.

Firstly, participants often have to record or attempt to recall what they ate and drank. It probably doesn’t surprise you then that this has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate. Even those studies that provide free-living subjects with their allotment of food and drink can’t completely prevent or control for individuals eating or not eating the food on their assigned ‘menu’. Secondly, energy expenditure is estimated via physical activity logs, diaries, pedometers or fancy equipment like activPAL (see here). Consequently, energy expenditure can often be under- or over-estimated so such data can be terrible misleading. To state the obvious, deriving definitive results and conclusions from these types of studies is going to be challenging.

In spite of the caveats mentioned above, the results from the many studies using free-living subjects concurs with the hospitalisation and metabolic unit studies. Two meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in 2014 and 2015 concluded the same thing:

“Both types of macronutrient-centered weight loss diets produced weight loss. Manipulation of macronutrient composition of weight loss diets does not appear to be associated with significantly different weight loss or metabolic outcomes.”

The massive 2014 review by Naude and colleagues (see here) assessed 228 studies making it one of the largest meta-analyses and systematic reviews available. Provided one reads and reviews such research with an objective and impartial mind it is implausible to reach any other conclusion.

A final comment: The one thing that I believe provides the biggest hint that total calories are indeed fundamental to weight loss is something that is noticeable in the methodology of the more scientifically robust studies. Of the research that has taken place in a hospital or metabolic unit setting there is one key characteristic that most of these studies determine before proceeding to the weight loss phase of the trial. Can you guess what it is? Researchers establish energy requirements (i.e. total daily caloric intake) for weight maintenance over a period of 1 to 2 weeks (see here). If for arguments sake, calories were not important for inducing weight loss, then establishing energy requirements for weight maintenance in these studies would be a pointless exercise.

Before I finish up I need to make some clarifying comments.

1. Those that make the claim that calories are not important in relation to the obesity problem or when trying to decrease body fat are doing, I think, either one of two things. They are ignoring the data produced from hospital/metabolic unit-based studies and/or they are misinterpreting and taking at face value the results of research conducted with free-living subjects.

2. There will be those that read this and conclude that what I am advocating or all that I think matters is calories, with diet quality just a cursory concern. I can hear some of you saying right now “….but surely 2500 calories of jelly beans or junk food is different to 2500 calories of atlantic salmon, walnuts, broccoli and berries.” Really? Well, yes, of course it is, thanks for pointing that out. A diet consisting of wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense foods is paramount to ensuring good health. I should state now that I am not suggesting for one moment that the quality of the diet is not important.

Fruits and vegetables are essential to health — Food quality is key for health and weight management

3. Irrespective of how good a diet is in optimising the metabolic effect on your body, the fact remains nonetheless that it is still possible to gain weight eating a wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense diet. It is probably more difficult to do so, but regardless, you cannot escape the fact that you have to be in a consistent calorie deficit to lose fat or a chronic caloric surplus to gain fat.

Links to references

For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to lose weight, improve muscular strength, physical function (how you move around during the day) and quality of life or programs to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.

For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.

Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.

©FitGreyStrong

Share this:

Strength, Weight/Fat loss, Mobility, Exercises

How To Do A Standard Deadlift

January 2, 2016 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

The standard Deadlift is one of the best exercises available to develop many of the largest and strongest muscles in the body and is essential to any resistance or strength training program. It is one of the few standard weight lifting exercises in which the start of the movement begins with ‘dead’ weight. The Deadlift is a fantastic exercise for anybody over 40, provided it is performed correctly with good technique and with proper progression. It is a compound movement that stimulates many different muscle groups and provides excellent weight-bearing loads to several critical joints in our body. For more information on the basics of the Deadlift please see here.

How to do the Deadlift and key things to remember

Standard Deadlift: This exercise can be broken down into three parts.

The setup;
The pull or drive;
The lockout.

The Setup:

During the set-up the gluteus maximus and minimus (glutes/buttocks), quadriceps muscle group (thigh), all muscles of the hamstring group and the triceps surae (calf) will be eccentrically loaded.
The erector spinae muscles (lower back) and assisting core muscles will contract isometrically to stabilise the spine.
The bar should be resting against the lower tibia or shin bone.
To maximise recruitment of the lower body musculature – for general purposes and sports specific training – I would suggest that there be sufficient knee flexion at set-up so that both hip and knee extensors are both major contributors during the Deadlift. Too many do this exercise with too little knee flexion thereby making it predominantly a hip dominant movement rather than a hip and quad combined movement. This advice is not applicable to powerlifting with less knee flexion used for competition.
Hip-to-shoulder body angle in relation to the floor (or horizontal) should be somewhere between 20° to 40°. This can be varied depending on the load desired on the hip dominant or quad dominant muscles. Generally speaking, reducing this angle will place more stress or load on the hip dominant muscles (glutes) by increasing the leverage and length of these muscles.
The bar can be gripped either between or on the outside of the legs. Most standard Deadlifts however will have the bar gripped on the outside of the legs.
Hand grip can be pronated (palms facing legs) or an alternative grip with one hand pronated and one supinated (palm facing away from body) being also popular. For heavier lifts most will use the latter grip mentioned above as this will synergistically create better upper body stability and linkage to the lower limbs during the move.
The scapulae need to be retracted or depressed with the shoulders held firmly in place so that the load is distributed via the lats and erectors. The idea is that the linkage between where the hands grip the bar and where the feet contact the floor remains at greatest tension so that the forces generated can be translated efficiently.

Drive:

The highest amount of force is produced during the drive phase.
The key movement concept to think about when commencing the Deadlift is not to “push up” but rather to “push away”. So when you initiate the movement imagine you are pushing the floor away from your feet with the body virtually staying in place.
During this initial drive phase which finishes just around the knee, the upper body angle should stay the same.
The movement of the bar from the floor to the knees should be mainly achieved by the recruitment of the glutes, quads and hamstrings.
The spinal column should stay straight. To the naked eye from an observer, the spinal curves at lumber, thoracic and cervical sections should look the same or remain neutral as they would appear if you were standing erect.
From the lateral view, the knees should approximately fall over the feet and as the drive phase is carried out the knees will slightly move behind the feet.
By driving through the floor with flat feet and unhinging at the hips and knees, the bar should travel very close to or in fact scrap the tibia or shin bone all the way up to the knee. You may require some tights, long socks or something to cover the lower legs as once the technique is mastered (if you are using an Olympic bar with a roughed surface) you may otherwise take skin off and possibly bleed. This is a good sign that the bar is travelling along the correct path if all else is being performed well.
Safety for this exercise is primarily based on ensuring that correct technique is developed before progressing the weight up. If sufficient knee flexion is utilised for the standard Deadlift with the drive phase being completed with the upper body angle constant with neutral spinal alignment held, lumbar load and integrity is maintained.
Performing the valsalva manoeuvre (see here) also assists in stabilising the bodily structures and core during the whole femoral-lumbopelvic movement.

Lockout:

The lockout phase for FitGreyStrong followers commences from the knees to the standing upright position.
Following the drive from the floor to the knees, the upper body angle now changes from the 20° to 40° that was held for the drive phase.
From this point you are now trying to stand upright. To do this, once the bar has cleared the patella or is just above the knees, driving or thrusting the hips forward whilst attempting to stand upright is the movement concept to be thinking. This is where the glutes, hamstrings and erectors are required to work in unison to complete the Deadlift.
There is still some knee extension left to complete so the quads will still be required to contract forcefully in sync with the primary contraction of the glutes, hamstrings and erectors to complete the entire movement.
The core musculature (abs, obliques, TA) and supportive muscle such as the lats are needed to be held tight and strong so that the prime movers can work optimally.
The bar should finish resting fully against the upper quads with the thighs and hips fully extended, arms extended, shoulders back and head in normal position and eyes looking forward.

Lowering the weight:

Lowering from the lockout position does not have to but can mirror the concentric stand-up movement of the Deadlift. This is an individual’s preference.
FitGreyStrong’s recommendation would be to slide the bar down against the quads, over the knees and down the tibia/shin bone until you can return it to the floor.
The spinal alignment and maintenance of correct form as outlined above would still be imperative and will, in general, minimise risk of injury.
Knee and hip flexion would be gradually increased as one lowers the bar toward the ground.

Final comments:

The standard Deadlift is one of the very best resistive-based exercises available in the gym setting for anybody of any level of fitness or anyone of any sporting background wanting to increase full-body strength for performance enhancement. If you haven’t tried this exercise before make this one of your top priorities to learn and master; it will pay huge dividends irrespective of what you are trying to achieve.

Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong or FGS website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.

Share this:

Psychology, Strength, Weight/Fat loss, Nutrition, Endurance

The Unspoken Truth: Why People Struggle To Lose Weight

November 24, 2015 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

In my article titled “It can’t possibly be true, can it?” I questioned whether there was any foundation to the claim that inactivity is not a chief cause obesity and provided scientific evidence suggesting otherwise. Today I will try explain to you what the bottom-line is as to why exercise doesn’t work for everybody trying to lose weight. One thing I have noticed is that there isn’t enough time or effort – either in the media or on the net – dedicated to informing the public about why exercise does not work for some people and what can be done about.

Exercise has been successfully applied as an essential ingredient of many weight loss programs. By increasing total daily energy expenditure, creating a caloric deficit state is theoretically, at least, more likely. It naturally follows that the weight loss achieved will be correlated to the magnitude of the energy deficit created. In practice however this does not always happen. In fact, there are a number of studies and anecdotal evidence that show a significant proportion of exercisers eating an ad libitum diet (possibly as high as 50%) do not achieve the weight loss expected with as many as 15% actually gaining weight. These individuals are often referred to as ‘non–responders‘. Those on the other hand that do achieve weight loss from exercise are referred to as ‘responders‘. The question is, how is this possible and are there any practical solutions?

exercise doesn't work for everybody trying to lose weight — Energy compensation and exercise-induced fat loss

People respond differently to exercise:

Non-responders vs responders

These differences in response to exercise include:

Non-responders increase whilst responders decrease, total daily energy intake (all the food and drinks you consume on a daily basis).
Some of these differences apparently occur unbeknownst to the exerciser so there is some sort of compensation going on to offset the extra energy expended from exercise.
Non-responders increase their consumption of fat.
Non-responders experience much greater subjective sensations of fasted hunger (upon waking) and hunger across the day compared to responders.
Non-responders demonstrate an increased whereas responders show a decreased, desire to eat.
Non-responders satisfaction or feelings of fullness from meals is significantly reduced whilst there are no changes in responders.
Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women showed the loss of weight/fat mass or lack thereof, was attributable to an increase or decrease in spontaneous physical activity, respectively.
Resting metabolic rate may be reduced in non-responders but not in responders.

Appetite is controlled by the brain — Brain function and weight control is poorly understood

If you are struggling to lose weight after starting an exercise regimen then you could be classified as a non-responder and should consider the following:

If possible, have some measurements taken by a knowledgeable professional that includes girths (such as hips, waist, thighs etc) and skinfolds where the subcutaneous fat can be approximately measured by calipers. By doing this you will be able to work out more precisely what changes are actually taking place. This is pretty important because some ‘non-responders’ will lose a considerable amount of fat but total weight loss may be only slight or actually increase (see King et al 2008). This will affect roughly 10% of exercisers that are trying to lose weight but these body composition changes are in fact desirable and favourable.
Monitor energy intake more closely and consider recording actual food and beverage intakes so you can keep tabs on this as you go. Given that ad libitum diets don’t seem to work too well for non-responders, recording your intake is a good place to start. Assuringly, research shows that those that diarise what they are eating and drinking are much more successful at weight loss and weight management compared to those that don’t, so start recording.
Recognise that if you keep accurate records of these things and create an energy deficit – the research that has been conducted in metabolic-ward studies suggests – that weight loss is highly probable. Based on an account of energy intake and energy expenditure, if the creation of an energy deficit does not elicit any change in body composition, it is likely that there has been an over-estimation of energy expenditure or an under-estimation of energy intake, or a combination of both. However, this now allows subtle changes to be made to energy expenditure or intake so that body fat mass reduction can be realised (see here and here for great discussions on the crucial role calories play when it comes to fat loss or fat gain).
Ensure that your exercise program includes some resistance or weight training. The response to exercise of non-responders as outlined above is related specifically to 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise (i.e. walking, running, cycling etc). You may ironically achieve better weight loss if you back off the aerobic exercise but place a bit more emphasis on weight training or resistance-type exercise. Some research has shown that appetite is suppressed more so with resistance versus aerobic exercise and it is the changes of increased appetite in non-responders that presents a major problem when attempting to bring about sustainable weight loss. With respect to adults who are overweight or obese, Drenowatz & colleagues clearly demonstrated that resistance exercise but not aerobic exercise reduced fat mass.

Weight training and aging — Resistance training is very effective to facilitate fat loss

This form of activity also substantially reduces the risk of losing LBM (lean body mass = muscle tissue) in older adults (see Villareal et al). It is very common to see exercisers lose significant amounts of LBM when only aerobic exercise is undertaken while in an energy deficit state.
The loss of LBM is not desirable for 2 key reasons. Firstly, functional physical capacity could be affected in both the short and long term (see Villreal et al). Secondly, resting metabolic rate will be reduced thereby making weight loss more difficult and weight regain more likely (see here for further discussion).
“Don’t put the cart before the horse.” By that I mean, the quality of what you decide to eat will have a massive impact on your success. A caloric deficit is the goal but it should be achieved with a diet consisting of wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense foods. Not only is this essential to weight loss success but more importantly generating good health.

To lose weight you need to expend more than you eat — No caloric deficit = no fat loss

To combat increased subjective sensations of hunger, then, as a start please make sure that the diet is high in a variety of vegetables, has several serves of fruit each day, contains sufficient and varied sources of protein and includes things like nuts, seeds and oils. This is pretty commonsense stuff but you need to put into practice what actually works. The make-up or quality of the diet appears to impact on subsequent appetite, sensations of hunger and feelings of fullness, so anything that assists in keeping the physiological drives to eat at bay are only going to be helpful (see Blundell et al).

References (in no particular order)

Drenowatz, C. et al. (2015) “The prospective association between different types of exercise and body composition” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 47(12): 2535-2541.

Manthou, E. and Gill, J.M.R. and Wright, A. and Malkova, D. (2010) Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42 (6). pp. 1121- 1128.

Melanson, E.L. et al. (2013) “Resistance to exercise-induced weight loss: compensatory behavioural adaptations” Med Sci Sports Exerc.August; 45(8): 1600-1609.

King N.A. et al. (2008) “Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss.” International Journal of Obesity. 32: 177-184

King N.A. et al. (2009) “Dual-process action of exercise on appetite control: increase in orexigenic drive but improvement in meal-induced satiety.” Am J Clin Nutr. 90: 921-927

Peterson N.D. et al. (2014) “Dietary Self-Monitoring and Long-Term Success with Weight Management”. Obesity 22, 1962–1967

Broom, D.R. (2008) “Influence of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger, circulating levels of acylated ghrelin, and peptide YY in healthy males” American Journal of Physiology. 296(1): R29-R35.

King, N.A. et al (2012) “Exercise, appetite and weight management: understanding the compensatory responses in eating behaviour and how they contribute to variability in exercise-induced weight loss.”British Journal of Sports Medicine 46(5):315-22.

Villareal D.T. et al. (2011) “Weight Loss, Exercise, or Both and Physical Function in Obese Older Adults.” N Engl J Med 364(13): 1218-1229

Blundell J. et al. (2010) “Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods.” Obe Rev 11(3): 251-270

For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to achieve the above-mentioned benefits or to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.

For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.

Share this:

News/Media

Ethics, Drugs And The Creation Of The ‘Frankensteinian’ Elite Athlete

November 13, 2015 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

The following blog is going to be very different to what I have published previously. It will be largely philosophical and sociological based so if this is not your thing I would suggest you click on the back button or close this article and look for something else. If you are, however, interested in looking at things a little differently then you may find that this challenges what you think you thought you knew about the issue at hand.

Those that are familiar with my blog will also recognise that the subject matter seems to have no relevance to the main objective of FitGreyStrong. Just to be clear the aim of FitGreyStrong is to provide biopsychosocial insights derived from research and science to assist older people’s choices and inform their behaviours in relation to matters pertaining to health, fitness and nutrition. That being said, recent events in the world of sport that have once again brought the use of performance-enhancing drugs to the centre of the public’s attention have inspired me to write about and re-visit research I conducted many years ago that directly attempted to understand the nature and context of the doping problem. The current scandal surrounding the allegations of state-sponsored doping by Russia and the corruption associated to allow this to take place has once again rocked the world. On November 9, an independent commission set up by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) confirmed widespread use of performance enhancing drugs and blood doping by Russian track and field athletes, which were encouraged and covered-up by coaches, doctors, and state and sports officials. Many will see this piece as completely off-the-mark, maybe even heretical or just purely academic in nature. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to discuss the ‘darkside’ of the doping problem because if there is one thing that you may agree with me on it is that you virtually never read anything that questions the current status quo.

Many years ago I wrote a Master’s thesis titled: An elite track athletic squad’s perceptions and attitudes to the use of performance-enhancing substances. At the start of this task I presumed that my position and attitude to performance-enhancing substances or “doping” would be consolidated. I was sadly mistaken. Initially – and rightly so – I held the view that elite sport was and should be “natural” and “clean” with elite sporting contests resembling a battle between those that had worked the hardest and smartest. I also believed that following my research I would have a much clearer understanding of this contentious issue. I was hoping that this would potentially provide some further lines of inquiry for research in the quest to find some practical solutions to the doping problem that existed and still exists in elite sport today. Unfortunately what happened was my research generated more questions than answers and left me wondering if we truly understand what it is that we find so distasteful and offensive about doping in sport.

The ethos and values of sport that we hold dear to our hearts are in many ways oxymoronic to the objectives of modern day elite sport. It was over 100 years ago that Pierre de Coubertin, a French educator, historian and acknowledged as the Father of the modern Olympic Games said:

The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part; the important thing in Life is not triumph, but the struggle; the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well. To spread these principles is to build up a strong and more valiant and, above all, more scrupulous and more generous humanity. (The Olympian (1984) by Peter L. Dixon, Roundtable Pub p 210.)

Sport at the turn of the 20th century espoused and romanticised the virtues of health, fairness, equality, ‘sportsmanship’, amateurism, humility and was viewed as essential in solidifying moral and social strength. In fact Coubertin went as far as suggesting that sport could promote peace between different nations and cultures. I’m sure Coubertin would be turning in his grave given what modern elite sport has become. So what we now have is a situation that what we believe elite sport should be, and what it actually is, are in fact dichotomous paradigms completely conflicting with each other. You just can’t have it both ways because they are essentially polar opposite in nature. Perhaps part of the problem to this lies in the fact that the desire to hold on to the past is strong – and for valid reasons – because sport was a virtuous pursuit symbolic of all that was good. However, modern day elite sport has clearly morphed into something very different where, I would contend, ‘its’ moral compass is simply pointing in the wrong direction.

I realise that some who read this blog will strongly disagree with my arguments. It is not my goal to advocate the lifting of the ban on doping in sport, but rather to explore the rationale behind why we actually support such bans in the first place. Understanding the reasons why we currently prohibit certain performance-enhancing practices is clearly fundamental to the way sport will be conceptualised and practiced in the future so we need to have a damn good idea and be quite clear on why we are doing what we are doing. To give you an example of just how misunderstood the issue of doping in sport is, if you were to ask 10 people on the street why doping is banned, 8 of them would reply by saying:

“because it’s cheating”.

However, cheating is defined by the rules that govern the conduct of the participants. In other words, an athlete or team can only cheat if their actions purposefully contravene some rule that defines what is appropriate conduct whereby such conduct gives that person or player an unfair advantage over his/her opponent(s). As doping is currently banned then of course when athletes dope they are cheating. But if the ban on the use of doping was to suddenly change – which allowed athletes to utilise drugs to enhance performance – we can no longer say they are cheating because what they are doing is now permissible.

The rules of sport basically then define what constitutes cheating but in terms of the rationale used as justification to ban doping as a means of enhancing human athletic performance, there are three fundamental arguments currently advanced to support this position. Each of these arguments when examined more closely though are not reconcilable as there exists many anomalies and contradictions.

The three arguments are:

1. Health concerns – “It is bad for athletes’ health so we should protect their wellbeing“

This seems ethically justifiable and sensible on the surface and is a key reason why the International Olympic Committee, for example, currently prohibit certain performance-enhancing substances and practices. However, if we were really concerned about the health and wellbeing of our elite athletes then sports that have an inherent risk of severe injury or death would be outlawed. Why do we, then, accept the dangers associated with boxing, horse-racing, car racing, cycling, rugby, etc where participation might and can have catastrophic consequences? When we compare the potential dangers associated with the use of performance-enhancing drugs to dying this line of argument seems quite silly. So using health as a reason to ban doping does not stack up. Even if we accept health as a reasonable basis to ban doping, this is at complete odds to our acceptance of people’s rights, for example, to choose to smoke or drink which are behaviours that are known to have very detrimental effects on health and can indeed shorten lifespan. In free democratic societies we place significant value on individual autonomy and freedom but abhor paternalistic government intervention or control into our lives if that is seen as encroaching on our rights as individuals. The question then is, why do we allow individuals to make informed choices to smoke or drink but take this choice away from informed athletes?

2. Fairness or equality concerns – “Sport should provide a level playing field for all athletes“

Maybe the fairness argument is robust enough to justify the ban on doping? Unfortunately, it is perhaps the weakest of the 3 outlined. The Australian Senate Committee Inquiry into Drugs in Sport in 1988 – inspired largely by the Ben Johnson scandal at the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games and perhaps the forgotten events of the Alex Watson affair – repudiated the fairness argument. They and many others have asserted that globalised elite sport is fundamentally unfair at its very core. Is it fair for example that someone is genetically more gifted than their competitor even if that advantage has been ‘naturally’ bestowed? Just because something happens naturally does not necessarily make it fair. Is it fair that an athlete born in a poor country has to compete against an athlete that is born in a rich country where they will have access to good coaching, sports scientists, sports medicine, athletic programs, nutrition, equipment, technology, facilities etc etc? This epitomises what could be referred to as an unfair advantage. Really at the end of the day nothing in elite sport is fair.

3. The third argument used to ban doping is somewhat esoteric and therefore more complicated to grasp. This argument postulates that the practice of doping is viewed as positively deviant behaviour that compromises the athlete by dehumanising them as a person.

The transformation from a ‘clean’ to ‘doped’ athlete resembles something “Frankensteinian”. By this I mean the doped athlete undergoes a type of metamorphosis that is viewed – not biologically but socioculturally – as something not quite human. The ‘doped’ athlete has therefore transcended accepted notions of what it is to be human and as such, is rejected as an acceptable human form. The disgust that is expressed toward the doped athlete also appears to vary from country to country so this suggests that the specific context with which this takes place plays a key part in how doping is viewed as a practice and to what extent the doped athlete is perceived as being dehumanised. I think this argument holds promise but it is not issue-free. The problem is that what conceptually defines our ‘humanness’ or of being ‘human’ is dynamic and constantly changing. Such concepts are a product of a complex mix of the particular sociocultural, historical and political forces at work so what could be construed, then, as dehumanising at this point in time, could change as things often do; so this line of argument presents a challenge in terms of its robustness to stand the test of time.

Finally, there are the special medical considerations of elite athletes that, some have argued, could be improved by the judicious, closely monitored and medically supervised control of performance-enhancing drugs. There are sports scientists and doctors which have suggested that the demands of elite sport and the training required has now exceeded the human physiological ability to cope adequately. Ironically, if this is the case then those very same doping practices that are prohibited may assist athletes recuperate, recover and restore bodily equilibrium and in fact improve their health.

References

Brown, W.M. (1980) “Ethics, Drugs and Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, VII, pp. 15-23

Brown, W.M. (1984) “Paternalism, Drugs and the Nature of Sports.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XI, pp. 14-22

Hoberman, J.M. Mortal Engines: The science of performance and the dehumanization of sport, The free press, New York, 1992

Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.

Share this:

© FitGreyStrong