Jeffrey's Training Notes

By Frank Horwill

Perhaps the greatest work physiologist of all time, Olaf Astrand, has stated that the maximum oxygen uptake can be improved by up to 20 per cent, and in order to achieve that, work must be done at above 80 per cent of the maximum uptake 

Astrand tends to work by duration of running rather than by distance and time. For example, he discovered that no other middle-distance race produced more lactic acid in the blood than the 800 metres event. To insure the athlete against this, he recommends runs of 75 and 60 seconds at maximum effort. This is deceptive, because it could be construed that these efforts are at the athlete’ s best 800m pace but, in fact, they are faster.

Given a 1:52 800m runner, a 75-second effort at that pace would take him to about 540m on the track (14 secs / 100m). However, if the effort is at 13.5 secs / 100m, he would cover about 560m and if he attempted 13 secs / 100m he might reach 580m. Astrand’s view is that is the most efficient way to train for the 800m and lesser maximum duration levels do not result in maximum lactate saturation. He also asserts that because of this concentration all runners from 800m to 10km should do this work on a regular basis because they will be able to cope with fast surges during their race more efficiently.

Five, four, three minutes to blast-off

For improving oxygen uptake, Astrand works again by duration. Here are samples of his suggested workouts:

1. The athlete runs at maximum speed for five minutes. He notes the distance covered in that time. Let us assumethat the distance achieved is l900m. He rests five minutes, and then runs the distance (19OOm) 20 per cent slower, in other words in six minutes, with 30 seconds rest, repeated many times. This is equal to the athlete’s 10km pace.

2. The athlete runs at maximum speed for four minutes. The distance covered is noted. He rests four minutes. In this case we will assume the athlete runs a distance of 1,500m. He now runs the same distance 15 per cent slower, in other words in four minutes 36 seconds, with 45 seconds rest, repeated several times. This approximates to a time between the athlete’s 5km and 10km time.

3. Run at maximum effort for three minutes. The distance covered is, say, 1 100m. Successive runs at that distance are taken 10 per cent slower, or at three minutes 18 seconds, with 60 seconds rest, repeated several times. This approximates to the athlete’s 5km time.

4. Run at maximum effort for five minutes. The distance covered is 1,900m. Rest five minutes. The distance is now covered 5 per cent slower with one and a half minutes rest. This is approximately 3km pace for this athlete, ie, five minutes 15 seconds/1,900m.

5. Run at maximum effort for three minutes. The distance covered is 1 100m. When recovered, he runs the same distance 5 per cent slower, ie, three minutes nine seconds/l 100m, with one minute rest, repeated several times. This is at precise 3km pace.

When and how often

We now have to ask what precisely these sessions are achieving. Sesson 1 is at 90 per cent of maximum oxygen uptake and within the range accepted by physiologists as a boost to V02 max. Session 2 is about 93 per cent of V02 max. Session 3 is about 95 per cent and regarded as the ideal boost to improvement. Session 4 is at about 100 per cent V02 max, as is session 5.

It is suggested that in the winter sessions 1 and 2 are done weekly, and in the track season sessions 3 and 5 are done weekly by runners from 800m to the half-marathon. Although it would be convenient to use the original distance marks made by the duration efforts, is doesn’t take into account the athlete’s condition before each session, so the maximum effort runs must be done on each occasion when they may be either more or less than the previous distance run. The maximum duration efforts are in themselves quality sessions.

If the pulse rate has not recovered to 120 beats per minute in the rest times given, the recovery period should be extended before the repetitions are started. The recovery times between the reps should be strictly adhered to.

Annual Training Program The annual plan is the tool that guides athletic training over a year. It is based on the concept of periodization, which divides the annual plan into training phases, and the principles of training. An annual training program is necessary to maximize performance. In principle, this means that athletes must train continually for 11 months, then reduce the amount of work during the last month. This work should vary from regular training to facilitate physiological, psychological, and CNS rest and regeneration before beginning another year of training. The main objective of training is to reach a high level of performance at a given time, usually the main competition of the year, based on correct development of athletic shape. Good athletic shape occurs when the degree of training is high and the psychological status enhances a high level of performance. To achieve such a performance, the coach must properly periodize and plan the entire program so the development of skills, biomotor abilities, and psycho* logical traits follow logically and sequentially. Well-organized and planned training is difficult to achieve. In many instances, the highest performance of the year does not occur at the major competition, a result of inadequate knowledge and planning experience. In training methodology, one of the most challenging and complex problems is peaking athletic shape on the planned date. Often, athletes peak before the main competition due to being pushed to reach a high level without adequately alternating work with short regeneration phases. It is also common for athletes to peak after the top competition, the result of deficient preparation or an inadequate load or demand. A typical example of poor planning occurs in gymnastics when routines are finalized just before an important competition. The coach must do the planning, especially for inexperienced athletes. Experienced athletes should help the coach set objectives and plan for the following year. This way, they have a say in designing their programs, and the coach can use their feedback in a positive way. Athlete involvement in planning can be an important motivational tool for them and the coach. Periodization Periodization is one the most important concepts in training and planning. This term originates from period, which is a portion or division of time into smaller, easy-to-manage segments, called phases of training. The concept of periodization is not new, but not everybody is familiar with its history. Periodization existed in an unrefined form for an unknown time. It is difficult to trace who initiated it. It was used in a simple form by the Greek Olympians. As mentioned, Philostratus was the vanguard of today's planning. Over the centuries, many authors and practitioners added to the process, improving the knowledge to the present status. Since 1963, I developed many aspects of periodization, copyrighted under the names: Periodization of Strength Periodization of Bodybuilding Periodization of Psychological/Mental Training Psychological Supercompensation Periodization of Endurance Periodization of Nutrition Integrated Periodization The Chart of the Annual Plan Periodization refers to two important aspects. Periodization of the annual plan divides it into smaller training phases, making it easier to plan and man* age a training program and ensure peak performance for the main competition of the year. Periodization of biomotor abilities refers to structuring training phases to lead to the highest level of speed, strength, and endurance. Many are unaware of the difference between periodization as a division of the annual plan and periodization of the biomotor abilities. which results in confusion. In most sports. the annual training cycle is conventionally divided into three main phases: preparatory. competitive, and transition. The preparatory and competitive phases are divided into two sub-phases because their tasks are different. The preparatory phase has a general and a specific subphase, based on the different characteristics of training, and the competitive phase usually is preceded by a short precompetitive subphase. Furthermore. each phase is composed of macro and microcycles. Each smaller cycle has specific objectives derived from the general objectives of the annual plan. Figure 8.1 illustrates the division of the annual plan into phases and cycles. Athletic performance depends on the athlete's adaptation, psychological adjustment to training and competitions, and development of skills and abilities. The duration of phases depends heavily on the time the athlete needs to increase training level and athletic shape. The main criterion for calculating the duration of each training phase is the competition schedule. Athletes train many months for competitions, aiming to reach their highest level on those dates. This requires organized, well-planned annual training that facilitates psychological and physiological adaptation. You can enhance the organization of an annual plan by periodizing training and using the sequential approach in developing athletic shape. However, an optimal periodization for each sport and precise data regarding the time required for an optimal increase in the degree of training and athletic shape is not yet exact. Individual characteristics, psychophysiological abilities, diet, and regeneration increase this difficulty. You can facilitate your planning ability by developing a model plan that you can continually improve, based on yearly observations. Needs of Periodization Adaptation created the different training phases because athletes progressively develop and perfect functions over a long period. Also consider physiological and psychological potential and realize athletes cannot maintain athletic shape at a high level throughout the year. Athletes should precede any increase in training work with an unloading phase in which they decrease the training level. Develop athletes' physiological foundation during the preparatory phase, and strive for perfection according to the needs of competitions during the competitive phase. The methodology of developing skills, strategic maneuvers, and biomotor abilities also requires a special approach, unique for each training phase. The athlete learns a skill sequentially throughout training phases over time; this is also true for strategical maneuvers. The closer to perfection a skill becomes. the more sophisticated strategical tools a coach can use. Periodization also influences developing a sequential approach to perfecting biomotor abilities. Enhancing athletic shape requires increasing the volume and intensity of training in an undulatory manner. as proposed by the principle of load progression. Climatic conditions and the seasons also play decisive roles in the needs of periodizing training. The duration of a training phase often depends on climate. Seasonal sports. such as skiing, rowing, and soccer, are restricted by climate. In sports such as rowing and soccer, winter is always the preparatory phase, and the competitive phase is in the summer or spring and fall. The reverse is true for winter sports such as skiing and hockey. Competition and intense training specific to the competitive phase has a strong component of stress. A phase of stressful activities, such as maximum concentration and CNS fatigue, should not be long. even though most athletes and coaches may be able to cope. It is important to alternate stressful phases with periods of recovery and regeneration, during which the athletes experience less pressure. Such a phase, usually the transition phase, creates a favorable mood and generates potential, providing a solid foundation for the following period of heavy work. Classifying Annual Plans Simple annual plans have been used since ancient Olympic Games. Philostratus referred to a preparatory phase for the ancient Olympic Games with few informal competitions before and a rest period after. A similar approach was used for the modern Olympic Games (1896 in Athens, Greece). and by U.S. college athletes at the beginning of the 20th century. Planning has progressively become more sophisticated, culminating with the German programs for the 1936 Olympic Games. when coaches used a 4year plan and annual plans. After World War II, the Soviets started a state-funded sports program with the scope of using athletics as the stage to demonstrate the superiority of their political system. In 1965. Matveyev published a model of an annual plan based on a questionnaire that asked athletes how they trained. He analyzed the information statistically and produced an annual plan divided into phases, sub-phases. and training cycles. Some enthusiasts called it the classical model, forgetting what had been done before Matveyev from Philostratus onward. The difference between the specialists of the early 1900s and post-World War II is that the Russians, Germans, and Romanians have published books and articles about planning. Figures 8.2 through 8.5 illustrate models produced by four authors. Although annual plans differ according to the specifics of the sport. classification depends on the number of competitive phases in a plan. Seasonal sports such as skiing, canoeing, and football, or sports with one major competition during the year, use only one competitive phase. Such an annual plan is a monocycle; since there is only one competitive phase, there is only one peak (figure 8.6). This plan is divided into preparatory. competitive. and transition phases. The preparatory phase includes general and specific preparation. In figure 8.6, note the relationship between general and specific preparation: as one decreases the other increases substantially. The competitive phase is divided into smaller sub-phases. The precompetitive subphase, which usually includes exhibition competitions only, precedes the subphase of main competitions, in which all official competitions are scheduled (C). Before the most important competition of the year, the coach plans two shorter phases. The first is an unloading phase (U), or tapering off, of lower volume and intensity so athletes can regenerate and supercompensate before the main competition. A special preparation phase follows, during which the coach may make technical and tactical changes. The coach can organize this phase separately or with the unloading phase and may use it for relaxation and psychological preparation for competitions. During the preparatory and early competitive phases, emphasize training volume with low levels of intensity according to the specifics of the sport. During this period. quantity of work should dominate. as opposed to the competitive phase when you emphasize work intensity or quality .. Another important point: as the competitive phase approaches. the training volume curve decreases drastically while the intensity curve increases (figure 8.6). Such a monocycle model is typical for sports dominated by speed and power. The volume curve decreases to allow the coach to concentrate on speed and power. The model illustrated in figure 8.6 is not appropriate for everyone. Training specialists from endurance sports would be mistaken to follow figure 8.6. For sports in which ergogenesis is close to 50-50% or dominant aerobic. the curve of the training volume must be high throughout the competitive phase as well. Otherwise. the development of specific endurance will be insufficient and negatively affect the final performance. For aerobic-dominant sports. I have pro* vided another model (figure 8.7). Please note in figure 8.7. the division of the annual plan in the training phases is based on the type of endurance training the athlete will perform. Also. the volume of training. so important for aerobic sports. is dominant throughout the year.

A completely different approach is taken in sports that have two separate competitive seasons such as track and field. in which indoor and outdoor sea* sons are common. Because there are two distinct competitive phases. such a plan is called a bicycle (bi in Latin means two). Figure 8.8 illustrates a bicycle that incorporates the following training phases: • Preparatory phase I. which should be the longer preparatory phase. • Competitive phase I. • Short transition (12 weeks) linked with a preparatory phase II. The unloading transition phase is for recovery. • Competitive phase II. • Transition phase. A bi-cycle consists of two short monocycles linked through a short unload*ing/transition (U/T) and preparatory phase. For each cycle, the approach may be similar except for training volume, which in preparatory phase I is of much higher magnitude than in preparatory phase II. Also, the level of athletic shape may be lower in competitive phase I. (In our example of track and field, the outdoor championships are usually more important.) This is illustrated by the curve of the athletic shape, which reaches the highest values during competitive phase II. Again, for endurance sports, the volume curve must always be higher than intensity, even during the competitive phase. This approach will ensure proper emphasis on the dominant energy system, which in the end (competitive phase II) will translate into better performance. It is not unusual for sports like boxing, wrestling, and gymnastics to have three big competitions during the annual plan (for instance, national championships, a qualifying meet, and the competition itself). Assuming each competition is 3 or 4 months apart, an athlete would have three competitive phases, and the plan would be a tricycle (Latin tri, meaning three). As illustrated by figure 8.9, a tricycle incorporates the following sequence of training phases: • A long preparatory phase I • Competitive phase I • A short unloading, transition, or preparatory phase II • Competitive phase II • Unloading, transition, or preparatory phase III • Competitive phase III • Transition When planning a tricycle, the most important competition of the three should occur during the last cycle. The first of the three preparatory phases should be the longest, during which the athlete builds the technical, tactical, and physical foundations that will foster the following two cycles. Be* cause such a plan is conventionally used with advanced athletes, the general preparation subphase is only in the early part of the first cycle. Also the curve of volume is the highest, reflecting the relative importance of training volume in the preparatory phase I, as opposed to the following two preparation phases. The curve of intensity for each cycle follows a pattern similar to a monocycle. Both the volume and intensity curves drop slightly for each of the three un* loading phases preceding the main competitions. For the curve of athletic shape, the coach would plan the highest peak for the third cycle, which corresponds with the main competition of the year. Finally, sports such as tennis, martial arts, and boxing have four or more competitions when peak performance is desirable (figure 8.10). In such cases, the structure of the annual plan differs in that the preparatory phase, so important for developing skills and biomotor abilities, is short. Although international athletes with a good foundation of training during the early years of athletic development may find it easy to cope with such a heavy schedule, children and teenagers do not. This is why many young tennis players burn out before they have a chance to experience the satisfaction of winning major tournaments. A multicycle of four or more competitive phases is a challenging task. This is especially true if the athlete skips a quiet preparatory phase in which to regenerate and focus on improving biomotor skills in an un-stressful environment. We see this situation in tennis, in which many players are injured or withdraw from tournaments because of physical and mental exhaustion. Selective Periodization Programs for young athletes often follow those specifically produced for mature and advanced athletes. I would like to propose that everyone concerned look at periodization from the point of view of athletes' readiness for heavy schedule competitions. Irrespective of whether you are in a sport of multi peaks, consider the following sequence of types of annual plans. A monocycle is for novice and junior athletes. The advantage of such a plan is that it has long preparatory phases, free from the stress of competitions. This allows the coach to concentrate on developing skills and a strong foundation of physical training. A bicycle is for experienced athletes who can quality for national championships. Even then, the preparatory phase should be as long as possible, to allow time to train fundamentals. A tricycle and multi-peak plan are recommended only for advanced or international athletes. Presumably, these athletes have a solid foundation and their background allows them to handle an annual plan with three or more peaks with greater ease. Although the duration of training phases depends on the competition schedule, table 8.1 could be a good guideline for distributing weeks per training phase.

Keith Baar is a molecular biologist studying how the body responds to training. As he explains, the last 10 years have seen a number of discoveries that are changing the way we train for strength and endurance

Strength training

The last ten years have seen a huge increase in our understanding of what makes a muscle bigger and reminded us that a bigger muscle isn’t always a stronger muscle. This research directly affects how and when we train and what and when we eat in relation to training.

Immune system and muscle growth

Over the years, we’ve learnt that in order for muscle to grow normally we need an intact immune system. Mice that lack a protein called urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA – see box 1, below), which is essential for immune function, struggle to put on muscle tissue(1). One of the things that uPA prevents is how many immune cells are mobilised in the muscle following damage.

Normally, immune cells enter our muscles after heavy exertion to help clear away debris. Along with removing any damaged muscle fibres, these immune cells might also give the muscle an important signal to grow. To test whether it was the decrease in immune cells that prevented muscle growth, scientists tested muscle tissue using a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), which interferes with part of the normal inflammatory response of immune cells. As in the mice experiment above, using NSAIDs blocked muscle growth(2).

What this means for strength athletes is that taking anti-inflammatory drugs might do more than dull the pain after a hard workout. By decreasing inflammation, we might actually be preventing normal muscle growth in response to resistance exercise. Of course these studies were done in mice and might not translate to people, but the fact that our immune system is needed to increase muscle mass means that strength athletes should stay away from anti-inflammatories during training.

Hormones and muscle mass

In 1992, Dr Kevin Yarasheski showed that taking growth hormone while doing resistance exercise did not lead to greater increases in muscle mass and strength than training without growth hormone(3). In the noughties, Dr Espen Spangenburg built on this finding, showing that neither insulin nor IGF-I (see box 1) is needed to increase muscle mass and strength(3). Together with other research in this area, these findings suggest that most hormones aren’t important in training-induced changes in muscle size and strength.

This statement is still quite controversial. Obviously, hormones play an important role in how big and strong our muscles are and how big and strong they can get, but we are learning that hormones are not as important as we once believed. For instance, we have known for 15 years that IGF-I can make muscles bigger. As a result, a number of high profile athletes have used insulin and IGF-I to try to increase their muscle mass and strength. However, what Dr Spangenburg showed (see figure 1, below) was that even though IGF-I and insulin were important in determining the size of muscles before training, the amount of increase in muscle mass and strength was the same in mice who had no insulin and IGF-I present naturally as those who had these hormones present.

This is similar to testosterone. We know that testosterone determines that on average a man’s muscles will be bigger than a woman’s muscles. However, we also know that men and women increase their strength the same amount through training. This means that testosterone is not needed to increase muscle strength in response to training but instead sets the upper limit of muscle size.

Without question, testosterone, IGF-I and similar hormones determine how big our muscles are before we start training. Some hormones may also dictate when our muscle growth will plateau. But it is now becoming clear that hormones don’t affect how much muscle mass we can add through training. This should reassure strength athletes that hard training and proper nutrition are all that they need to gain muscle mass and strength!

mTORC1

The single biggest advance in understanding strength over the past decade was the discovery that the mammalian target of rapamycin complex  1 (mTORC1) controls protein synthesis and muscle mass(5). At the end of the 1990s, we discovered that the activity of mTORC1 could predict how much muscle mass would increase in rats following training(6). In the last decade this finding has been extended to show that in people, mTORC1 activation predicts the increase in not only muscle size, but also strength following training (see Peak Performance issue 270). We have also learned two other important things about mTORC1:

Its activation is directly related to the load on a muscle.

It is also activated by amino acids.

Without even knowing it, many strength athletes have already altered how they train and eat to maximise mTORC1 activation. Since mTORC1 is activated by how much load there is on a muscle, many athletes are lifting more weight and using forced repetitions. Lifting heavier weights and using force increases the load on the muscle and therefore how active mTORC1 becomes and how fast you can increase muscle mass and strength.

Beyond load, mTORC1 is also activated by amino acids. In 1999, we learned that lifting weights in the fasted state actually caused muscle breakdown and that taking essential amino acids could reverse this. In the past decade we learned that amino acids had this positive effect by turning on mTORC1. For strength athletes, this means that having enough amino acids in the blood when, or soon after, we lift is important for our ability to activate mTORC1, increase muscle protein synthesis and make our muscles grow bigger and stronger.

Together, all of these discoveries have shown us how athletes should train to maximise growth and strength – ie by training with heavy weights using forced reps, by taking amino acids (protein) during or shortly after training, by not using NSAID medication and also by not trying to manipulate growth factors and hormones!

Endurance training

Even though we have clearly discovered a number of things about how to increase strength, the last decade has seen an even more impressive increase in our understanding of how we can increase endurance. The fact that endurance training increases the number of mitochondria and fat burning enzymes in our cells has been known for over 40 years. But, in the last decade we have identified the genes that cause the increase and we are learning more every day about how to use nutrition and exercise to effectively turn these genes on and maximise our endurance.

PPAR∂ and increased endurance

In 2003, Dr Ron Evans and his colleagues showed that mice with an active form of the transcription factor PPAR∂ had more enzymes to breakdown fat and to power their muscles. As a result, they could run for longer on a treadmill(7).

In a follow-up study, the Evans group gave mice a drug that activates PPAR∂ and showed that increasing PPAR∂ activity during training doubles the increase in endurance compared with training alone (see figure 2, below)(8). Most of this increase in endurance was due to an increase in enzymes that break down fat.

The cynics will see this as yet another drug for improving performance. But if we understand how PPAR∂ is activated normally, we can find out how to use nutrition and exercise to increase PPAR∂ naturally. PPAR∂ is normally activated by fat.

The more fat that our muscles use as fuel the higher the activity of PPAR∂. But, just eating more fat is not the best way to increase endurance and just activating PPAR∂ alone is not enough to increase endurance (compare the red and grey bars at week zero in figure 2).

What we need to do to increase PPAR∂ (and get more endurance) is to use more fat when we are exercising. This is not easy to do. Normally, when we increase our exercise intensity we shift to using carbohydrates and not fat.

One way to increase how much fat we burn in our muscles during exercise is to exercise in a glycogen-depleted state. When we exercise with low muscle glycogen stores, we increase the amount of fat we use as a fuel and this results in an increase in our fat burning enzymes and endurance. Therefore, if endurance is important for your performance, adding in a few sessions in a glycogen depleted state will really give this a boost.

AMPK, PGC-1α and new mitochondria

PGC-1α (see box 1) regulates the synthesis of new mitochondria. In 2002, Dr Bruce Spiegelman and his colleagues showed that if there is more active PGC-1α in our muscles we get more mitochondria and endurance (see figure 3, below)(9). We showed at the start of the decade that after endurance exercise there was an increase in PGC-1α and this was important for the training effect(10).

AMPK is an enzyme that measures the energy status in our cells. When lots of energy is being consumed (such as when we exercise) or when not enough energy is being produced (such as when we fast) AMPK is activated. When active, AMPK turns on processes that increase energy production (fat burning, glucose uptake, etc) and decrease energy use (protein synthesis, etc).

One of the things turned on by AMPK, either directly or indirectly, is PGC-1α. This may be how exercise increases our endurance. Therefore, activating AMPK and PGC-1α should be the goal of endurance athletes. For endurance athletes and coaches, this translates into three practical points:

Train at a high intensity since higher intensity exercise increases AMPK more than low intensity exercise;

Do not use carbohydrate supplements when training since CHO supplements may decrease AMPK activation in response to exercise;

Consider adding one of the natural activators of AMPK to your training to maximise AMPK activation. Resveratrol (an extract from red wine) activates AMPK as does Berberine (an extract of the goldenseal plant).

Dr Bob Hickson was the first to show that training for both strength and endurance resulted in less of an improvement in strength than training for strength alone(11). At least part of the reason for this is due to give and take between AMPK and mTORC1. AMPK can directly block the activation of mTORC1 (see figure 4, below).

Since AMPK is turned on by endurance exercise, this means that performing endurance exercise after or immediately before resistance exercise will decrease strength gains. For athletes, remembering two important points about diet and the timing of training sessions can help overcome this conundrum. First, as mentioned above, eating carbohydrate quickly turns off AMPK. Second, mTORC1 levels have to be raised for a long time to promote muscle growth, whereas AMPK needs only a short period to have its effects. Taking these two facts into account, in the last decade we have learned that to maximise simultaneous increases in strength and endurance we need to:

Do our endurance exercise before our resistance exercise;

Between the bout of endurance and resistance exercise consume a source of carbohydrate (to turn off AMPK) and protein, which supplies amino acids (to help activate mTORC1);

Restrict the number of sets performed when weight training (too many sets will increase metabolic stress and activate AMPK);

Let your muscles grow while you sleep.

Conclusions

The last decade has seen huge growth in our understanding of the physiology of exercise. From this, a number of genes and proteins have been identified that are central to improving performance. Cynics say that this has provided athletes with more tools with which to cheat. But a thorough understanding of these discoveries tells us that we can activate these genes and proteins and maximise performance simply by using the right intensity of exercise and the right diet!

Keith Baar runs the Functional Molecular Biology laboratory at the University of California Davis where his research explores how exercise results in changes in muscle function and performance. He is also a scientific advisor to the English Institute of Sport and British Cycling

References

Training for the 5k

Fasting and feeding

My general position on the fasted phase is that it should last through the night and during the morning hours. Ideally the fast should then be broken at noon or shortly thereafter if you arise at 6-7 AM like most people. Afternoons and evenings are usually spent in the fed state. However, the fast could also also be broken later in the day depending on your personal preferences and daily routine. I personally tend to break the fast as late as 4-6 PM since I work well into the night and rise later than most people with normal jobs. The recommendation for fasting through the earlier part of the day, as opposed to the latter part of the day, is for behavioral and social reasons. Most people simply find it easier to fast after awakening and prefer going to bed satiated. Afternoons and evenings are times to unwind and eat. For adherence reasons during dieting, I've also found that placing the feeding phase later in the day is ideal for most people.

The protocols

I work with four different protocols depending on when my clients train. Depending on setup, one, two, or three meals are eaten in the post-workout period.

Fasted training

Training is initiated on an empty stomach and after ingestion of 10 g BCAA or similar amino acid mixture. This "pre-workout" meal is not counted towards the feeding phase. Technically, training is not completely fasted - that would be detrimental. The pre-workout protein intake, with its stimulatory effect on protein synthesis and metabolism, is a crucial compromise to optimize results. The 8-hour feeding phase starts with the post-workout meal. Sample setup 11.30-12 AM or 5-15 minutes pre-workout: 10 g BCAA 12-1 PM: Training 1 PM: Post-workout meal (largest meal of the day). 4 PM: Second meal. 9 PM: Last meal before the fast. Calories and carbs are tapered down throughout the day in the example above.

Early morning fasted training

Here's a sample setup for a client that trains early in the morning and prefers the feeding phase at noon or later. Read this for details regarding this protocol. 6 AM: 5-15 minutes pre-workout: 10 g BCAA. 6-7 AM: Training. 8 AM: 10 g BCAA. 10 AM: 10 g BCAA 12-1 PM: The "real" post-workout meal (largest meal of the day). Start of the 8 hour feeding-window. 8-9 PM: Last meal before the fast. For the sake of conveniency, I recommend getting BCAA in the form of powder and not tabs. Simply mix 30 g of BCAA powder in a shake and drink one third of it every other hour starting 5-15 minutes pre-workout. Tabs are cheaper, but much more of a hassle (you're going to have to pop a lot of tabs). Check my supplements guide for specific brand recommendations.

One pre-workout meal

This is the most common setup for my younger clients that are still in college or have flexible working hours. Sample setup 12-1 PM or around lunch/noon: Pre-workout meal. Approximately 20-25% of daily total calorie intake. 3-4 PM: Training should happen a few hours after the pre-workout meal. 4-5 PM: Post-workout meal (largest meal). 8-9 PM: Last meal before the fast.

Two pre-workout meals

This is the usual protocol for people with normal working hours. Sample setup 12-1 PM or around lunch/noon: Meal one. Approximately 20-25% of daily total calorie intake. 4-5 PM: Pre-workout meal. Roughly equal to the first meal. 8-9 PM: Post-workout meal (largest meal).

Key points

It has been a few years now since Martin and I did this interview. I am updating it for a few reasons:

1. There are some small additions and specifics Martin has released since the initial interview. I thought readers would enjoy that aspect of it.

2. It was lonely on the old site with outdated graphics. I don’t feel it did it justice.

3. I have a lot coming up in the future about my own approaches with clients that involve fasting and cycling. It makes sense to have this here to point to during those articles.

One More Thing

I want to make something clear, and I don’t do this frequently in the area of nutrition. When Martin and I did this interview years ago, people scoffed at the idea of this protocol. They were caught up in their dogma of meal timing, 5-6 meals a day, and fasting ruining your metabolism. At the time, I remember looking into fasting on small levels and finding the results interesting and not supporting this general dogma. When Martin came along, I was extremely impressed with his level of knowledge on the subject and the depth his goes in his research and anecdotal work.

I have since done a lot of research myself on the subject and anecdotal work. Fasting and their protocols can come in all shapes and sizes, but I do believe there are intelligent and educated methods of applying the application. It has been seen as a taboo in the past, but hopefully people are opening their eyes to critical thinking and research on the subject, instead of wives tales or bad experiences from those lacking educated actions.

So, for those of you new to this or learning about it for the first time, keep an open mind on the science behind what has previously been ruined by fad propaganda.

Questions We Cover

1. What are your current credentials (education, certs, position, favorite late night TV program, you know the basics)? And what got you into this field in the first place? 2. What was it that drove you to intermittent fasting? Is this an idea you have been toying with for sometime? 3. What are the bare basic principals of your approach to IF? 4. Is there a specific recommendation you have for pre-post workout meals? Do you stick to any sort of carb/protein ratio? 5. Do calories matter on IF? 6. What are the biggest mistakes people make with IF? What makes your program different? 7. What do you feel that IF offers that sets it apart from other methods of dieting? Where do you think it really shines? 8. Have you found a difference between men and women using this program? 9. Can IF work for my nutrition for maintenance as well? 10. When will the book be released? Are you taking on Clients?

Leigh Peele: What are your current credentials and what brought you into this field?

Martin Berkhan: I have a bachelor’s degree in Medical Sciences and Education and my major is in Public Health Sciences. While my background has helped me to separate facts from bullshit, of which there is plenty of in the fitness and bodybuilding community, my knowledge of nutrition and weight training is purely self-taught. I consider passion the best tutor and I have that in spades, when it comes to improving body composition through nutrition and weight training.

I got into the field by earning respect for my theoretical and practical knowledge, without any formal education in the matter, and ended up as a writer for a Swedish bodybuilding and fitness magazine (the only one we have here, called “Body”). This was about year ago and at the same time I started doing personal consultations and coaching on diet and training, working with regular joes, as well as the more hardcore fitness and bodybuilding crowd. Since then much has happened; I have finished university, started up my own website and looking to write a book on intermittent fasting. As of right now, I’m supporting myself as a writer and nutrition counselor.

*Authors Note: Do not ask Martin when the book is coming out. You have been warned.*

Leigh Peele: I agree with you 100% on passion being the best tutor. I consider myself a student of self-driven knowledge. What was it that drove you to intermittent fasting? Is this an idea you have been toying with for sometime?

Martin Berkhan: I have been doing intermittent fasting every day since June 2006, changing calorie intake, macros, and other variables depending on my goals during different time periods. I started doing it because of two things. First of all, I didn’t like how my life became centered around my diet, and I was starting to get fed up with my own behavior. The constant meal preparing, the obsessiveness about eating the perfect meals at the right time, and the way I sometimes made excuses not to participate in social gatherings in order to meet my calorie and macronutrient goals for the day. I’m sure some of the people reading this can relate. I wanted to stop this pattern cold turkey, so I started to question the need for regular feedings and the way it was constantly being pushed as the most optimal way to eat for physique conscious people.

The science certainly didn’t support the approach [eating ever few hours], so how come everyone was ranting about high meal frequency patterns being ideal? I already had my doubts, but I needed to have a closer look at the hard facts in order to convince myself to quit the meal pattern that started to become a burden on my life. Was eating every second or third hour important in order to “stoke the metabolic fire”? No, there was no scientific support for that idea and studies on the subject were carefully controlled, showing no correlation at all between meal frequency and metabolism. Perhaps a high meal frequency was needed in order to provide the body with a regular stream of nutrients, making sure that you had a constant supply of amino acids in order to stave off muscle catabolism and promote muscle growth? No, looking at how the body processes and digests meals, this wasn’t the case either. Digestion of a regular meal takes about 6-7 hours and during this time amino acids are being released into the bloodstream. 30 g’s of casein takes about 7 hours to get fully assimilated. Double that amount and you will have amino acids in the bloodstream most of your waking hours. Was a high meal frequency needed in order to keep hunger at bay and not overeat? This is the only point where a high meal frequency has some empirical backing – at least when you look at how inactive test subjects in lab settings rate hunger, on different meal patterns, while being fed a high carb diet compromised of calorie dense foods. Not really something that can be applied the physique conscious crowd, or the environment most people spend their waking hours in.

There are also some correlation studies showing a link between high meal frequency and lower bodyweight in the general population, but this is easily explained when you look at the behavioral aspects surrounding low meal frequencies among “regular” people. For example, your average low meal frequency eater is usually a spontaneous eater, snacks between meals and has no clue about proper nutrition (a snickers bar on the go, maybe something from the vending machine after lunch, and so forth). Again, this is not something that can be applied to the health conscious crowd, which has a basic grasp on proper nutrition, and strives to improve his or hers body composition – the crowd reading this interview, for example.

Now, having cleared my mind of any doubts about the meal pattern I was about to embark on, I couldn’t believe how good I felt on my new “diet”. My head was clear and I didn’t spend anytime thinking, or obsessing, about when, nor in what form, my next meal was going to arrive in. Worrying about such things had been my default behavior for a good amount of time since I started becoming more involved in my training and nutrition, and being it was a relief not having to spend any mental energy on it anymore. I’m sure anyone that has “been in the game” for awhile can relate to what I mean when it comes to these kinds of thought patterns, since it is something that seems quite unique to people in the fitness and bodybuilding community. Besides liberating myself from my food obsessiveness, I noticed several other positive effects. I had lots of energy during the day, I made faster progress with my training and reduced my body fat simultaneously – at the same time, while being able to eat until satisfaction, after the 16 hour fast I employed. Since then, I have integrated the approach into my life and helped several others achieve great results in terms of body composition using the very same approach. For myself, I can honestly state that I will stick to this eating pattern for the rest of my life.

Leigh Peele: A majority of the population and my readers don’t understand the principals of “IF.” Can you give us a brief rundown of the basic principals? The quick and easy, if you will.

Martin Berkhan: Intermittent Fasting involves a longer period of no food intake followed by a relatively brief period of eating. There’s not really a clear cut definition of it, and studies looking at IF, and human subjects, have been using a wide range of fasting periods; 20 hours in a recent study and up to 48 hours in studies on ADF (Alternate Day Fasting). This is where it becomes a bit problematic with regards to weight training and diet adherence.

We know that we need proper pre-workout nutrition in order to maximize protein synthesis, in conjunction with weight training, and research supports the benefits of ingesting carbohydrates and protein prior to the workout. Not really doable with one meal per day. There’s also the issue of diet adherence – limiting the calorie intake to one big meal, once a day might not really be conductive to staying on track in the long term, and may even cause some gastrointestinal problems due to ingesting a day’s worth of calories in such a short time.

My take on IF shortens the fasting period down to 16 hours – in my opinion, an ideal compromise between getting the best out of the fasting, without the negatives that may follow with a longer fast. This leaves eight hours as your eating window, in which myself and most of my clients, eat three meals, leaving room for proper pre – and post workout nutrition. I should note that I cycle calorie intake depending on where the current priority lies (fat loss, recomposition or lean mass gain). However, regardless of goals, the absolute majority of the day’s calorie intake is to be ingested in the post workout window. In my experience, this may have a nutrient partitioning effect which makes it possible to gain, or maintain, muscle even on a weekly calorie deficit, or when dieting to very low bodyfat levels.

All of this is based on trial and error with regards to my own, and my clients, personal experiences. I feel that extreme measures, like confining the eating window to four hours or less, aren’t needed to in order to reap the benefits of intermittent fasting for those wishing to improve their body composition.

Leigh Peele: You brought up pre/post-workout nutrition. Is there a specific recommendation you have for these meals? Do you stick to any sort of carb/protein ratio? I am specifically curious as to the pre-workout guidelines.

Martin Berkhan: In an ideal situation, I’d like to place approximately 80% of the day’s total calorie intake in the post workout window. As a consequence, the pre-workout meal is often the “fast breaker” on workout days. For the pre-workout meal I usually recommend a meal consisting of an equal carb/protein ratio – for example, 50-60 g carbs, 40-50 g protein and some fat for taste (about 500 kcal total). The goal of this meal is to provide satisfaction, provide enough carbs to fuel the workout, and maximize protein synthesis for the workout (another reason for the high protein intake is to induce satiety).

One of my typical pre-workout meals may consist of 8 oz lean meat with veggies or potatoes and a large apple. A bit of fructose might mediate the effect of the post-workout feeding, since liver glycogen is beneficial to hormones involved in anabolism, therefore the fruit. Keep in mind that the pre-workout meal is dependent on training volume, but I’ve found that these general guidelines work for most people doing moderate volume resistance training (about 10-15 sets of 6-10 reps, per workout, in total). Athletes and others, subjecting themselves to a greater training load than the average weight trainer, require different pre-workout guidelines.

The post workout meal is, ideally, a high carb, moderate protein and low fat feeding. This is what I have found most beneficial in terms of maximizing growth, recovery and limiting whatever extra fat might get stored during hyper caloric conditions. The absolute majority of carbs should be starch based, since we want carbs that gets stored as muscle glycogen primarily, but as noted before, some fructose might also be beneficial to allow for muscle growth processes to occur. The post workout meal should be the largest of the day and you may split your remaining calorie intake as you see fit. I usually have two substantial meals post-workout; one directly following the workout and another one an hour before going to bed.

The exact amount of calories and macronutrients consumed in the post-workout window is largely dependent on the individual’s primary focus, be it fat loss, re-composition or lean mass gains, so this is nothing more than a quick summary of some general guidelines that I apply across the board.

*Authors Note: Martin has also discussed fasted training sessions and workout nutrition. In regards to fasted workouts he states, “Training is initiated on an empty stomach and after ingestion of 10 g BCAA or similar amino acid mixture. This “pre-workout” meal is not counted towards the feeding phase. Technically, training is not completely fasted – that would be detrimental.”

You can find his full take on workout nutrition here.

Leigh Peele: Do you think it is important to state that those utilizing the IF protocol, need to understand that this isn’t some sort of free pass to binging? That they still need to fit it within their caloric needs for daily energy? This would make “eating to your hearts content” mean more like “don’t be stupid and scarf down a box of doughnuts correct?”

*Authors Note: This excludes cheesecake day.*

Martin's Birthday Cheesecake

Martin Berkhan: Exactly. I don’t make any claims whatsoever on calorie counting not being necessary on IF. Studies show that resting metabolism increases in fasting (again, quite contrary to popular belief), mediated by increases in catecholamines like noradrenalin, but this effect is quite insignificant when you’re talking about humans ability to eat boatloads of calories, when introduced to energy dense and palpable foods. As shown in empirical studies, recall that both humans and rats maintained their bodyweight on an ADF (Alternate Day Fasting) regimen, when encouraged to eat ad libitum in the feeding phase. If you let hunger and appetite dictate what and how much to eat, it’s quite easy to undo the energy deficit accumulated through 16, 20 or even 48 hours of fasting. That being said, you’ll discover that you can indulge quite a bit, while still dropping fat, if you limit the most energy dense foods. For example, I eat a lot of ice cream myself, but I make sure that the majority of my calories comes from meat, veggies, fruit and starch sources like potatoes, oatmeal and whole grain bread.

Leigh Peele: Can you tell me what makes your program different? I have noticed, for example, your “fast time” is different than other programmers. And if you could, what are some of the mistakes people or program designers might be making?

Martin Berkhan: If I were to broadly generalize the most common mistakes IF’ers make, I’d break it down to two points; diet and nutrient timing. In this context, let’s classify a ‘mistake’ as a behavior that isn’t conducive to achieving a set goal. The first mistake is linked to diet, and I’ll outline a conversation between me and another IF’er to illustrate my point.

IF’er: I feel great on IF, but I’m not losing any weight. Please help!

Me: Very well then. Tell me about your diet.

IF’er: I fast 20 hours a day and I follow a strict low carb Paleo diet. I lost 10 lbs in two months and now my fat loss seems to have stalled. Do you think there’s anything wrong with my metabolism? Maybe I should try alternate day fasting instead. You know, to get a better growth hormone release and effectively mobilize the fat.

Me: But how about your calorie intake? What’s the macrocomposition of your diet?

IF’er: Like I told you, I keep a Paleo Diet. No processed foods. I eat meat, veggies, lots of fatty fish, whole eggs and nuts. I eat berries now and then, but I limit my fruit intake and I don’t eat any dairy. I don’t really know how many calories I’m eating.

This conversation took place just a few hours ago, and pretty much sums up what I think a large group of people is missing. Here, all the focus is on the method, not the process. While this individual had some success with a ‘lifestyle’ approach to dieting, by making dietary changes that brought about fat loss without actively paying attention to calorie intake, that style of dieting eventually stops working.

Recall that the body is extremely adept at making you stop losing fat, and by allowing spontaneous eating, even if restricted to select ‘ healthy’ food items, people are inviting plateaus. It’s actually pretty easy to undo hours of fasting with an uncontrolled food intake when the feeding phase starts – even with healthy, ‘clean’ foods. For example, nuts, typically consumed by low carbers and the paleo clique (which also tends to be the groups of people often experimenting with IF), is being pushed as the second coming of Christ and an ‘optimal’ snack, yet contains more calories than chocolate on a unit per unit basis. Chocolate is a big no no for many dieters, yet nuts are ok? Sure, nuts have a decent fatty acid profile, but they’re worthless as a protein source and there’s a lot better ways to get your essential fatty acids than snacking on nuts, especially if you want to lose weight. Rationalizing the consumption of nuts in favor for the exclusion of fruit and dairy is absurd, especially since the latter are less calorie dense and has shown to exert a positive effect on satiety and fat loss.

Simply put, people are missing the forest for the trees. Reality check: even if IF might have benefits not seen with other diet approaches, it doesn’t magically alter the human metabolism. Calories count, regardless of the method used, and people needs to learn that. I guess this scenario is just as common among followers of any other diet approach out there, but I’ll throw it out there just to make sure everyone understands that you can’t get away with an excessive calorie intake just because you’re doing IF. Some people reading this will go ‘no shit, Sherlock, I knew that’ but the same people don’t have the slightest clue about what the average dieter knows or doesn’t know. Trust me, I’ve had more than my share of clients that thought fat loss was all about watching your carbs and staying away from dairy.

My regime takes the guesswork out of the equation and doesn’t rely on special food restriction rules seen in other diet approaches. Since the diet is cyclic, rotating higher carb days with lower carb days, no foods are excluded from the diet if it’s taken into account calorie wise, and consumed on the right day. I also believe in a more or less optimal macrocomposition of the diet, a subject every IF regime out there ignores, but this is a complex topic and will be covered in greater detail when the time comes.

Another mistake I believe many IF’ers are doing, is fasted weight training. The research on pre- and post workout nutrition today is quite substantial and I don’t think anyone in their right mind should be lifting weights on an empty stomach – regardless of goals. I believe the protein synthesizing effect of the pre-workout meal overshadows any small benefit to be had from higher amounts of growth hormone that comes from fasted workouts and scientific evidence supports this. This doesn’t mean fasted workouts are a no go, but it means we should compromise a bit – which is why I suggest the ingestion of an adequate amount of essential amino acids or BCAA prior to the workout. This wouldn’t technically make it a fasted workout, but I believe the caloric impact of 10 g EAA/BCAA is so small that it would leave you with most of the benefits of a fasted workout, while at the same time getting many of the benefits of a solid pre-workout meal. My regime uses different pre and post workout meal setups depending on workout timing, and I just described the one I’ve successfully used with fasted workouts. As far as I know, pre-workout isn’t even mentioned in the context of the other IF regimes out there.

Leigh Peele: What do you feel that IF offers that sets it apart from other methods? Where do you think it really shines, not only in a scientific standpoint, but mentally as well?

Martin Berkhan: The answer to this question is best answered from different point of views. Bear with me and you’ll understand where I’m going here.

For the dieter, IF offers something very unique, in terms of enjoying physically and psychologically satisfying meals while losing weight. The absence of hunger and cravings are also a welcome feature when using IF for weight loss. Contrary to popular belief, the fasting phase has a suppressive effect on hunger. Hunger pangs may come, but they disappear quickly, to be replaced by a sense of well being and total absence of hunger.

This is my take on generic weight loss methods: I believe that the “nibbling” approach to dieting, which is so often encouraged by mainstream nutritionists and mass media, may aggravate hunger, rather than keeping it at bay. I can speak for myself, and several of my clients, when I’ll say that several small meals a day does more to potentate cravings, and subsequent hunger, rather than suppressing it. There’s also the psychological sense of hunger that must be taken into account, while discussing how dieters think and work. I honestly feel that the psychological form of deprivation, i.e. the absence of some favorite foods that you might not be able to enjoy on a generic high meal frequency plan, is much worse than any form of physical hunger. Some people will gladly trade constant cravings for the casual physical hunger that might occur during the fasted phase on IF. Notice that I’m saying “might”, since some people, including me, don’t get hungry at all during the fast (there’s probably an adaptive component to be taken into account here).

Now, obviously the above doesn’t hold true for everyone. Like every diet approach out there, there’s differences among individuals in what works and what doesn’t, but so far, in my experience, there seems to be a lot more “hits” than “misses”, when it comes to the success rates of people using IF for weight loss.

There’s also the nutrient partitioning effects I believe that IF may provide when combined with strength training – basically, I think that IF is a very flexible tool, that can be used in several ways, to improve body composition.

Others will enjoy the cognitive effects of IF. I’m mainly thinking about people with professions that require a high degree of focus and concentration; for example programmers and writers, that may want to increase their productivity during work hours. Due to the increase in catecholamines during the fast, productivity goes up and you’ll feel more involved in whatever you’re doing; the effect can be compared to a mild stimulant. Personally, that’s one of the benefits I really appreciate as a writer and online diet consultant. I spend a lot of time in front of the computer, reading, writing and corresponding back and forth. Having not to think about food, and feeling clear headed and focused, is something I find very useful when it comes to time management and productivity.

And then again, there are the health benefits not to be forgotten. Improving insulin sensitivity and other health indicators, such as cardiovascular health for example, is undoubtedly of interest to a large number of people, whose main priority is to stay healthy and reduce risk factors for different types of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. IF also offers neuroprotective benefits, which may protect from brain degenerative diseases like Alzheimers, for example. These benefits are unique to this diet approach and cannot be achieved, to the same degree, with traditional calorie restriction and exercise.

Leigh Peele: Have you found a difference between men and women using this program?

Martin Berkhan: Due to differences in body weight, body composition and calorie needs, very few women, especially those already within a ‘normal’ weight range, get away with an unstructured approach to dieting. That goes for all diet approaches, not just IF. Sure, a lifestyle approach to IF will likely get a few pounds of you, but it won’t work all the way down to getting really lean for most women. The female body is very adept in protecting against fat loss below a certain body fat percentage and spontaneous eating without logging calories will often set people up for failure, unless they have a very solid track record of dieting in the past (i.e very attuned to their bodies caloric needs).

As we’re on the subject, I’ll also mention that I’ve revamped the diet guidelines I use for my female clients. For example, the fasted phase is now 14 hours by default, not 16 hours which is the case for men. This has brought about much greater diet compliance and less negative symptoms among women. The rationale for changing the guidlines makes a lot of sense based on the amount of feedback I’ve been getting, as well as my research on the topic. It turns out that women has lower plasma glucose concentrations than men after the same time spent fasting. In practical terms, this means that women in general are more likely to get moody and hungry if they go too long without feeding, while men can go longer without experiencing any negative effects, and this is exactly what I’ve been seeing. Men can do 16 hours quite easily, not so with women; for them, 14 hours is the sweet spot.

I’ve also made some other dietary alterations that increased has diet compliance for women, but I think I’ll save that part for the book. For now, I’ll just say that moving towards an isocaloric approach, with a healthy dose of carbs from fruit, has worked very well. Thus, I believe the optimal diet on this regime will depend on gender, which makes logical sense if you look at the differences in substrate metabolism between the sexes.

Leigh Peele: I know we have talked about fat loss a lot, but IF can also be a really great approach to maintenance as well correct?

Martin Berkhan: My approach to IF is hands down the easiest approach to maintaining low body fat, while at the same time being able to eat liberally and enjoy life – at least in my view, but a lot of my clients and other IF practitioners would agree to do that notion.

It wasn’t until I settled into the IF lifestyle that I was able to maintain low body fat with ease; in the past, I felt the constant focus on meals only made me crave more food, yet never left me fully satisfied. Based on feedback from numerous enthusiasts, I know that a lot of people are dealing with this issue.

Let me expand on this. For the great majority of people, maintenance is a lot harder than dieting or bulking – it’s a grey area, seemingly lacking purpose, where many seem to fall into a pattern of overeating one day and undereating the next day in order to make up for the ‘bad’ day. Been there, done that, and I know I’m not special in that regard. Unless your calorie needs are staggeringly high, you’re faced with the fact that you’ll be eating small, boring meals if you’re left with the ingrained habit of eating six times a day. It’s like dieting, except you’re more likely to go give yourself a pass some days and go ’screw this’ and overeat just because you’re sick of your monotonous meals.

Now, cut that meal frequency in half and what happens? You now have three substantial meals that will leave you fulfilled. And there’s even time for dessert or a treat – something I certainly think should be a part of a lifestyle approach to maintaining your physique once you’ve reached a condition you’re happy with. That just isn’t possible with six meals a day.

Another fact is that the constant meal preparing chores of a high meal frequency plan interferes with other things you should be doing; work, studies, social networking and leisure time takes a toll. Personally, I hated the mental distraction that my six-times-a-day eating habit brought about, and despised the fact that I allowed such a trivial issue take up so much of my time. Maintenance should be effortless, not a full time job where all your attention is devoted to your diet and what you’ll be eating next. My approach includes a 14-16 hour fast, which fits perfectly with most peoples work schedules; it isn’t extreme, nor is it hard to adapt to, but it let’s people be more productive and get things done, without being distracted. The mental clarity triggered by the fasting is just an added bonus.

Adopting the IF approach has allowed me to maintain single digit body fat without the effort needed in the past and to be honest, I don’t think you can fully appreciate your physique until you’ve put your thoughts off your diet and eased into a pattern of training and eating that doesn’t take up a large part of your mental activity. When I eat, I eat big. When I don’t, I like to stay occupied with more important stuff, without having to think about when my next tupperware sized meal should come. That’s just not my style, and I think a lot of people involved in this game feels the same way – they’re just reluctant to change, as they keep rationalizing their behavior by believing it to be a superior or ‘optimal’ approach. These commonly held beliefs are either false or based on depraved interpretation of research, yet they are constantly propagated by supplement companies (which love the fact that you believe eating six times a day is good for you), mass media and the fitness/bodybuilding community. These institutions either have a financial interest in keeping these myths alive or are to lazy to think for themselves.

Leigh Peele: Do you have a date now that is set for the release of the book? Are you still taking on clients to work with at all? Basically, if someone wanted to start adopting this style of eating, what can they do and where should they go?

Martin Berkhan: I dare not say when the book will be out, but I’m hoping to get it released some time later this year. I’m still taking online clients and if anyone wants to try the approach before the book is out they can find the contact details on my site.

A Critique of the ISSN Position Stand on Meal FrequencyBy Alan Aragon www.alanaragon.com www.alanaragonblog.com/aarr Originally Presented at Leangains.com, April 4th, 2011 Introduction The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) is a forerunner in the movement toward providing reliable nutrition information for sports and fitness professionals. By virtue of its academically decorated staff and peer-reviewed research journal (JISSN), the ISSN is in a justifiable position to consider itself one of the world’s top authorities on sports nutrition. Thus, when they issue a position statement on any given topic, it’s frequently cited as solid evidence, and not taken lightly. For example, along with other literature reviews, I regularly cite their position paper on protein requirements for athletes [1]. However, I typically follow that up with what I do in personal practice, which isn’t always research-backed. It’s important to keep an eye on both the research and the trenches, since field knowledge can take years and sometimes decades to make it into academic publication. It’s clear that the focus of their latest position stand is meal frequency’s effect on body composition. Right from the start, the authors illustrate the importance of this topic by citing the obesity epidemic in the United States. Setting the tone as such implies that weight/fat loss is the most pressing concern of the position stand, more so than other aspects such as muscle gain and exercise performance. This focus is justified, given the prevalence of obesity in industrialized nations, not just the United States. This justification is bolstered by the myriad health complications that accompany a chronic state of excess body fat. The next question becomes, how well does the ISSN support their meal frequency assertions to this end? I encourage you to have the ISSN’s position stand open while you read through this critique of the evidence used to support their key claims. The full text of the paper is freely available, see the reference list [2].   Body Weight & Body Composition The authors begin the above-titled section by discussing uncontrolled/observational studies, including animal data. We can safely skip those, since the threats to their validity are numerous & obvious. They then move on to discuss experimental studies in humans. They correctly note that on the whole, the evidence in this area fails to indicate the superiority of increased meal frequency for improving weight loss. An interesting and important detail is the authors’ point that the minority of studies that did show improvements as a result of increased meal frequency happened to be in athletic subjects, whereas the ones that did not examined overweight/obese subjects. Three studies were provided to support this, which I’ll discuss next. First up is Benardot et al, who compared the effects of three 250 kcal between-meal snacks with a noncaloric placebo [3]. A significant increase in anaerobic power and lean mass was seen in the snacking group, with no such improvements seen in the placebo group. Obviously, it’s impossible to credit the superior results to a higher meal frequency since this was also accompanied by a higher overall energy intake. The next study cited was by Deutz et al, which was not a controlled comparison of the isolated effects of different meal frequencies [4]. Instead, it merely drew correlations between body composition and the results of a 24-hour recall of diet and physical activity variables. The final study was by Iwao et al, who found that boxers consuming 6 meals a day lost less lean body mass (LBM) and showed lower molecular measures of muscle catabolism than the same diet consumed in 2 meals per day [5]. Of the three aforementioned studies, one was correlational. Of these two studies that demonstrated causation, only one of them (the boxer study) equally matched the intakes of each group. However, its design flaws compromise its relevance. Aside from flaws common to studies on both sides of the fence (short trial duration, subpar assessment methods, small sample size), the total energy intake at 1200 kcal was artificially low compared to what this population would typically carry out in the long-term. It’s also important to note that the protein intake, at 20% of total kcals, amounted to a paltry 60g/day. This translated to slightly under 1.0g/kg. To illustrate the inadequacy of this dose, recent research by Mettler et al showing that protein as high as 2.3g/kg and energy intake averaging 2022 kcal was still not enough to completely prevent LBM loss in athletes under hypocaloric conditions [6]. Therefore, the ISSN’s claim that increased meal frequency in athletic populations may improve body composition is based on a single study with questionable applicability. Missing Research on Body Composition  In addition to the aforementioned limitation, the authors failed to mention research that runs contrary to their assertion that, “Interestingly, when improvements in body composition are reported as a result of increasing meal frequency, the population studied was an athletic cohort.” Introducing the topic of comparative drops in LBM opens up a can of worms that does not support the ISSN’s claims. A recent review by Farady concluded that although daily caloric restriction (DCR) and intermittent calorie restriction (ICR) have similar effects on total bodyweight reduction, ICR has thus far been more effective for retaining lean mass [7]. The results of 11 DCR studies 7 ICR studies were clearly laid out. Here are a couple of key stats that contributed to Farady’s conclusion:

3 of the ICR studies showed no significant decrease in LBM, while all of the DCR studies showed decreases in LBM.

In studies lasting 8-12 weeks, average LBM loss was 1.25% in ICR and 4% in DCR.

Adding to the body of contrary data to the ISSN’s position, there are two more studies showing the superior effects on LBM status via lower meal frequency. An 8-week trial by Stote et al found the group consuming one meal per day gained lean mass and lost body fat, while the group consuming 3 meals per day showed no improvements in body composition [8]. It should be noted that just like the study by Iwao et al, Stote et al’s results are limited by the use of BIA to assess body composition. Oyvind et al compared the 12-week effects of eating 3 versus 6 meals per day in subjects on a resistance training program, and the lower-frequency group gained significantly more LBM [9]. Collectively, this body of research refutes the ISSN’s claim that superior effects on body composition have only been seen in athletic subjects with higher meal frequencies. Blood Markers of Health As an obligatory introduction, the authors begin their above-titled section by discussing observational/uncontrolled studies. Again, there’s no need to wade through this, given the availability of controlled studies. The first controlled intervention discussed is by Stote et al, where blood pressure and total cholesterol (both HDL & LDL) were higher in the group consuming 1 meal per day compared to the 3-a-day group [8]. However, Stote et al noted that the difference in blood pressure may have been due to differences in circadian rhythm since it was measured in the late afternoon in the 1-meal group, and in the early morning in the 3-meal group. No speculations were made over what might have caused the cholesterol increase in the 1-meal group. Another concern of the ISSN was the potentially adverse effect of lower meal frequency on glucose homeostasis. In support, they cited work published in the 1960’s. They also cited subsequent work done in the same proximity with contrary outcomes. Notably, they discussed a study by Jenkins et al, which compared 3 versus 17 feedings per day and found no difference in mean blood glucose levels [10]. Although the latter failed to show improvements in blood glucose levels, benefits from the (unrealistically) high meal frequency improved insulin levels and blood lipid profile. Although the data in this area is equivocal, the ISSN recommends increasing meal frequency for the purpose of improving health markers. Missing Research on Glucose Control An 8-week trial by Carlson et al found that subjects consuming 3 meals instead of 1 meal per day had more favorable results on an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) [11]. However, the authors of this study acknowledge that this may have been due to a much larger consumption of food in closer proximity to the OGTT in the single-meal group. Testing was first thing in the morning, and the single-meal group consumed their day’s intake in a 4-hour window before bed. A very recent study adds to the evidence contrary to this idea, and was likely unavailable at the time of the ISSN position stand was written. Holmstrup et al found that glucose levels remained elevated throughout the day with frequent 6 meals compared to 3 meals, and no differences in insulin levels were seen [12]. The key design strengths this study has over predecessors were the frequent sampling used to track blood glucose and insulin levels, and the use of healthy non-obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance. These aspects make it more relevant to active & athletic populations, to whom the ISSN’s position stand is directed in the first place. Another trial too recently published to make it into the position stand was by Harvie et al, who found that intermittent energy restriction was as effective as continuous energy restriction for decreasing bodyweight and increasing insulin sensitivity [13]. In sum, due to the inconsistency of the data, it appears that increasing meal frequency for the purpose of improving health-related biomarkers is a premature recommendation.      Metabolism The aspects of metabolism discussed in this section are diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT – also called the thermic effect of food), resting metabolic rate, and protein metabolism. As for DIT, differences between varying meal distributions across several studies are negligible. The same lack of difference was also seen in several studies, including tightly controlled designs involving metabolic chambers to measure resting metabolic rate and total energy expenditure. These data further serve to invalidate the dying cliché of stoking the metabolic fire with frequent small feedings. The discussion of protein metabolism mainly involved the effects of meal frequency on nitrogen retention. The ISSN duly notes that most studies discussed in this section used nitrogen status as a proxy for muscle protein status, which is not always reliable. The nitrogen balance technique measures whole-body (systemic) nitrogen flux, rather than directly measuring protein turnover within skeletal muscle. Although the nitrogen balance method has limited applicability, it provides clues & hypotheses to test through more rigorous & direct means. The literature on meal frequency and nitrogen retention is reviewed, and the bulk of the data shows no differences despite meal frequencies ranging from one to six meals per day. The discussion of effects on protein metabolism begins by citing work by Garrow et al, who saw less nitrogen loss in obese subjects in hypocaloric conditions consuming 5 meals per day, compared to consuming 1 meal per day, and lean mass preservation was more pronounced in the higher protein treatments [14]. However, the extrapolability of this research to real-world scenarios in non-sedentary & athletic populations is highly questionable. Total energy of the diets was 800 kcal, and the protein levels tested ranged from 10-15% of total kcals, amounting to 20-30g of protein per day. This amount represents about a tenth of the protein typically consumed by adult male athletes. The limitations of this study’s design are obvious. The authors then proceed down a slippery slope by discussing the potential benefit of maximizing muscle protein synthesis (MPS) on a per-meal basis. In acute (short-term or immediate-effect) studies on individuals of average body weight, the protein dose that tops out MPS is roughly 20-30g of high-quality protein, or about 10-15g of essential amino acids (EAA). Given this, the authors make a logical leap by presuming that more frequent occasions of maxing-out MPS would ultimately lead to faster rates of muscle gain. To support this idea, they cite rodent research by Wilson et al [15] and short-term human research by Paddon-Jones et al [16]. I’ll comment on the latter since rat data pales in relevance when there’s human data available to examine.   Paddon Jones et al found that MPS was greater when an EAA + carbohydrate liquid supplement was consumed between the 3 regular-sized solid meals [16]. As a result, this study is often cited to support both the idea of increasing protein feedings as well as the benefits of dosing EAA between meals. The problem is, the group receiving the inter-meal supplementation ended up with 45g EAA + 90g carbs more than the control group by the end of the 16-hour test period. This treatment imbalance in both total calories and macronutrition is compounded by low protein intakes, averaging 23g per meal, totaling 64g per day. The experimental group’s supplemental intake boosted protein intake to 109g. So, not only was there the confounding element of unmatched macronutrition between groups, it essentially was a comparison of insufficient protein intake versus barely adequate intake. After examining the literature on protein metabolism/nitrogen retention, the ISSN concluded that, “…it appears as if the protein content provided in each meal may be more important than the frequency of the meals ingested, particularly during hypoenergetic intakes.”  Still, this statement is collectively based on the Garrow study involving 20-30g protein per day, the Wilson rodent study, and the Paddon-Jones study, all of whose limitations are critical. Nevertheless, the ISSN made the redeeming point that increasing meal frequency isn’t likely to increase metabolic rate. To their credit, they repeatedly acknowledged that there’s a lack of research on the effect of meal frequency on various aspects of metabolism in athletic & physically active subjects.   Missing Research on Markers of Protein Metabolism Missing from this section of the paper was any mention of recent work by Soeters et al, who saw no difference in glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism between an intermittent fasting treatment (involving 20-hour fasting cycles) and a standard diet [17]. Similarly, Arnal et al saw no significant difference in body composition & nitrogen retention in subjects consuming most of their daily calories in 1 meal versus 4 evenly-spread meals throughout the day [18].  In older subjects, the same research team actually found better nitrogen retention with most of the day’s calories from 1 meal instead of 4 meals [19]. Although the ISSN isn’t firm with it, there’s an underlying implication that increasing the frequency of protein dosing at the threshold known to max-out MPS (20-30g protein or 10-15g EAA) would optimize the rate of net muscle protein gains. If this were true, then more muscle would be lost in lower-frequency treatments. Conversely, greater gains would be seen in higher-frequency treatments over time. The majority of the research thus far has simply not supported either one of these phenomena [7-9, 17-19, 21, 22].     Hunger and Satiety This section begins by discussing short-term (within-day) effects of meal frequency on hunger and satiety. These designs involved the pre-loads of varying meal distributions, and measuring subsequent ad libitum food intake. Unanimously, the higher-frequency meal preloads resulted in better appetite control, evidenced by lesser subsequent intakes. Additionally, a study by Smeets et al found higher satiety ratings over a 24-hour period in subjects consuming 3 meals instead of 2 [20]. The important question is whether the hunger-controlling effects of higher meal frequency persist beyond a single day. The ISSN only mentions 2 such studies, and they happen to have conflicting outcomes. Stote et al’s 8-week trial reported greater hunger levels in subjects consuming 1 versus 3 meals per day [8]. A more recent trial by Cameron et al compared 6 meals per day (technically 3 meals + 3 snacks) with 3 meals per day, and found no significant differences in appetite ratings [21]. Additionally, there were no trends suggesting a significant effect of increased meal frequency on the levels of the appetite-regulating peptides ghrelin and peptide YY (PYY). As seen consistently in other research, there were no differences bodyweight decrease or body composition change. Curiously, despite the equivocal results of these two trials, the ISSN concluded that increasing meal frequency is likely to decrease hunger and control intake in subsequent meals. But as we’ll see, more recent data continues to challenge this idea.   Missing Longer-Term Research on Hunger & Satiety An important study is missing from the ISSN’s review. In fairness, it’s likely because it wasn’t yet available at the time it was written. Leidy et al compared varying protein levels consumed across either 3 or 6 meals per day [22]. Predictably, the higher-protein level (25% vs. 14%) promoted greater satiety. Interestingly, the higher meal frequency led to lower daily fullness ratings regardless of protein level. Meal frequency had no significant impact on ghrelin levels, regardless of protein intake. PYY, which is associated with satiety, was 9% lower in the higher meal frequency. When focusing mainly on the short-term (within-day) studies, increasing meal frequency appears to have beneficial effects on appetite control. However, these results for the most part have not been supported by longer-term research. Thus, the blanket recommendation to increase meal frequency in order to decrease hunger is not based on the weight of the evidence. Athletic Populations This section of the position paper was basically a reiteration of the outcomes of 3 studies discussed earlier, in attempt to emphasize the point that more is potentially better when it comes to meal frequency. In response, I’ll briefly review my contentions with the applicability of this data. Deutz et al was a retrospective correlational study, not a controlled intervention capable of demonstrating causation [4]. Iwao et al’s study on boxers used a protocol that was artificially low in total kcals and unrealistically low in protein compared to what athletes typically consume [5]. Benardot et al’s design did not match total energy and macronutrition between groups, so it’s not surprising that the greater performance and lean mass gains occurred in the group with the higher fuel consumption [6]. In addition to the crucial limitations of these studies, research with contrary results (and equal or better design quality) is missing from this position stand [7-9]. The authors go on to assert that data on the eating habits of competitive athletes (in primarily endurance-based sports) shows a range of roughly 5-10 eating occasions per day. They suggest that this is optimal because it enables athletes to consume a culturally normal meal pattern in addition to meals proximal to the training bout. In response to this, I’d say that this range of frequencies is fine for this population. But, I’d also contend that the energy needs of competitive athletes in endurance-based sports can be 2-4 times greater than that of recreationally active individuals (who make up the bulk of the nonsedentary adult population). Therefore, applying the meal frequency of competitive athletes to less active populations is unnecessary & impractical, at best. In my private practice, I’ve seen recreational athletes succeed long-term with as little as 2 meals per day. The most common meal frequency range I’ve observed in physically active clients with long-term success is rather broad (3-6 meals per day). Whether individuals choose the higher or lower end of that range is based solely on personal preference and tolerance.    Boiling Things Down: The Position Statements Credit is due to the ISSN for preemptively stressing that the research on physiological & morphological effects of meal frequency in physically active and athletic populations is scarce. They responsibly state that this prevents definitive conclusions from being made. The following are the exact statements that comprise the ISSN position stand on meal frequency, which I’ll follow with my comments & conclusion.

Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in sedentary populations.

If protein levels are adequate, increasing meal frequency during periods of hypoenergetic dieting may preserve lean body mass in athletic populations.

Increased meal frequency appears to have a positive effect on various blood markers of health, particularly LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and insulin.

Increased meal frequency does not appear to significantly enhance diet induced thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate.

Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite control.