Fb-Button
Piero Maina – Pagina 3 – Piero Maina's Website – Never Give Up!

Piero Maina's Website – Never Give Up!

Autore: Piero Maina

  • Burn The Fat Summer Challenge 2013….Ancora in gioco….

    Burn The Fat Summer Challenge 2013….Ancora in gioco….

    Titolo: Burn The Fat Summer Challenge 2013….Ancora in gioco….

    Autore: Piero Maina

    Conteggio Parole: 3.000

    Ciao a tutti,

    anche quest’anno ho deciso di prendere parte alla Burn The Fat Summer Challenge, la sfida di trasformazione corporea/dimagrimento della durata di 98 giorni/14 settimane. Per me si tratta del quarto anno consecutivo e sono riuscito a terminare con successo tutte e tre le passate edizioni. L’anno scorso non solo ho raggiunto e superato l’obiettivo che mi ero prefissato, (6% di massa grassa) ma ho anche ricevuto il premio come il più definito nella categoria oltre i 50 anni (Most Ripped Man Over 50). Non racconto nuovamente il tutto perché l’argomento è stato ampiamente trattato nell’articolo riguardante la Summer Challenge del 2012 e chi è interessato può leggere la mia esperienza cliccando qui.

    Avevo già in programma di partecipare alla gara di quest’anno e il mio progetto era di incrementare la mia massa muscolare/massa magra durante l’inverno. Provenivo dalla fine della scorsa summer challenge a Settembre 2012 con una percentuale di massa grassa corporea pari al 4,9% e devo dire che senza troppa fatica fino alla fine di gennaio avevo mantenuto un risultato intorno al 7 % pur avendo “gozzovigliato” durante le festività Natalizie e non rinunciando anche a incursioni su qualche dolce. Non crediate che nel programma di Burn the Fat FeedThe Muscle – (Clicca qui per la versione italiana) ci siano cibi vietati, si può mangiare di tutto, naturalmente stando attenti alle quantità; nel periodo di gara invece, meno “sgarri” si fanno e maggiori saranno le probabilità di successo. Da settembre 2012 in avanti, avevo continuato gli allenamenti e fino a dicembre la mia alimentazione è sempre stata “pulita” senza sbandate e utilizzando la tecnica di manipolazione dei carboidrati con un rapporto di 1:3. Un giorno di surplus e tre di scarico, non totale, circa 2 grammi per kg di peso corporeo. Da Gennaio a Marzo ero cresciuto un poco di massa grassa, ma ero sempre “tirato” e avevo in programma di “lievitare” fino all’inizio della Burn The Fat Summer Challenge 2013. Per chi ha letto l’articolo sulla Summer Challenge 2012, è inutile spiegare che lo scopo è di perdere grasso e non peso, oppure anche peso se manterremo la nostra attuale massa muscolare. Il tentativo comunque è di non sacrificare nemmeno un etto di muscolo, ma di perdere solo grasso a differenza delle normali diete che invece si preoccupano del peso sulla bilancia. L’altra differenza nella Summer Challenge è che si verrà premiati in base alla trasformazione corporea rispetto a se stessi, più che rispetto agli altri o a un eventuale modello. Ognuno deve provare a dare il meglio di se e trasformarsi rispetto alla stato iniziale. Anche in questo caso è superfluo che racconti nuovamente come funziona lo stile di vita di Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle perché c’è l’articolo che lo spiega qui.

    Sopra ho raccontato come è proceduto il mio stato di forma, ma non ho detto che già prima dell’inizio della Summer Challenge 2012 ero affetto da una forte epicondilite al gomito destro e da un’ inizio di epitrocleite a quello sinistro. Sono golfista e questa è una patologia a cui si va soggetti, così come i tennisti. Mi ero fatto un’infiltrazione di cortisone al gomito destro nel mese di gennaio 2012 e il sinistro l’avevo risparmiato, visto che riuscivo a convivere con il dolore, ma a giugno, proprio all’inizio della Summer Challenge il dolore al gomito destro era tornato molto forte e se volevo continuare ad allenarmi dovevo effettuare un’altra infiltrazione di cortisone. Cosa che ho fatto, ma l’effetto benefico è durato un solo mese e sapevo che non potevo ripeterne un’altra, il cortisone si sa, fa più male che bene. Ho incontrato un medico che mi ha infiltrato con l’ozono e il miglioramento temporaneo c’è stato, ma non sono riuscito a dare continuità alla cura e il dolore non solo è tornato a destra, ma e venuto anche a sinistra e pure l’epitrocleite a sinistra è aumentata con forza. Sono riuscito a concludere la scorsa Summer Challenge stringendo i denti e le foto le avete viste nell’articolo riferito al 2012 qui. La mia speranza era che durante l’autunno/inverno, la malattia ai gomiti piano, piano sarebbe passata, ma invece di regredire è aumentata. Il problema non è solo il golf, ma l’allenamento con i manubri e le trazioni alla sbarra. I pesanti manubri in certe posizioni sono delle pugnalate per le guaine tendinee/inserzioni ossee e quindi all’inizio del 2013 ho dovuto accettare di ridurre gli allenamenti per le braccia, spalle e dorsali fino a quasi fermarmi completamente. Avendo effettuato una ecografia ad entrambi i gomiti, ho potuto vedere perché il cortisone non riusciva a fornire risultati duraturi: avevo le calcificazioni nelle guaine dei tendini. A quel punto le soluzioni sono due, (che io conosco)  la via chirurgica, (che sinceramente avrei evitato volentieri) o le onde d’urto (e anche qui ce ne sono di vari tipi). Naturalmente ho preferito le onde d’urto e ho fatto una prima seduta a Febbraio 2013 con una macchina elletroidraulica , molto potente a Trento, un vero martello che ogni volta che “picchiava” sulla parte dolorante provocava un dolore terribile, mi si stendevano le dita delle mani e ho dovuto stringere i denti e trovare concentrazione per resistere al dolore. Oltretutto a quei tempi ero davvero infiammato. Comunque ho fatto 1800 colpi in un’ unica seduta, seicento colpi per gomito per l’epicondilite, più altri seicento all’interno del gomito sinistro per l’epitrocleite. Il primo risultato è stato che avevo ancora più male, poi il dolore è diminuito un poco, ma sempre impossibile allenarsi. Ho effettuato una seconda seduta a Roma con una macchina elettromagnetica e mi sembrava ridicola rispetto a quella di Trento, mi sembrava che sui gomiti mi venisse passata una di quelle macchinette per accendere il gas e non ho sentito quasi dolore. Il dolore nei gomiti però è rimasto tale e quale. Ho ripetuto a metà Marzo un’altra seduta a Trento e il dolore era ancora forte, ma nei giorni seguenti l’ho sentito meno “radiale” e più circoscritto. Allenamenti ancora niente, anche perché proprio il giorno prima di scendere a Trento dall’Alto Adige, in una caduta banale sugli sci ho riportato la lesione parziale del legamento crociato anteriore sinistro (LCA) e la lesione del menisco mediale sempre sinistro, oltre a due fratture intraspongiose del piatto tibiale e alla lesione degli osteocondriti femorali. Tombola! Rispetto alle prime visite in Alto Adige, a Roma pur avendo avuto la conferma di quanto sopra, le prove manuali hanno mostrato un ginocchio stabile, forse dovute alla mia muscolatura allenata (ho sciato tutto l’inverno e ho fatto molte uscite in mountain bike) . Comunque non abbiamo operato il legamento e per il menisco stiamo ancora decidendo. Ad oggi che scrivo ho dolore alla parte mediale sinistra, non un vero e proprio dolore, è un dolore sordo e il mio ortopedico mi ha detto che potrebbe ancora operarmi al menisco, che tra l’altro ha già operato nel 2001. Pertanto oltre allo stare fermo con gli allenamenti con i manubri da metà marzo a metà aprile, ho dovuto fermarmi con tutto il resto per via del ginocchio. Poi con il consenso del mio ortopedico ho ricominciato con la MTB,(mountain bike) ma dopo 3 uscite sono caduto e mi sono rotto il pollice della mano destra. Una caporetto! Anche con il pollice rotto dopo una settimana ho ripreso gli allenamenti in MTB, difficile utilizzare il cambio, ma con un tutore e un po’ di buona volontà, sono riuscito a progredire. E i gomiti? Ho fatto una quarta seduta nel mese di aprile e questa volta pur avendo ancora male, soprattutto quando utilizzavo i flessori delle mani, le “martellate” della macchina delle onde d’urto non mi facevano più male, era come colpire una qualunque parte del corpo sana e il dolore era oramai circoscritto a piccole aree. Ed infatti ho male ancora oggi, ma sempre meno e sento che sono in via di guarigione, Considerate poi che dal 10 giugno, giorno in cui è partita la Summer Challenge, ho ripreso gli allenamenti con i manubri e le richieste di sforzo stanno aumentando quotidianamente. Avendo ancora dolore per certi esercizi, la paura era che sarebbe peggiorato tutto, invece  sta andando molto meglio e non so in quanto tempo ancora, ma dovrei guarire completamente. Almeno adesso è un dolore sopportabile e sto anche giocando a golf senza sentire dolori impossibili.

    Ecco spiegato perché il mio progetto di aumentare di massa (grassa e magra) è naufragato. Avrei dovuto mangiare molto e in un certo modo, ma avrei anche dovuto allenarmi in maniera ambiziosa e questo non è stato possibile per i fatti raccontati sopra. Fino a Marzo comunque ero ben allenato, un po’ meno nelle braccia e ora sto tornando piano, piano ai miei livelli con un grande incremento come attività cardio che effettuo 6 giorni a settimana su 7. Alterno MTB alla corsa e al nuoto, oltre all’allenamento contro resistenza che come sapete è il P90X Hybrid.

    Non posto le foto iniziali che sono state postate nel forum di gara per scaramanzia, ma le posterò a fine gara dopo il 16 Settembre 2016, sto cercando di mantenere il peso a tutti i costi, ma va da se che senza steroidi in tre mesi, non potrò fare molto e quindi dovendo arrivare al 4% di massa grassa scenderò per forza, ma è certo che con la giusta alimentazione e i giusti allenamenti, non diminuirò la quantità di muscolo che ho adesso.

    Per chi è interessato ai dati, ho iniziato la Summer Challenge il 10 giugno con un peso totale di 83 Kg. per un’altezza di 178 cm. e la massa grassa che è lievitata al 17,5%. Progetto ambizioso in 98 giorni è di arrivare al 4%. Oggi è il 7  luglio e sono già all’11%. avendo perso 7 cm. di giro vita e il peso totale è ancora a 78 Kg. in meno di un mese. Presumo che arriverò intorno ai 72 kg. di peso totale e tra i 70/72 cm di giro vita, per settembre, mentre avrei voluto essere 78 Kg. con il 4% di massa grassa nello stesso periodo. Perché questo avvenisse avrei dovuto operare in un certo modo durante l’inverno, ma va bene così. Ricordo sempre che sono principalmente un’atleta e non solo un bodybuilder (sono atleti anche loro per carità), ma voglio dire che preferisco riuscire bene in altre discipline sportive e non avere solo massa muscolare da mostrare, magari costruita con steroidi.

    Aggiornamento al 31/07/2013:

    Siamo alla settima settimana di gara e quindi siamo a metà percorso. I gomiti sembrano andare meglio e questo è un gran bene per la riuscita degli allenamenti, il ginocchio sinistro sembra essere stabile e ogni tanto si fa sentire con qualche dolorino “sordo”, ma al momento riesco sia a correre che ad andare in MTB, evito i balzi e quindi tutta la parte del “Plyometric”. Anche i piedi con il neuroma di Morton mi stanno lasciando respirare e nonostante un piede sano da sensazioni nettamente differenti da quelle che provo io, già non avere fitte costanti è per me un risultato di successo. A parte infortuni e salute, mi sto allenando duramente soprattutto come attività cardio e sono a 6 sedute settimanali con giornate in cui effettuo doppio cardio oltre all’allenamento contro resistenza che per me è il P90X-P90X2-Hybrid. La parte più importante, anche se sinergica con l’allenamento e l’aspetto mentale, la gioca sempre l’alimentazione. In questi primi 49 giorni di gara è stata maniacale e lo sarà fino al 98imo giorno di gara. Vi ricordo che sono partito da più del 17% di massa grassa ed ho fissato il mio obiettivo a 14 settimane al 4%. Obiettivo molto ambizioso già di per se e diventa ancor di più ambizioso, partendo da una soglia così alta e con un età superiore ai 50 anni. Ammetto che per quanto ho fatto e sto facendo, mi aspettavo risultati appena migliori. Certo non posso lamentarmi ed oltretutto io non ricerco perdite di grasso esagerate in breve tempo perché spesso più che grasso si perde peso/muscolo/liquidi e invece io sono per una perdita di circa 0,5 Kg. di grasso a settimana mantenendo e/o aumentando il muscolo/massa magra a tutti i costi. Comunque qui sotto i numeri al giro di boa di metà gara:

    Altezza 178 cm. Età 51 anni e 8 mesi

    Massa grassa: 9,57% – iniziale: 17,5%

    Giro vita: 77 cm – iniziale: 86 cm.

    Massa Magra: 68,45 kg. – iniziale 68,94 Kg.

    Peso totale: 77 Kg. – iniziale: 83 Kg.

    Aggiornamento al 20/08/2013:

    Sono a 4 settimane dalla fine, un tempo abbastanza lungo per il raggiungimento del mio obbiettivo, ma allo stesso tempo abbastanza poco e con poco margine di errore per non fallire. Come ogni anno è così per tutti, anche gli esperti bodybuilder o fitness model, l’ultimo grasso da bruciare è il più testardo (stubborn), il più lento ad andare via e non sempre ci si riesce se non si resta concentrati e confidenti in quello che si sta facendo, senza farsi prendere dal panico. Sto facendo molta attività cardio, maggiormente MTB e running e alterno anche nuoto e HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) . Il problema è saper individuare quando l’attività cardio è troppa oppure la quantità di macronutrienti è poca in riferimento all’attività svolta e ancor di più conoscendo e sapendo le quantità di macronutrienti in percentuale al totale delle calorie ingerite. Sembra un controsenso, ma aumentando troppo l’attività cardio e riducendo drasticamente le calorie ingerite, il rischio è di vedere rallentare ulteriormente il metabolismo e di rallentare di conseguenza anche la perdita di grasso. Eppure siamo in una situazione di deficit calorico aggressivo e matematicamente dovrei dimagrire tanto settimanalmente. Quello che sulla carta sembra scontato, non sempre trova riscontro nella realtà. Non dimentichiamoci poi che il nostro obiettivo è di perdere solo il grasso e non solo peso e quindi conservando e/o aumentando la massa magra. Questo tipo di difesa dell’organismo avviene appunto nelle fasi finali del dimagrimento e soprattutto se stiamo tagliando troppo e da troppo tempo le calorie. Il raggiungimento della soglia di “plateau” è quasi scontata. Sto facendo i conti anch’io con questa situazione e sulla base dell’esperienza e delle risposte del mio organismo sia attualmente che negli anni passati, adotto strategie diverse che vanno dall’aumentare l’intensità delle sessioni, al tempo o al numero per quanto riguarda l’attività cardio e anche per l’allenamento con i pesi si cerca di modificare l’intensità o il tempo di riposo fra una serie e l’altra o il numero di ripetizioni e ancora la quantità di peso con cui si lavora. E naturalmente agendo sulla parte più importante che è l’alimentazione attivando una dieta ancor più restrittiva e tagliando i carboidrati (come sapete non completamente) e ogni tre giorni invece ricarico i carboidrati e le calorie totali. Nei giorni in cui scarico i carboidrati, per quanto provi a lasciare invariate le quantità di proteine e grassi, se mi alleno sarò obbligato ad agire su questi due macronutrienti aumentandoli per avere un deficit calorico fra calorie utilizzate e quelle ingerite intorno al 20-30%.

    Vediamo i numeri a lunedì 19 agosto e poi ci aggiorneremo definitivamente dopo il 16 settembre che è il termine della Summer Challenge:

    Altezza 178 cm. Età 51 anni e 8 mesi

    Massa grassa: 7,56% – iniziale: 17,5%

    Giro vita: 75,5 cm – iniziale: 86 cm.

    Massa Magra: 68,59 kg. – iniziale 68,94 Kg.

    Peso totale: 74,2 Kg. – iniziale: 83 Kg.

    Aggiornamento al 22/08/2013:

    Goal! L’edizione 2013 della “Burn The Fat Summer Challenge” è terminata. Per me lunedì 16 settembre, per una durata totale di 98 giorni o 14 settimane. Gli ultimi concorrenti hanno terminato giovedì 19 settembre e anche quest’anno su circa 4.000 partecipanti solo 225 hanno portato a termine la sfida. Nuovamente, di questi 225 più della metà non hanno raggiunto significativi risultati/cambiamenti, almeno quelli visibili dalle foto. Hanno solo pubblicato regolarmente le loro statistiche settimanali e le foto finali. Questo ci fa capire che quello che sulla carta può risultare facile, non lo è poi nella realtà.

    Veniamo al mio risultato: ho replicato il risultato dello scorso anno, ma a differenza del 2012, sono partito da un coefficiente di percentuale di massa grassa superiore di oltre 2% e l’obbiettivo che avevo fissato al 4% era veramente molto/troppo ambizioso per essere raggiunto in 98 giorni, per dimagrire ad un tasso conservativo che permettesse di mantenere o anche incrementare la percentuale di massa magra. Sono arrivato al 4,98%, non è cifra tonda, ma per quanto mi riguarda l’obbiettivo è stato raggiunto. Tenete presente poi che ci sono sicuramente parti del corpo che presentano valori più alti e altri più bassi. Se guarderete la foto della schiena, potrete notare la definizione e le striature che indicano una bassissima percentuale di grasso. Inoltre sempre dalle foto, a paragone con quelle dell’anno scorso, mi sembra di avere ottenuto un miglioramento in termini di massa e simmetria e anche per certi aspetti come definizione. Ora attendiamo il giudizio dei giudici che avverrà nei prossimi 20 giorni. Pubblico finalmente qui sotto i dati e le foto finali di questa “Burn The Fat Summer Challenge 2013”:

    Dati Finali al 16 Settembre 2013 – inizio Summer Challenge 10 Giugno 2013:

    Altezza 178 cm. Età 51 anni e 9 mesi

    Massa grassa %: 4,98% – iniziale: 17,5% – Diff. – 12,34%

    Giro vita: 72,5 cm – iniziale: 86 cm. – Diff. – 13,5 cm.

    Massa Magra: 69,68 kg. – iniziale 68,94 Kg. – Diff. + 1,19 Kg.

    Massa Grassa: 3,62 Kg. – iniziale 14,31 Kg. – Diff. – 10,69 Kg.

    Peso totale: 74,2 Kg. – iniziale: 83 Kg. – Diff. – 9,5 Kg.

    Dalla tabella si vede che ho perso più di 10kg. di grasso e ho incrementato di oltre un chilo la massa magra. Questo senza l’aiuto di steroidi, altrimenti i risultati della massa magra sarebbero ben diversi. Di seguito le foto:

    Foto Frontali

    P1000853_cutresFB
    Frontale inizio
    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire
    P1010076_cut_FB
    Frontale finale
    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire

    Foto Laterali

    P1000857_cutresFB
    Laterale inizio
    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire
    P1010081_cut_FB
    Laterale finale
    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire

    Schiena

    P1000859_cutres
    Schiena inizio
    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire
    P1010061_cut_FB
    Schiena Finale
    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire

    Confronto Schiena 2010 – 2013 

    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire -Comparazione2010-2011-2012-2013

    Credo che dalla foto del confronto di schiena degli ultimi quattro anni, si noti l’evoluzione in meglio della crescita muscolare, ma soprattutto della simmetria e definizione dovuta soprattutto ad una perdita maggiore di grasso. Certo la luce nelle foto può giocare un ruolo importante, ma credo sia oggettivo il cambiamento. Allenarsi e nutrirsi con disciplina e volontà alla fine ripaga sempre. E ricordate che per quanto duramente vi allenerete, se non sarete scrupolosi sul piano dell’alimentazione, vedrete naufragare tutti i vostri sforzi.

    Ecco! Questi sono i dati e le foto di questa nuova sfida portata a termine dopo 98 giorni, il mio premio è già stato vinto ed è quello di aver raggiunto l’obbiettivo che avevo fissato. Adesso è arrivato anche il riconoscimento visto che sono stato inserito nei top 10 finalisti uomini. Essere nella classifica dei Top 10 su circa 4.000 partecipanti è già un onore e una soddisfazione per cui essere grati .

    © Copyright Piero Maina – Tutti i diritti riservati

  • Everything You Need To Know About Loose Skin And Weight Loss

    Everything You Need To Know About Loose Skin And Weight Loss

    Title: Everything You Need To Know About Loose Skin And Weight Loss
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: www.BurnTheFat.com
    Word count: 1142 words
    Description: If you’re extremely overweight or if you’ve been extremely overweight in the past, then you know that getting rid of excess weight is only one of the challenges you face. Once the fat is gone, you are often confronted with an equally frustrating cosmetic problem; Loose skin. Dont’ consider surgery until you’ve read this.

    Everything You Need To Know About Loose Skin And Weight Loss By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    I receive a lot of e-mail from people with loose skin or from overweight people who are concerned about having loose skin after they lose the weight. In fact, this is one of the biggest concerns and most frequently asked questions I receive from men and women who have a lot of weight to lose.

    Just recently, I received this email from a reader of my syndicated “Ask Tom” fat loss column:

    “Tom, I began a fat loss program using your Burn The Fat system and it worked so well I got down to 15 1/2 stones (from 19). However, this has caused me a problem: Excess abdominal skin. I didn’t crash lose this weight, it came off at the rate of about 2 lbs. per week just like you recommended. Now I’m unsure of whether to carry on, as my abdomen has quite a lot of excess skin – I feel like I’ve turned into a bloody Shar-Pei! Does everyone go through this? Will the skin tighten up? I was overweight for more than 12 years. Am I going to end up needing surgical skin removal? Can you offer me any advice? I’m a medical student in the UK and my colleagues seem determined to proffer surgery as the only option.”

    There are 14 things you should know about loose skin after very large weight losses:

    1. Skin is incredibly elastic. Your skin can stretch and expand or tighten and retract to a great degree. Look at what women go through during pregnancy. Some women do experience stretch marks after pregnancy, but obviously skin is remarkably elastic.            

    2. Elasticity of skin depends on both genetics and environment/lifestyle. Wrinkling and loss of elasticity is partly the consequence of aging (genetic factors) and also a result of environmental factors such as oxidative stress, excessive sun exposure, and nutritional deficiency. The environmental parts you can fix, the genetics and age part, you cannot. Advice: Get moving and change the things you have control over… Be realistic and don’t worry about those things you don’t have control over.

    3. How much your skin returns to its former tautness depends partly on age. The older you get, the more an extremely large weight loss can leave loose skin that will not return to normal.

    4. How long you carry extra weight may influence how much the skin will become taut after the weight loss: For example, compare a 9 month pregnancy with 9 years carrying 100 excess pounds.

    5. How much weight was carried has a lot to do with how much the skin will resume a tight appearance. Your skin can only be stretched so much and be expected to “snap back” one hundred percent. With extreme obesity, the probability of there still being loose skin after weight loss is higher.

    6. How fast the weight was gained also has a lot to do with how much the skin will resume a tight appearance. Your skin can only be stretched so quickly and be expected to “snap back.”

    7. How fast weight is lost also has a lot to do with how much the skin will tighten up. Rapid weight loss doesn’t allow the skin time to slowly resume to normal. (This is yet another reason to lose fat slowly; 1-2 pounds per week, 3 pounds at the most if you have a lot of weight to lose, and even then, only if you are measuring body fat and you’re certain it’s fat you’re losing, not lean tissue).

    8. There are exceptions to all of the above; For example, people who gained and then lost incredible amounts of weight quickly at age 50 or 60, and their skin returned 100% to normal.

    9. Creams probably don’t work. There are many creams advertised as having the ability to restore the tightness of your skin. the late bodybuilding guru Dan duchaine used to recommend topical creams made with pycnogenol, which contain the antioxidant bioflavanoids called proanthocyanidins. But to the best of my knowledge, none of the topical creams are scientifically validated. I haven’t even heard much anecdotal evidence that they work — at least not permanently and measurably — and especially if you have a lot of loose skin. There are definitely some topicals that will pull water from under your skin, but remeber, that is temporary. Buyer should beware with topical products. (as an aside, Ive also heard anectodal reports that skin brushing was helpful, but again, I am not aware of any scientific evidence proving this is effective).

    10. Nutrition has a lot to do with the health of your skin. Essential fatty acids in particular are very valuable for many reasons, and one of them is for the health of your skin. It would be worth taking an EFA supplement such as fish oil, flax oil or an oil blend like Udo’s choice. Antioxidants are also very important, so be sure to consume copious amounts of a variety of vegetables and fruits. Also pay very close attention to hydration. Drink approximately a gallon of water a day or a minimum of half your body weight in ounces. (By the way, whey protein is high in a powerful antioxidant called glutathione).

    11. Exercise has a lot to do with how your skin appears after you lose body fat. If you use very low calorie diets, you are likely to lose lean body mass, and this is going to exacerbate the loose, hanging skin appearance. On the other hand, if you are exercising regularly and increasing lean body mass with weight training, you will be more likely to minimize the appearance of loose skin.

    12. Get second opinions if you are considering surgery.If you’re considering surgical skin removal, consult a physician for advice because this is not a minor operation, but keep in mind that your plastic surgeon may be making his BMW payments with your abdominoplasty money. (Surgery might be recommended in situations where it’s not 100% necessary). Surgery should be left as the absolute final option in extreme cases.

    13. Give your skin time. Your skin will definitely get tighter as your body fat gets lower. I’ve seen and heard of many cases where the skin gradually tightened up, at least partially, after a one or two year period where the weight loss was maintained and exercise continued.

    14. Know your body fat percentage before even thinking about surgery. Loose skin is one thing, but still having a lot of body fat is another. Be honest with yourself and do that by taking your body fat measurement. This can be done with skinfold calipers or a variety of other devices (calipers might not be the best method if you have large folds of loose skin. Look into impedance analysis, underwater weighing, DEXA or Bod Pod).

    Suppose for example, a man drops from 35% body fat all the way down to 20%. He should be congratulated, but I would tell him, “Don’t complain about loose skin yet, your body fat is still high. Press onward and keep getting leaner and be sure to focus on strength training to increase lean body mass as well.”

    Average body fat for men is in the mid teens (16% or so). Average body fat for women is in the 20-25% range. Good body fat for men is 10-12%, and single digits is extremely lean. Men shouldn’t expect to look “ripped” with 100% tight skin on the abs unless they have single digit body fat. Women shouldn’t expect to have tight abdominal skin unless they are in the low to mid teens in body fat.

    Except in extreme cases, you are actually unlikely to see someone with loose skin who has very low body fat and especially someone who has not just “lost weight” but has altered body composition by adding lean muscle as well. It’s quite remarkable how much your skin can tighten up once your body fat goes from “average” to “excellent” and even more so when lean body mass increase. Someone with legitimate single digit body fat and a ton of loose skin is a rare sight.

    So the key to getting tighter skin is to improve your body composition (muscle to fat ratio), and lose more body fat, slowly and sensibly, up to the point where your body composition rating is BETTER than average (in the “good” to “great” category, not just “okay”). Only AFTER you reach your long term body fat percentage goal should you give thought to “excess skin removal.” At that point, admittedly, there are bound to be a few isolated cases where surgery is necessary if you can’t live with the amount of loose skin remaining.

    However, unless you are really, really lean, it’s difficult to get a clear picture of what is loose skin, what is just remaining body fat and how much further the skin will tighten up when the rest of the fat is lost.

    Need help getting rid of that last bit of body body fat? Click here to find out how to do it the natural way: www.BurnTheFat.com            

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a lifetime natural bodybuilder, an NSCA-certified personal trainer (CPT), certified Tom Venuto 8

    strength & conditioning specialist (CSCS), and author of the #1 best-

    selling e-book, “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle.” Tom has written

    more than 200 articles and has been featured in print magazines

    such as IRONMAN, Australian IRONMAN, Natural Bodybuilding,

    Muscular Development, Exercise for Men and Men’s Exercise, as

    well as on hundreds of websites worldwide. For information on

    Tom’s Fat Loss program, visit: www.BurnTheFat.com            

  • Protein Supplements Vs. Protein Foods

    Protein Supplements Vs. Protein Foods

    Title:Protein Supplements Vs. Protein Foods
    By line: By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
    URL: www.BurnTheFat.com
    Word count: 2455 words

    Protein Supplements Vs. Protein Foods? By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    Are protein supplements really better than protein foods? Before attempting to answer this question, I should first preface it by mentioning that I do not sell supplements, nor am I associated with any supplement company, so you’re getting an honest and unbiased opinion. Don’t get me wrong; I am not anti-supplement by any means. It would simply be more accurate to say that I am “pro-food.” There are a lot of good supplements on the market, and I’ve used many of them, including a multi vitamin, creatine and essential fatty acid (EFA) supplements such as Flaxseed oil. Protein powders and meal replacements can also be indispensable if you don’t have time to eat every three hours. However, protein supplements are not the master key to your success, real food is!

    Did you ever notice how articles about protein in certain bodybuilding magazines are seldom objective? Instead, they all seem to be slanted towards hyping some “revolutionary” new product. Did you ever wonder why? In my opinion, most articles on protein supplements are nothing more than thinly disguised advertisements (some very thinly). Sometimes they give you a very persuasive-sounding argument, replete with dozens of references from scientific studies (mostly done on rodents, of course). They even give you an 800 number at the end of the article to order. (How convenient!)

    When protein manufacturers throw around fancy words like cross flow microfiltration, oligopeptides, ion-exchange, protein efficiency ratio, biological value, nitrogen retention and glycomacropeptides, it sure sounds convincing, especially when scores of scientific references are cited. But don’t forget that the supplement industry is big business and most magazines are the supplement industry. Lyle McDonald, author of “The Ketogenic Diet,” hit the nail on the head when he wrote “Unfortunately, the obsession that bodybuilders have with protein has made them susceptible to all kinds of marketing hype. Like most aspects of bodybuilding (and the supplement industry in general), the issue of protein is driven more by marketing hype than physiological reality and marketing types know how to push a bodybuilder’s button when it comes to protein “

    Many nutrition “experts” (read: people who sell supplements), state that there are distinct advantages of protein supplements (powders and amino acid tablets) over whole foods. For example, they argue that whey, a by-product of the cheese-making process, is a higher quality protein than most whole food sources. There are many different methods of determining protein quality, including biological value (BV), protein efficiency ratio (PER), Net Protein Utilization (NPU), chemical score, and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS). If you have ever seen advertisements for protein powders and supplements, you have undoubtedly heard of one or more of these measures of protein quality.

    BV is one of the most commonly used and is arguably, the best measure of a protein’s quality. BV is based on how much of the protein consumed is actually absorbed and utilized by the body. The higher the amount of protein (nitrogen) that is actually retained, the greater the BV. If a protein has a BV of 100, it means that all of the protein absorbed has been utilized with none lost. Whole eggs score the highest of all foods with a BV of 100, while beans have a BV of only 49.

    Protein quality is certainly an important issue, but it is one that has been enormously overstated and even distorted for marketing purposes. Whey protein is truly an excellent protein with a biological value at or near 100. Many advertisements list whey as having a BV between 104 and 157, but if you look in any nutrition textbook it will tell you that it is impossible to have a BV over 100. In “Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism,” BV is defined as “a measure of nitrogen retained for growth and/or maintenance that is expressed as a percentage of nitrogen absorbed.”

    When a protein supplement is listed as having a BV over 100, the company has intentionally manipulated the number for marketing purposes or unintentionally confused BV with another method of rating protein quality. Certain whey proponents claim that whey is “superior to whole egg” so the percentage sign on BV had to be dropped and the scale extended beyond 100. It was noted by bodybuilding writer Jerry Branium in IRONMAN magazine that in a study where the BV of whey was reported to be 157, the author confused BV with chemical score. Chemical score is a comparison of the amino acid pattern in an ideal reference protein to a test protein and therefore the number can exceed 100. 157 was actually the chemical score and not the BV.

    Most bodybuilders and strength athletes already consume more than enough protein (an understatement if there ever was one), so the importance of BV to these athletes who are already consuming copious amounts of protein has been overplayed. Even though whey has a higher BV than chicken breast, fish or milk protein, if the total quantity of protein you consume is sufficient, then it is not likely that substituting whey for food proteins will result in any additional muscle growth.

    Whether you choose a whole protein food or a protein supplement isn’t as important as some would like you to believe. For the purposes of developing muscle, the only guidelines for protein that you must follow are: (1) consume a source of complete protein with every meal, (2) eat at frequent intervals approximately three hours apart (about six times per day) and (3) consume a minimum of .8 grams to 1 gram per pound of body weight. There are times when it would be beneficial to consume more than one gram per pound of body weight, but that will have to be the subject of another article.

    Because whey protein does have a high BV, it probably offers the most benefits when you are dieting on very low calories. When your energy intake and correspondingly, your protein intake, are reduced, whey protein could help you get greater utilzation of the smaller amount of protein that you are taking in. In other words, choosing proteins of the highest quality is more of an issue when you are dieting than when you are focusing on mass gains when total calories and protein are being consumed in abundant amounts. Whey protein also provides a way to get high quality protein without the fat, which is also important when dieting.

    It has been suggested that whey may have other advantages besides high protein quality, although they are frequently overstated. These benefits include enhanced immunity, increased antioxidant activity and quick absorption. Several studies in “Clinical and Investigative Science” by Dr. Gerard Bounous of Montreal have shown that whey protein provides anti carcinogenic properties, protection from infections, and other enhanced immune responses. Whey protein was also been shown to raise levels of Glutathione, an important antioxidant that can offer protection from free radical oxidative damage. While such findings are very promising, all these studies, which are frequently quoted in whey protein advertisements, were performed on mice, so it is unclear how well the results extrapolate to humans.

    Another acknowledged benefit of whey protein is its fast absorption rate. Although there isn’t any evidence that protein supplements digest more efficiently than whole foods (as is often claimed), they are definitely digested faster. This is most important after a training session when the rates of protein synthesis and glycogen re-synthesis are increased. This is the reason it is often recommended that a liquid meal containing protein and a high glycemic carbohydrate be consumed immediately post-workout and that whey is the ideal protein for this purpose. Even in considering post-workout nutrition, there is still little proof that a liquid protein-carb complex will actually produce better muscular growth than whole foods, as long as complete whole food protein foods and complex carbohydrates are consumed immediately after the training session and every three waking hours for a period of 24 hours thereafter.

    Speaking of protein absorption rates, the discussion of fast acting versus slow acting proteins seems to be the latest hot topic these days in bodybuilding circles. The interest was sparked by studies in 1997 and 1998 that examined the differences between the absorption rates of whey versus casein. The researchers concluded that whey was a fast acting protein and was considered to be more “anabolic” while casein was slower acting and was considered to be more “anti-catabolic. ” It was further hypothesized that consuming a combination of these two types of proteins could lead to greater muscle growth. These findings have prompted the supplement companies to market an entirely new category of protein supplements; casein and whey mixes. The problem with drawing such conclusions so quickly is that these studies looked at the speed of whey and casein absorption in subjects who had fasted for 10 hours before being fed the protein. Any suppositions drawn from this information are probably irrelevant if you are eating mixed whole food meals every three hours. Obviously, more research is needed.

    This recent fascination with various rates of protein absorption could be compared to the interest in the glycemic index. The glycemic index is a scale that measures the rate at which the body converts various carbohydrate foods into blood glucose. The higher the glycemic index, the faster the food is converted to glucose and the larger the insulin response. Therefore it is said that high glycemic foods should be avoided in favor of low glycemic index foods. The error in relying solely on the glycemic index as your only criteria for choosing carbohydrates is that the index is based on consuming a carbohydrate food by itself in a fasted state.

    When carbohydrates are consumed in mixed meals that contain protein and a little fat, the glycemic index loses some of its significance because the protein and fat slow the absorption of the carbohydrate. That’s why the glycemic index is really much ado about nothing and the same could probably be said for the casein and whey argument. It’s just the latest in a long string of new angles that supplement companies use to promote their protein: free-form vs peptides, concentrate vs isolate, ion exchange vs microfiltration, soy vs whey, casein and whey mix vs pure whey and so on. Every year, you can count on some new twist on the protein story to appear. Certainly there are going to be advances in nutrition science, but all too often these “new discoveries” amount to nothing more than marketing hype.

    What about amino acid pills? Amino acids pills are simply predigested protein. Proponents of amino acid supplementation claim that because the amino’s are predigested, the body will absorb them better, leading to greater improvements in strength and muscle mass. It sounds logical, but this is a gross underestimation of the body’s capacities and actually the reverse is true: The human digestive system was designed to efficiently process whole foods; it was not designed to digest pills and powders all day long. Amino’s are absorbed more rapidly in the intestine when they are in the more complex di and tri-peptide molecules.

    Your body gets better use of the aminos as protein foods are broken down and the amino’s are absorbed at just the right rate for your body’s needs. In “Exercise Physiology; Energy Nutrition and Human Performance,” authors Katch and McArdle state that “Amino acid supplementation in any form has not been shown by adequate experimental design and methodology to increase muscle mass or significantly improve muscular strength, power, or endurance.”

    Furthermore, consuming predigested protein when you are seeking fat loss is not necessarily advantageous because it shortchanges you of the thermic effects of real food. Whole foods have a major advantage over protein supplements; they stimulate the metabolism more. This is known as the “thermic effect of food.” Protein has the highest thermic effect of any food. Including a whole protein food with every meal can speed up your metabolic rate as much as 30% because of the energy necessary to digest, process, and absorb it. This means that out of 100 calories of a protein food such as chicken breast, the net amount of calories left over after processing it is 70. In this respect, the fact that protein foods digest slower than amino acid tablets is actually an advantage.

    A final argument against amino acid supplements is the cost. Amino’s are simply not cost effective. If you don’t believe it, pick up a bottle and do the math yourself. One popular brand of “free form and peptide bonded amino acids” contains 150 1000mg. tablets per bottle and costs $19.95. 1000 mg. of amino acids equals 1 gram of protein, so the entire bottle contains 150 grams of protein. $19.95 divided by 150 grams is 13.3 cents per gram. Let’s compare that to chicken breast. I can buy chicken breast from my local supermarket for $2.99 a pound. According to Corinne Netzer’s “Complete Book of Food Counts,” there are 8.8 grams of protein in each ounce of chicken, so one pound of chicken (16 oz) has about 140 grams of protein. $2.99 divided by 140 grams equals 2.1 cents per gram. The amino acids cost more than six times what the chicken breast does! I don’t know about you, but I’ll stick with the chicken breast.

    The biggest advantage of protein supplements is not that they can build more muscle than chicken or egg whites or any other whole food protein, the biggest advantage is convenience. It is easier to drink a protein shake than it is to buy, prepare, cook and eat poultry, fish or egg whites. Consuming small, frequent meals is the optimal way to eat, regardless of whether your goal is fat loss or muscle gain. To keep your body constantly in positive nitrogen balance, you must consume a complete protein every three hours. For many people, eating this often is nearly impossible. That’s when a high quality protein supplement is the most helpful.

    Aside from convenience, the truth about protein supplements is that they offer few advantages over protein foods. There is no scientific evidence that you can’t meet all of your protein needs for muscle growth through food. As long as you eat every three hours and you eat a complete protein such as eggs, lean meat or lowfat dairy products with every meal, it is not necessary to consume any protein supplements to get outstanding results. Whey protein does have some interesting and useful properties and supplementing with a couple scoops each day is not a bad idea, especially if you are on a low calorie diet for fat loss or when you’re using a post workout shake instead of a meal. Aside from that, focus on real food and don’t believe the hype.

    References

    1) Groff, James, et al, Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, West Publishing company, 1995.

    2) Fruhbeck, Gema. Slow and fast dietary proteins. Nature, 391: 843-844

    3) Boirie, Y. et al. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion. Proc National Acad Sci, 94: 14930-14935, 1997

    4) Lemon, Peter, Protein and Exercise: update, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol 19, No. 5, S179 – S190, 1987

    5) Carraro, F., et at, Effect of exercise and recovery on muscle protein synthesis in human subjects. Amer Journal of physiology, 259: E470, 1990

    6) Lemon, Peter, Is increased dietary protein necessary or beneficial for individuals with a physically active lifestyle? Nutrition reviews, 54:S 169-175, 1996

    7)Bounous, G., et al, The immunoenhancing property of dietary whey protein concentrate. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 11: 271-278. 1988.

    8) Sadler, R., The benefits of dietary whey protein concentrate on the immune response and health. S Afr. J Dairy Sci, 24: No 24, 1992

    9) Bounous, G., Dietary whey protein inhibits the development of dimethylhydrazine-induced malignancy. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 12: 213-217, 1988

    10) Bounous, G., et al, The biological activity of undenatured dietary whey protein; role of glutathione. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 14: 4, 296-309, 1991

    11) Netzer, Corinne. The Complete Book of Food Counts. Dell Publishing, 1997

    12) Katch, Katch & McArdle, Exercise Physiology; Energy, Nutrition and Human Performance, Wiliams and Wilkins, 1996.

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder and author of the #1 best selling e-book, “Burn theTom Venuto 8

    Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to burn

    fat without drugs or supplements using the little-known

    secrets of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness

    models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and turbo-

    charge your metabolism by visiting:

    www.BurnTheFat.com.

  • 3500 Calories To Lose A Pound: Is This Formula All Wrong?

    3500 Calories To Lose A Pound: Is This Formula All Wrong?

    Title: 3500 Calories To Lose A Pound – Is This Formula All Wrong?
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: www.BurnTheFat.com
    Word count: 1256 words

    3500 Calories To Lose A Pound – Is This Formula All Wrong? By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    Most fitness conscious people have heard that there are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, so if you create a deficit of 3500 calories in a week, you lose a pound of weight. If you create a deficit of 7000 calories in a week, you lose two pounds, and so on. Right? Well, not so fast…

    Dr. Kevin Hall, an investigator at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda has done some interesting research about the mechanisms regulating human body weight. He recently published a new paper in the International Journal of Obesity that throws a wrench in works of the “3500 calories to lose a pound” idea.

    Some of the equations in his paper made my head hurt, but despite the complex math he used to come to his conclusions, his article clearly prompts the question, “3500 calories to lose a pound of WHAT?” His paper also contained a lot of simple and practical tips you can use to properly balance your caloric intake with output, fine tune your calorie deficit and help you retain more muscle when you diet.

    Below, I’ve distilled some of the information into a simple bullet-point summary that any non-scientist can understand. Then I wrap up with my interpretation of how you can apply this data in your own fat loss program:

    Calculating the calories required to lose a pound and fine-tuning your caloric deficit

    • 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).
    • But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.
    • The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calorie deficit
    • Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.
    • Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate aggressive low calorie diets better than already lean people)
    • Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.
    • whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss
    • The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable energy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories.
    • If you lose lean body mass, then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.
    • If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound.
    • But if you create a 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you manage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter’s Dunce cap)
    • If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you may need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person
    • Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet and after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight
    • Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the “plateau”). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can’t hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)
    • Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat versus lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)

    So, based on this info, should you throw out the old calorie formulas?

    Well, not necessarily. You can still use the standard calorie formulas to figure out how much you should eat, and you can use a 500-1000 calorie per day deficit (below maintenance) as a generic guideline to figure where to set your calories to lose one or two pounds per week respectively (at least that works “on paper” anyway).

    Even better however, you could use this info to fine tune your caloric deficit using a percentage method and also base your deficit on your starting body fat level, to get a much more personalized and effective approach:

    15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit

    20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit

    25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit

    31-40% below maintenance calories = very aggressive deficit (risky)

    50%+ below maintenance calories = semi starvation/starvation (potentially dangerous and unhealthy)

    (Note: According to exercise physiologists Katch& Mcardle, the average female between the ages of 23 and 50 has a maintenance level of about 2000-2100 calories per day and the average male about 2700-2900 calories per day)

    Usually, we would suggest starting with a conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance. Based on this research, however, we see that there can be a big difference between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut.

    If you have very high body fat to begin with, the typical rule of thumb on calorie deficits may underestimate the deficit required to lose a pound. It may also be too conservative, and you can probably use a more aggressive deficit safely without as much worry about muscle loss or metabolic slowdown.

    If you are extremely lean, like a bodybuilder trying to get ready for competition, you would want to be very cautious about using aggressive calorie deficits. You’d be better off keeping the deficit conservative and starting your diet/cutting phase earlier to allow for a slow, but safe rate of fat loss, with maximum retention of muscle tissue.

    The bottom line is that it’s not quite so simple as 3,500 calories being the deficit to lose a pound. Like lots of other things in nutrition that vary from person to person, the ideal amount of calories to cut “depends”…

    Note: The Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle program not only has an entire chapter dedicated to helping you calculate your exact calorie needs, it was designed very specifically to keep a fairly conservative approach to caloric deficits and to maximize the amount of lean tissue you retain and minimize the amount of metabolic adaptation that occurs when you’re dieting. The approach may be more conservative, and the fat loss may be slower, but it has a better long term track record… You can either lose weight fast, sacrifice muscle and gain the fat back like 95% of people do, or lose fat slow and keep it off forever like the 5% of the people who know the secrets. The choice is yours. For more information, visit: http://www.burnthefat.com

    References:

    Forbes GB. Body fat content influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise. Ann NY Acad Sci. 904: 359-365. 2000

    Hall, KD., What is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss? Int J Obesity. 2007 Epub ahead of print.

    McArdle WD. Exercise physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human performance. 4td ed. Williams & Wilkins. 1996.

    Wishnofsky M. Caloric equivalents of gained or lost weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 6: 542-546.

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialistTom Venuto 8

    (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). Tom is the

    author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches

    you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using

    methods of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness

    models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase

    your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com

  • The Low Body Fat Secret Of Bodybuilders & Fitness Models

    The Low Body Fat Secret Of Bodybuilders & Fitness Models

    Title: The Low Body Fat Secret Of Bodybuilders And Fitness Models
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL #1: www.BurnTheFat.com
    URL #2www.Burnthefatinnercircle.com
    Word count: 1322 words

    The Low Body Fat Secret Of Bodybuilders And Fitness Models
    By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
    www.BurnTheFat.com
    www.Burnthefatinnercircle.com

    The secret to getting super lean – I’m talking about being RIPPED, not just “average body fat” – is all about mastering the art of “peaking.” Most people do not have a clue about what it takes to reach the type of low body fat levels that reveal ripped six-pack abs, muscle striations, vascularity and extreme muscular definition, so they go about it completely the wrong way.

    Here’s a case in point: One of my newsletter subscribers recently sent me this question:

    Tom, on your www.burnthefat.com website, you wrote:

    ‘Who better to model than bodybuilders and fitness competitors? No athletes in the world get as lean as quickly as bodybuilders and fitness competitors. The transformations they undergo in 12 weeks prior to competition would boggle your mind! Only ultra-endurance athletes come close in terms of low body fat levels, but endurance athletes like triathaletes and marathoners often get lean at the expense of chewing up all their muscle. Some of them are nothing but skin and bone.’

    “There seems to be a contradiction unless I’m missing something. Why do bodybuilders and fitness competitors have to go through a 12 week ‘transformation’ prior to every event instead of staying ‘lean and mean’ all the time? If they practice the secrets exposed in your book, they should be staying in shape all the time instead of having to work at losing fat prior to every competitive event, correct?”

    There is a logical explanation for why bodybuilders and other physique athletes (fitness and figure competitors), don’t remain completely ripped all year round, and it’s the very reason they are able to get so ripped on the day of a contest…

    You can’t hold a peak forever or it’s not a “peak”, right? What is the definition of a peak? It’s a high point surrounded by two lower points isn’t it?

    Therefore, any shape you can stay in all year round is NOT your “peak” condition.

    The intelligent approach to nutrition and training (which almost all bodybuilders and fitness/figure competitors use), is to train and diet in a seasonal or cyclical fashion and build up to a peak, then ease off to a maintenance or growth phase.

    I am NOT talking about bulking up and getting fat and out of shape every year, then dieting it all off every year. What I’m talking about is going from good shape to great (peak) shape, then easing back off to good shape…. but never getting “out of shape.” Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

    Here’s an example: I have no intentions whatsoever of walking around 365 days a year at 4% body fat like I appear in the photo on my website. Off-season, when I’m not competing, my body fat is usually between 8 – 10%. Mind you, that’s very lean and still single digit body fat.

    I don’t stray too far from competition shape, but I don’t maintain contest shape all the time. It takes me 12-14 weeks or so to gradually drop from 9.5% to 3.5%-4.0% body fat to “peak” for competition with NO loss of lean body mass…using the same techniques I reveal in my e-book.

    It would be almost impossible to maintain 4% body fat, and even if I could, why would I want to? For the few weeks prior to competition I’m so depleted, ripped, and even “drawn” in the face, that complete strangers walk up and offer to feed me.

    Okay, so I’m just kidding about that, but let’s just say being “being ripped to shreds” isn’t a desirable condition to maintain because it takes such a monumental effort to stay there. It’s probably not even healthy to try forcing yourself to hold extreme low body fat. Unless you’re a natural “ectomorph” (skinny, fast metabolism body type), your body will fight you. Not only that, anabolic hormones may drop and sometimes your immune system is affected as well. It’s just not “normal” to walk around all the time with literally no subcutaneous body fat.

    Instead of attempting to hold the peak, I cycle back into a less demanding off-season program and avoid creeping beyond 9.9% body fat. Some years I’ve stayed leaner – like 6-7%, (which takes effort), especially when I knew I would be photographed, but I don’t let my body fat go over 10%.

    This practice isn’t just restricted to bodybuilders. Athletes in all sports use periodization to build themselves up to their best shape for competition. Is a pro football player in the same condition in March-April as he is in August-September? Not a chance. Many show up fat and out of shape (relatively speaking) for training camp, others just need fine tuning, but none are in peak form… that’s why they have training camp!!!

    There’s another reason you wouldn’t want to maintain a “ripped to shreds” physique all year round – you’d have to be dieting (calorie restricted) all the time. And this is one of the reasons that 95% of people can’t lose weight and keep it off –they are CHRONIC dieters… always on some type of diet. Know anyone like that?

    You can’t stay on restricted low calories indefinitely. Sooner or later your metabolism slows down and you plateau as your body adapts to the chronically lowered food intake. But if you diet for fat loss and push incredibly hard for 3 months, then ease off for a while and eat a little more (healthy food, not “pigging out”), your metabolic rate is re-stimulated. In a few weeks or months, you can return to another fat loss phase and reach an even lower body fat level, until you finally reach the point that’s your happy maintenance level for life – a level that is healthy and realistic – as well as visually appealing.

    Bodybuilders have discovered a methodology for losing fat that’s so effective, it puts them in complete control of their body composition. They’ve mastered this area of their lives and will never have to worry about it again. If they ever “slip” and fall off the wagon like all humans do at times … no problem! They know how to get back into shape fast.

    Bodybuilders have the tools and knowledge to hold a low body fat all year round (such as 9% for men, or about 15% for women), and then at a whim, to reach a temporary “peak” of extremely low body fat for the purpose of competition. Maybe most important of all, they have the power and control to slowly ease back from peak shape into maintenance, and not balloon up and yo-yo like most conventional dieters!

    What if you had the power to stay lean all year round, and then get super lean when summer rolled around, or when you took your vacation to the Caribbean, or when your wedding date was coming up? Wouldn’t you like to be in control of your body like that? Isn’t that the same thing that bodybuilders and fitness/figure competitors do, only on a more practical, real-world level?

    So even if you have no competitive aspirations whatsoever, don’t you agree that there’s something of value everyone could learn from physique athletes? Don’t model yourself after the huge crowd of losers who gobble diet pills, buy exercise gimmicks and suffer through starvation diets like automatons, only to gain back everything they lost! Instead, learn from the leanest athletes on Earth – natural bodybuilders and fitness competitors…

    These physique athletes get as ripped as they want to be, exactly when they want to, simply by manipulating their diets in a cyclical fashion between pre-contest “cutting” programs and off season “maintenance” or “muscle growth” programs. Even if you have no desire to ever compete, try this seasonal “peaking” approach yourself and you’ll see that it can work as well for you as it does for elite bodybuilders.

    If you’re interested in learning even more secrets of bodybuilders and fitness models, visit the Burn The Fat website at: www.BurnTheFat.com

     

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a lifetime natural bodybuilder, an NSCA-certified personal trainer (CPT)Tom Venuto 8

    and a certified strength& conditioning specialist (CSCS).

    Tom is the author of the #1 best-selling e-book, “Burn the

    Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean

    without drugs or supplements using the secrets of the

    world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how

    to get rid of stubborn body fat and increase your

    metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com. To learn more about Tom’s Fat Loss

    Support Community, visit: www.Burnthefatinnercircle.com

  • The Double-Edged Sword of “Healthy” Fast Food

    The Double-Edged Sword of “Healthy” Fast Food

    Title: The Double-Edged Sword of “Healthy” Fast Food
    By line: By Tom Venuto
    URL: www.BurnTheFat.com
    Word count: 981 words

    The Double-Edged Sword of “Healthy” Fast Food By Tom Venuto www.BurnTheFat.com

    What’s on the menu at the big fast food chains lately? Oddly  enough, the answer is…“health food!” Even more incongruous, many are marketing  their food for weight loss. Healthy weight loss food at Taco Bell and  McDonalds? Is this a noble move to be applauded, is it a big corporate money  grab, or is it a double edged sword?

    Remember Jared Fogle, the Subway guy? He lost 245 pounds  while eating at Subway regularly. He simply picked the lower calorie menu  items.  Seeing an opportunity, the local  store owner pitched Subway corporate with an idea. Before long, Jared was the company  spokesperson in their nationwide advertising campaigns which became known as  The Subway Diet.

    Sales doubled to 8.2 billion. How much the increase came  from the weight loss ads is unknown, but there’s little doubt that using weight  loss as a marketing platform was a boon for the sandwich maker. Other fast food  chains picked up the weight loss torch where Subway left off.

    The latest is the Taco    Bell Drive through diet, with their own skinny  spokesperson: Christine! The ads, which are admittedly conservative, perhaps  due to more stringent FTC laws, say Christine lost 54 lbs over 2 years by  reducing her calories to 1250 a day, and choosing Taco Bell’s new lower calorie  “Fresco” items.

    These include “7 diet items with 150 to 240 calories and  under 9 grams of fat.” For example, there’s a chicken soft taco with only 170 calories  and 4 grams of fat.

    For people who refuse to give up eating at fast food  restaurants, this is arguably a positive thing. Take my brother for example,  He’s not a total junk food junkie, but left to his own devices, he WILL make a  beeline to Taco Bell and McDonalds.

    I went to McDonalds with him a few months ago (I was dragged  there), and he was about to order a bacon cheeseburger. I glanced at the menu  and said, “That’s 790 calories!” I glanced down at his belly then continued,  “Look, they have chicken wraps. Why don’t you have one of those?” Without  questioning me, he agreed, apparently happy to get any McDonalds fix.

    Right there at the counter they had the nutrition  information sheets:

    McDonald’s honey mustard grilled chicken wrap: 260 calories,  9 grams fat, 27 grams of carbs, 18 grams of protein.

    That saved him 530 calories. Am I happy there was something  with only 260 calories on the menu? Absolutely. Do I applaud the fast food  restaurants for offering lower calorie choices? You bet. But the big question  is: are these really “healthy choices?”

    A few journalists and bloggers recently answered, “These  fast food diet items are NOT healthy, they’re only ‘healthi-ER.’”

    I think they’re both mistaken. I think this food is not  healthy nor is it healthier. It’s only lower in calories. If you eat lower  calorie food, that can help you lose weight and if you lose weight, that can  improve your health. But what if your definition of healthy food includes nutrition,  nutrient density and absence of artificial ingredients?

    Let’s take a look at that very low calorie chicken wrap. Is  it really healthier just because it’s got 1/3 the calories of a bacon  cheeseburger?

    Here’s the ingredients straight from McDonald’s website:

    McDonald’s Grilled Chicken Breast Filet (wrap): Chicken  breast filets with rib meat, water, seasoning (salt, sugar, food  starch-modified, maltodextrin, spices, dextrose, autolyzed yeast extract,  hydrolyzed [corn gluten, soy, wheat gluten] proteins, garlic powder, paprika,  chicken fat, chicken broth, natural flavors (plant and animal source), caramel  color, polysorbate 80, xanthan gum, onion powder, extractives of paprika),  modified potato starch, and sodium phosphates. CONTAINS: SOY AND WHEAT.  Prepared with Liquid Margarine: Liquid soybean oil, water, partially  hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oils, salt, hydrogenated cottonseed oil,  soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate  (preservative), artificial flavor, citric acid, vitamin A palmitate, beta  carotene (color). (and don’t forget the 800 mg of sodium).

    HOLY CRAP! Shouldn’t chicken breast be just one ingredient…  chicken breast?

    This is not food. It’s more like what author Michael Pollan  would call an “edible food-like substance.”

    What about the honey mustard sauce? The first ingredient  after water is… SUGAR!

    The flour tortilla ingredients? Enriched bleached wheat  flour, also made with vegetable shortening (may contain one or more of the  following: hydrogenated soybean oil, soybean oil, partially hydrogenated  soybean oil, hydrogenated cottonseed oil with mono- and diglycerides added),  contains 2% or less of the following: sugar, leavening (sodium aluminum  sulfate, calcium sulfate, sodium phosphate, baking soda, corn starch,  monocalcium phosphate), salt, wheat gluten, dough conditioners, sodium  metabisulfite, distilled monoglycerides.

    Trans fats? Sugar? Aluminum? Stuff you can’t pronounce and  have to look up to find out it’s preservatives and disinfectants?

    Don’t confuse the issues: weight loss and health…. Calories  and nutrition. There IS a difference, and that is what makes “healthy” fast  food a double edged sword at best.

    Some people, like my brother, simply aren’t going to give up  fast food completely. If I can get him to make better bad choices, that could  help him control his weight. If that works, then I’m pleased that the fast food  restaurants have such choices to offer.

    But if you wanted to make a good choice – a healthy choice –  you’d forget about “driving through” anywhere on a regular basis. You’d shop  for whole, fresh, natural real food, keep a well-stocked kitchen… and learn how  to cook.

    The Subway diet, the Drive Through diet, or the Weight  Watchers approved McDonalds menu (yes its true, what a pair that is!) Don’t kid  yourself – this is not only not healthy, it’s not healthier – it’s lower  calorie junk food.

    “Welcome to our  restaurant sir. Would you like a large plate of dog poo or a small plate of dog  poo?”

    “No thank you, I will  take neither. No matter what the serving size, crap is still crap.”

    Train hard and expect success!

    Tom Venuto, author of www.BurnTheFat.com

    Founder & CEO of www.BurnTheFat/InnerCircle

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is the author of the #1 best   seller, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle:   Fat

    Burning Secrets of the World’s Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom   is a Tom Venuto 8

    lifetime natural bodybuilder and fat loss expert who

    achieved an   astonishing 3.7% body fat level without

    drugs or supplements. Discover how to   increase your

    metabolism and burn stubborn body fat, find out which

    foods burn   fat and which foods turn to fat, plus get a

    free fat loss report and mini course   by visiting Tom’s

    site at: www.BurnTheFat.com

  • Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

    Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

    Title: Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: www.BurnTheFat.com

    Word count: 1860 words

    Steady State Cardio 5 X More Effective Than HIIT????

    By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for short, has been promoted as one of the most effective training methods ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss and for cardiovascular fitness. One of the most popular claims for HIIT is that it burns “9 times more fat” than conventional (steady state) cardio. This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo Tremblay at Laval University in 1994. But what if I told you that HIIT has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular cardio… What if I told you that the same study actually shows that HIIT is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio??? Read on and see the proof for yourself.

    “There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.”

    – Mark Twain

    In 1994, a study was published in the scientific journal Metabolism by Angelo Tremblay and his team from the Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. Based on the results of this study, you hear personal trainers across the globe claiming that “HIIT burns 9 times more fat than steady state cardio.”

    This claim has often been interpreted by the not so scientifically literate public as meaning something like this: If you burned 3 pounds of fat in 15 weeks on steady state cardio, you would now burn 27 pounds of fat in 15 weeks (3 lbs X 9 times better = 27 lbs).

    Although it’s usually not stated as such, frankly, I think this is what some trainers want you to believe, because the programs that some trainers promote are based on convincing you of the vast superiority of HIIT and the “uselessness” of low intensity exercise.

    Indeed, higher intensity exercise is more effective and time efficient than lower intensity exercise. The question is, how much more effective? There’s no evidence that the “9 times more fat loss” claim is true outside the specific context in which it was mentioned in this study.

    In order to get to the bottom of this, you have to read the full text of the research paper and you have to look very closely at the results.

    13 men and 14 women age 18 to 32 started the study. They were broken into two groups, a high intensity intermittent training program (HIIT) and a steady state training program which they referred to as endurance training (ET).

    The ET group completed a 20 week steady state aerobic training program on a cycle ergometer 4 times a week for 30 minutes, later progressing to 5 times per week for 45 minutes. The initial intensity was 60% of maximal heart rate reserve, later increasing to 85%.

    The HIIT group performed 25-30 minutes of continuous exercise at 70% of maximal heart rate reserve and they also progressively added 35 long and short interval training sessions over a period of 15 weeks. Short work intervals started at 10 then 15 bouts of 15 seconds, increasing to 30 seconds. Long intervals started at 5 bouts of 60 seconds, increasing to 90 seconds. Intensity and duration were progressively increased over the 15 week period.

    The results: 3 times greater fat loss in the HIIT group

    Even though the energy cost of the exercise performed in the ET group was twice as high as the HIIT group, the sum of the skinfolds (which reflects subcutaneous body fat) in the HIIT group was three times lower than the ET group.

    So where did the “9 times greater fat loss” claim come from?

    Well, there was a difference in energy cost between groups, so in order to show a comparison of fat loss relative to energy cost, Tremblay wrote,

    “It appeared reasonable to correct changes in subcutaneous fat for the total cost of training. This was performed by expressing changes in subcutaneous skinfolds per megajoule of energy expended in each program.”

    Translation: The subjects did not lose 9 times more body fat, in absolute terms. But hey, 3 times more fat loss? You’ll gladly take that, right?

    Well hold on, because there’s more. Did you know that in this oft-quoted study, neither group lost much weight? In fact, if you look at the charts, you can see that the HIIT group lost 0.1 kg (63.9 kg before, 63.8 kg after). Yes, the HIIT group lost a whopping 100 grams of weight in 15 weeks!

    The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before, 60.1 kg after).

    Naturally, lack of weight loss while skinfolds decrease could simply mean that body composition improved (lean mass increased), but I think it’s important to highlight the fact that the research study from which the “9 times more fat” claim was derived did not result in ANY significant weight loss after 15 weeks.Based on these results, if I wanted to manipulate statistics to promote steady state cardio, I could go around telling people, “Research study says steady state cardio (endurance training) results in 5 times more weight loss than high intensity interval training!” Or the reverse, “Clinical trial proves that high intensity interval training is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio!”

    Mind you, THIS IS THE SAME STUDY THAT IS MOST OFTEN QUOTED TO SUPPORT HIIT!

    If I said 5 X greater weight loss with steady state, I would be telling the truth, wouldn’t I? (100 grams of weight loss vs 500 grams?) Of course, that would be misleading because the weight loss was hardly significant in either group and because interval training IS highly effective. I’m simply being a little facetious in order to make a point: Be careful with statistics. I have seen statistical manipulation used many times in other contexts to deceive unsuspecting consumers.

    For example, advertisements for a popular fat burner claim that use of their supplement resulted in twice as much fat loss, based on scientific research. The claim was true. Of course, in the ad, they forget to tell you that after six months, the control group lost no weight, while the supplement group lost only 1.0 kilo. Whoop de doo! ONE KILO of weight loss after going through a six month supply of this “miracle fat burner!”

    But I digress…

    Back to the HIIT story – there’s even more to it.

    In the ET group, there were some funky skinfold and circumference measurements. ALL of the skinfold measurements in the ET group either stayed the same or went down except the calf measurement, which went up.

    The girths and skinfold measurements in the limbs went down in the HIIT group, but there wasn’t much difference between HIIT and ET in the trunk skinfolds. These facts are all very easy to miss. I didn’t even notice it myself until exercise physiologist Christian Finn pointed it out to me. Christian said,

    “When you look at the changes in the three skinfold measurements taken from the trunk, there wasn’t that much difference between the steady state group (-6.3mm) and the HIIT group (-8.7 mm). So, much of the difference in subcutaneous fat loss between the groups wasn’t because the HIIT group lost more fat, but because the steady state group actually gained fat around the calf muscles. We shouldn’t discount simple measurement error as an explanation for these rather odd results.”

    Christian also pointed out that the two test groups were not evenly matched for body composition at the beginning of the study. At the beginning of the study, the starting body fat based on skinfolds in the HIIT group was nearly 20% higher than the ET group. He concluded:

    “So while this study is interesting, weaknesses in the methods used to track changes in body composition mean that we should treat the results and conclusions with some caution.”

    One beneficial aspect of HIIT that most trainers forget to mention is that HIIT may actually suppress your appetite, while steady state cardio might increase appetite. In a study such as this, however, that can skew the results. If energy intake were not controlled, then some of the greater fat loss in the HIIT group could be due to lowered caloric intake.

    Last but not least, I’d like to highlight the words of the researchers themselves in the conclusion of the paper, which confirms the effectiveness of HIIT, but also helps put it in perspective a bit:

    “For a given level of energy expenditure, a high intensity training program induces a greater loss of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of moderate intensity.”

    “It is obvious that high intensity exercise cannot be prescribed for individuals at risk for health problems or for obese people who are not used to exercise. In these cases, the most prudent course remains a low intensity exercise program with a progressive increase in duration and frequency of sessions.”

    In conclusion, my intention in writing this article wasn’t to be controversial, to be a smart-alec or to criticize HIIT. To the contrary, additional research has continued to support the efficacy of HIIT for fat loss and fitness, not to mention that it is one of the most time efficient ways to do cardiovascular training.

    I have recommended HIIT for years in my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, using a 1:1 long interval approach, which, while only one of many ways to do HIIT, is probably my personal favorite method. However, I also recommend steady state cardio and even low intensity cardio like walking, when it is appropriate.

    My intentions for writing this article were four-fold:

    1. To encourage you to question where claims come from, especially if they sound too good to be true. 2. To alert you to how advertisers might use research such as this to exaggerate with statistics. 3. To encourage the fitness community to swing the pendulum back to center a bit, by not over-selling the benefits of HIIT beyond what can be supported by the scientific research. 4. To encourage the fitness community, that even as they praise HIIT, not to condemn lower and moderate intensity forms of cardio.

    As the original author of the 1994 HIIT study himself pointed out, HIIT is not for everyone, and cardio should be prescribed with progression. Also, mountains of other research has proven that walking (GASP! – low intensity cardio!) has always been one of the most successful exercise methods for overweight men and women.

    There is ample evidence which says that obesity may be the result of a very slight daily energy imbalance, which adds up over time. Therefore, even a small amount of casual exercise or activity, if done consistently, and not compensated for with increased food intake, could reverse the obesity trend. HIIT gets the job done fast, but that doesn’t mean low intensity cardio is useless or that you should abandon your walking program, if you have the time and if that is what you enjoy and if that is what’s working for you in your personal situation.

    The mechanisms and reasons why HIIT works so well are numerous. It goes way beyond more calories burned during the workout.

    Train hard and expect success,

    Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS Fat Loss Coach www.BurnTheFat.com

    Reference: Tremblay, Angelo, et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. Vol 43. no 7 (July). Pp 814-818. 1994..

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness Tom Venuto 8

    writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The

    Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without

    drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best

    bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of

    stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting:

    www.BurnTheFat.com

  • Il loft… a ognuno il suo

    Il loft… a ognuno il suo

    By: Piero Maina

    Conteggio parole: 1912

    Immagine Del Loft per un drive e un ferro
    Clicca sull’immagine per ingrandire

    Tra le caratteristiche strutturali di un bastone da golf il loft è ritenuto uno dei più importanti giacchè esso è il principale responsabile della traiettoria, della distanza e del backspin della pallina. Il loft rappresenta l’inclinazione della faccia del bastone in gradi: maggiore è l’inclinazione di una testa e maggiore sarà l’altezza della traiettoria della pallina e minore sarà la distanza a causa della minore velocità con cui la stessa lascerà la faccia del bastone e a causa del maggior backspin. Come scritto sopra, il loft è il maggiore responsabile del backspin al contrario di alcune credenze popolari che credono siano i grooves.  Il loft si riassume come l’angolo che si crea fra il piano della faccia e il piano verticale che corre perpendicolarmente alla suola. Questo angolo andrà sempre misurato al centro della faccia del bastone (per il drive). Quindi ogni testa nella sacca, almeno nominalmente, è costruita con un loft differente per far si che ogni bastone generi una distanza differente. Ho scritto nominalmente perchè purtroppo nei bastoni cosiddetti di serie il loft che viene indicato viene poi molto spesso disatteso nella realtà. Questo accade un po’ a causa delle tolleranze di produzione, ma spesso volutamente, soprattutto nei drive, in quanto la credenza è che un loft inferiore generi maggior distanza (vero con i ferri ), ma non essendo sempre vero il concetto, si tende a nascondere la verità al golfista. Con i ferri invece abbiamo assistito al rafforzamento del loft negli anni. Siccome la regola di base è che con i ferri il minor loft generi anche maggior distanza e sapendo bene che normalmente in un set di ferri sulla suola troveremo scritto il numero del ferro e non i gradi di loft dello stesso, le case hanno pensato bene di chiudere sempre di più le facce così da reclamizzare che i loro ferri tirano più lungo. I ferri lunghi, diciamo dal 4 in giù, sono diventati inservibili per il giocatore medio in quanto la regola del 38/24 è stata abbondantemente superata. 38/24 vuol dire che un ferro tradizionale più lungo di 38″ (che è la lunghezza media per un ferro 5) e più chiuso di 24° (che è l’angolo della faccia di un ferro 4 standard o un ferro 5 strong), sono diventati difficilmente utilizzabili dal giocatore medio e per questo motivo sono nati gli ibridi. Bastoni che perdonano maggiormente, con un MOI (Momento d’inezia) maggiore e che aiutano ad alzare la palla in aria più facilmente anche da posizioni e terreni non proprio ad hoc. Continuando con la “loft shrink desease” (La sindrome di chiusura dei loft), siamo passati da un loft di 32° per un ferro 5 negli anni 60/70 a 24° ai giorni nostri. Di conseguenza tutti gli altri bastoni nel set si sono riparametrati, generando un buco tra il PW (Pitching wedge) e il SW (Sand Wedge) che negli anni e rimasto sempre a 56° mentre il pitch da 52° e sceso di conseguenza a 44° gradi dei giorni nostri nei set definiti “strong” (Il loft standard ad oggi è 46°/47°). Pertanto il 52° o Gap Wedge che si usa oggigiorno, si è reso necessario per “riempire” il buco che si è venuto a creare. Buco che necessita in caso di loft del PW di 44° di almeno due nuovi bastoni per essere riempito. Si perchè anche se nel nostro nuovo e bellissimo set di ferri sulla suola leggeremo PW e il nostro prossimo bastone nella sacca sarà il SW,i gradi da coprire saranno ben 12. Davvero troppi! E anche nel caso il nostro golfista penserà bene di essere coperto avendo in sacca il GW (52°), il malcapitato si troverà scoperto nel range dei 48° ossia di quello che dovrebbe essere il range di un vero PW. In sostanza avremo il giocatore entusiasta del suo PW della nuova serie di ferri che tirerà lunghissimo essendo in realtà un ferro 9 e si lamenterà invece di fare fatica anche tirando al “massimo” il suo 52° perchè non arriverà mai. Un altra cosa che va detta e che rappresenta invece il discorso sulle tolleranze di produzione è la possibilità che nella sacca esistano due ferri con loft uguale e un terzo che con loft troppo debole che non arriverà mai. Faccio l’esempio: poniamo un ferro 4 con loft misurato di 24°, bene,corretto. Il ferro 5 dovrebbe essere 27°, ma per effetto delle tolleranze di produzione nel nostro set ne troveremo uno di 25°. Sicuramente saremo contenti di vedere il nostro ferro 5 tirare lungo come il ferro 4, solo che avrò in sacca due bastoni quasi identici e il problema sarà tutto del loft. Il terzo ferro come dicevo ha invece il problema contrario e quindi poniamo un ferro 6 che normalmente dovrebbe avere un loft di 31° e in realtà sia 33°, in questo caso ci lamenteremo perchè il nostro ferro farà fatica ad arrivare e si avvertirà la netta differenza dal ferro 5. Anche qui il problema non è nello shaft, ma è tutta colpa del loft troppo debole. Ecco l’importanza di conoscere i loft reali di tutti i bastoni che compongono la sacca. Ma in che modo il loft influisce sulla distanza nel drive? Un errore molto frequente è quello di credere che un drive con loft molto ridotto generi una traiettoria più potente rispetto ad uno con loft maggiore. Che sia un concetto errato lo avranno facilmente intuito tutti i giocatori che vedono regolarmente andare più lontano il loro legno 3 rispetto al drive appena acquistato. Ebbene, occorre fare chiarezza su alcuni concetti così da avere le giuste informazioni per scegliere il vostro futuro drive. Molti giocatori dilettanti sono soliti acquistare drive con loft ridotti (circa 8-9 gradi) anche se generano una ridotta velocità del bastone al momento dell’impatto e con swing out-in e over the top. Premesso che i gradi di loft che sono riportati sulle suole dei bastoni, si rivelano molto spesso errati quando misurati con gli strumenti specifici. Dobbiamo però suddividere i legni dai ferri. Riprendendo il discorso del drive con poco loft ed assumendo che gli 8-9 gradi siano reali, bisognerà vedere chi effettuerà il colpo con quel bastone. Ho scritto sopra che il loft è il principale responsabile della distanza, della traiettoria e del backspin. Pertanto viene logico pensare che 8 gradi debbano per forza farmi andare la pallina più distante perchè il backspin sarà inferiore e la traiettoria più penetrante e quindi partendo più forte la palla la distanza sarà maggiore, ma la fisica con il drive per i giocatori con velocità basse richiede invece maggior backspin per farla volare più a lungo. Spiegarlo in maniera articolata richiede più spazio ed esempi, ma se qualcuno di voi è interessato alla spiegazione non avrò problemi a fornirla. Di base c’è una traiettoria con il drive che sarà la triettoria ideale per la massima distanza “di volo”.  E’ naturale che il golfista sia interessato alla distanza totale, ma questa sarà influenzata da altri fattori come l’angolo di discesa e le condizioni del terreno. Ovviamente anche le condizioni di lancio (launch angle) saranno interessate da molteplici fattori, quali gli agenti atmosferici(temperatura, velocità e direzione del vento,umidità, densità dell’aria, etc.) e naturalmente dalle dinamiche di swing del golfista. Lo scopo sarà quindi di fare la massima distanza di volo lanciando la palla sul giusto angolo e con il massimo rendimento. Faccio un esempio: Il golfista medio maschio ha una velocità della testa del bastone di 90 Mph, (la media degli uomini sul PGA Tour è di 112 Mph). Con i moderni drive conformi la velocità massima che la palla potrà raggiungere è una volta e mezza la velocita della testa (smash factor 1.5 o C.O.R. 0.83 o C.T. 239 microsecondi) e quindi 135mph. Con questi valori la massima distanza di volo della palla in condizioni standard, (massima resa degli angoli di attacco, lancio e punto di contatto,vento,temperatura,pressione atmosferica,etc.) potrà essere di 225 mt. circa . Se il gofista in questione poi non avrà un angolo di attacco in upswing (risalente), si determinerà una traiettoria troppo bassa, con pochissimo carry ( volo della palla in aria senza il rotolo) e non verrà quindi massimizzata la già relativa poca velocità della testa del bastone. Questo perchè la maggior parte dei giocatori principianti o con caratteristiche fisiche non eccellenti genera una bassa velocità all’ impatto il che rende necessario l’uso di un driver con molto loft (almeno 11°, ma anche da 13° a 16°) per consentire alla pallina di partire sul giusto angolo di lancio che a sua volta permetterà alla palla di compiere la maggiore distanza in aria e quella giusta di rotolamento una volta atterrata. Il concetto è semplice: più il giocatore è in grado di sviluppare velocità all’ impatto con il giusto angolo di attacco e il giusto rilascio dei polsi e più avrà bisogno di un driver dal loft ridotto. I giocatori senior , le lady e tutti i giocatori con bassa velocità d’impatto dovranno invece preferire driver con loft maggiore per ottenere il massimo in termini di potenza. Chiaramente questi concetti sono veri in generale, ma sarà buona cosa verificare le carattistiche individuali prima di scegliere il bastone. Come si fa a conoscere il giusto angolo di lancio? L’occhio esperto del vostro professionista sarà sicuramente in grado di consigliarvi il loft più adatto, almeno in modo sommario. Ma una analisi più accurata potrete ottenerla in un laboratorio di un clubfitter professionista attrezzato con un launch monitor affidabile per poter analizzare tutte le variabili. Questo strumento è in grado di rilevare con estrema precisione l’angolo di lancio della vostra pallina e altri importanti fattori come, l’angolo di attacco, la posizione della faccia del bastone all’impatto, la provenienza della faccia del bastone, il punto di contatto, il backspin, la velocità della palla, etc., tutti elementi che una volta analizzati concorreranno alla scelta del giusto loft e alla costruzione del bastone corretto per chi lo utilizzerà.

    Nota del 09/04/2013: Ho pubblicato questo articolo con le opportune modifiche il 4 ottobre 2011, in quanto lo stesso articolo lo avevo pubblicato per un altro sito nel 2006. Già da qualche anno sono presenti sul mercato drive modificabili/aggiustabili con il solo intervento di posizionare l’hosel, o per meglio dire un eccentrico e un piattello sulla suola in maniera da ottenere specifiche diverse in termini di angolo di lie, loft e angolo della faccia. Su questo punto ho sempre ribadito che la cosa non era veritiera e non è possibile alterare come dicono le case le specifiche come dichiarato. Questo era già stato evidenziato da Tom Wishon, il noto clubmaker/clubfitter americano , ma non aveva ancora pubblicato uno studio al riguardo. L’ha fatto ora, naturalmente in Inglese e sono presi in esame il nuovo driver della Taylor Made R1, il Ping Anser, il Titleist 913 D2 e Il Nike Covert, tutti con loft nominale di 10,5°. Come già scritto nel mio articolo il loft è nominale in quanto è quello dichiarato dai costruttori, ma vedrete quanto in realtà siamo lontani dal valore riportato sulla suola.  Così come le possibili combinazioni configurabili con i vari modelli che nell’R1 sono addirittura 84, non restituiscano i cambiamenti desiderati. Non pubblico quindi un mio articolo al riguardo, in quanto Tom Wishon che è il mio mentore ha eseguito non solo un test estensivo e dimostrativo, ma l’ha fatto con cognizione di causa e strumenti adatti allo scopo e quindi sarebbe solo una replica del suo lavoro. Questo a dimostrazione che il marketing regna sovrano.

    Nota del 22/01/2025: Ogni tanto torno a rileggere questo articolo che ho scritto in origine quasi vent’anni fa, con modifiche e aggiunte di tanto in tanto, senza il bisogno di riscriverlo nuovamente, proprio perchè non ne sento la necessità e in realtà non ce né bisogno. Ad oggi, la famosa appendice II,delle regole del golf, che è la sezione che governa le caratteristiche dei bastoni da golf per essere conformi e che menziono sempre, non è mai stata modificata. Quindi i concetti espressi in questo e in altri miei articoli sono ancora attuali e i “trucchi” utilizzati sui loft dei ferri, continuano nella stessa,precisa, identica direzione. Stessa cosa per i drive. Presto scriverò qualche articolo dedicato.

    © Copyright Piero Maina 2006 – 2025 – Tutti i diritti riservati

  • The New Visualization Breakthrough: Mental Training Tactics For Health And Fitness Success

    The New Visualization Breakthrough: Mental Training Tactics For Health And Fitness Success

    Title: The New Visualization Breakthrough: Mental Training Tactics For Health And Fitness Success
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: BurnTheFat.com
    Word count: 1500 words

    The New Visualization Breakthrough: Mental Training Tactics For Health And Fitness Success

    By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    Understanding the mind’s role in motivation and behavior is one of the most critical elements in fitness success. If you struggle with changing habits and behaviors or if you can’t get motivated, then even the best training and nutrition program is not much help.

    A fascinating fact about your subconscious mind is that it’s completely deductive in nature. In other words, it’s fully capable of working backwards from the end to the means. You don’t need to know how to reach a goal at the time you set the goal. If you “program” only the desired outcome successfully into your “mental computer,” then your subconscious will take over and help you find the information and means and carry out the actions necessary to reach it.

    Many people are familiar with affirmations and goal-setting as ways to give instructions to your subconscious mind. But perhaps the ultimate mental training” technique is visualization. In one respect, affirmation and visualization are the same, because when you speak or think an affirmation first, that triggers a mental image, being as the human brain “thinks” in pictures.

    You can use visualization to plant goals into your subconscious mind. You simply close your eyes, use your imagination and mentally create pictures and run movies of your desired results. For example, in your mind’s eye, you can see the “body of your dreams”. If repeated consistently with emotion, mental images are accepted by your subconscious as commands and this helps with changing habits, behavior and performance.

    Although there are some new and creative ways to use visualization, (which you are about to learn), this is not a new technique. Visualization has been used formally in the fields of sports psychology and personal development for decades and philosophers have discussed it for centuries:

    “If you want to reach your goal, you must ‘see the reaching’ in your own mind before you actually arrive at your goal.”

    – Zig Ziglar

    “The use of mental imagery is one of the strongest and most effective strategies for making something happen for you.”

    – Dr. Wayne Dyer

    “Creative visualization is the technique of using your imagination to create what you want in your life.”

    – Shakti Gawain

    “Perhaps the most effective method of bringing the subconscious into practical action is through the process of making mental pictures – using the imagination.”

    – Claude Bristol

    “There is a law in psychology that if you form a picture in your mind of what you would like to be, and you keep and hold that picture there long enough, you will soon become exactly as you have been thinking.”

    – William James, 1842-1910, Psychologist and Author

    Despite these glowing endorsements and a long track record, some people can’t get past feeling that this is just a “hokey” self-help technique. Rest assured, however, that visualization is an effective and time-tested method for increasing personal success that has been used by some of the highest achievers the world.

    The Soviets started to popularize visualization in sports psychology back in the 1970’s, as detailed in Charles Garfield’s landmark book, “Peak Performance.” They dominated in many sports during that period, which validated visualization anecdotally.

    In the last 10-15 years, there has been some groundbreaking new brain research which has validated visualization scientifically. Here’s something that was written recently by Dr. Richard Restak, a neuroscientist and author of 12 books about the human brain:

    “The process of imagining yourself going through the motions of a complex musical or athletic performance activates brain areas that improve your performance. Brain scans have placed such intuitions on a firm neurological basis. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans reveal that the mental rehearsal of an action activates the prefontal areas of the brain responsible for the formulation of the appropriate motor programs. In practical terms, this means you can benefit from the use of mental imagery.”

    So much for visualization being a “cheesy” self-help technique.

    Although visualization is widely used today, even people who are familiar with it often don’t realize its many applications. Arguably the most common use of visualization is by athletes, musicians and other performers as a form of “mental rehearsal.” Research shows that “practicing in your mind” is almost as effective as practicing physically, and that doing both is more effective than either one alone.

    A common use of visualization in the fitness context is “goal visualization.” In your mind’s eye, you can see yourself having already achieved your physique goal or your ideal goal weight. You can also visualize a specific performance goal such as completing a difficult workout or a heavy lift like a squat or bench press.

    One creative way you can use mental imagery is called “process visualization.” Once you’ve set your goals, it’s easy to come up with a list of the daily habits, behaviors and action steps necessary to reach your goal. So write down the action steps and visualize them – the entire process, not just the end result. See yourself food shopping and grabbing fruits, vegetables and lean proteins, ordering healthy foods from restaurant menus, saying no to sodas and drinking water instead, and going to the gym consistently and having killer workouts. Some people visualize their entire “perfect day” as they would want it to unfold. When you do this as vividly, emotionally and in as much detail as you can, you will be neurologically priming your brain to carry out those behaviors.

    The least known of all mental imagery techniques is called “physiology visualization.” An example would be picturing the fat burning process in your body or seeing the muscle fibers growing larger and larger. Using this technique, could it be possible that you might be giving subconscious instructions to your body’s cells, organs and tissues?

    Well, consider the work of Dr. Carl Simonton, a physician and cancer researcher who taught his patients (as one part of a comprehensive program), how to visualize powerful immune cells devouring the cancer cells. I’m not suggesting that you can cure cancer or materialize a lean and muscular body just by visualizing, (there’s a step in between thought and manifestation – it’s called action – a step that many self help ‘experts’ forget to mention). However, thoughts and mental images are the precursors to action and the fact that a mind-body connection definitely exists makes this an exciting prospect.

    Scientists have established the mind-body link in many contexts, and not just by the existence of a placebo effect. There’s also direct evidence as in the way emotional stress can contribute to physical disease. The mind does influence the body! The mere fact that a branch of science has been devoted to this area is proof that it deserves critical investigation and is not just the domain of infomercial self help gurus. The science is called psychoneuroimmunology.

    Using “physiology visualization,” you could, even in the middle of a workout, imagine the fat burning process taking place, and visualize fat being released from adipose tissue storage in your abdominal region or elsewhere. You could see the free fatty acids entering your bloodstream, being carried to the working muscles and being burned for energy in the muscle cells. You could also visualize the physiology of muscle growth.

    To make your imagery as accurate and detailed as possible, my best suggestion is to refer to an anatomy & physiology textbook that shows pictures of fat cells, blood vessels, myofibrils, motor units, sarcomeres, and cell organelles like the mitochondria, so you know what the structures look like. You could also get more details about the processes by looking up lipolysis, hypertrophy or beta oxidation.

    Even if you had no idea what the internal structure and workings of the body were like, you could still use this method. Your body responds to mental imagery even if it isn’t anatomically correct. We know from the field of hypnosis that the subconscious mind responds well to metaphor – maybe even better than literal suggestions. Facts and logic are the domain of the conscious mind, while emotion and metaphor can slip right past the conscious and into the subconscious. Dr. Simonton often wrote about his young patients who created (metaphorical) mental images of immune system cells as “knights in shining armor”, slaying “the dragon” of cancer cells.

    One of your greatest mental powers is imagination. You can visualize anything you want and you can embellish and exaggerate your imagery as much as you want. For example, you could imagine the free fatty acids being burned for energy in the “cellular powerhouse” – the mitochondria – and you could imagine the mitochondria as a fiery furnace… “incinerating” the fat! I think it’s a pretty cool idea to “see” your fat cells shrinking and visualize your body as a “fat burning furnace.”

    Should you not believe that there’s anything to the physiology visualization technique, that’s ok, because we know that the subconscious is deductive. Just give it a goal, tell it what you want and it will get you there automatically by altering your attention and behavior. Therefore, we can be confident that physiology visualization will be effective even if only as a subconscious directive about your desired goal. If science someday provides us with conclusive evidence that visualization actually does cause cellular – physiological changes in the body, well, that’s just all the better.

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialistTom Venuto 8

    (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). Tom is the

    author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches

    you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using

    methods of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness

    models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase

    your metabolism by visiting: www.BurnTheFat.com

  • 2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

    2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

    Title: 2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making
    By line: By Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    URL: www.burnthefat.com
    Word count: 999 words

    2 Cardio Mistakes You’re Still Making

    By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS www.BurnTheFat.com

    The controversies over cardio for fat loss are  endless: steady state versus intervals, fed versus fasted, long and easy versus  short and intense, and so on. Obviously there is a lot of interest in cardio  training and how to do it right. Sadly, most people are still doing 2 things  terribly wrong and it’s killing their results…… As best as I can figure, there  are two major reasons why people are still mucking up their cardio programs for  fat loss.

    REASON #1: NOT ENOUGH FOCUS ON TOTAL CALORIES BURNED

    Most people aren’t burning enough darn calories.

    Why? Well, I guess they are too busy worrying about the “proper” type of exercise (which machine or activity), the mode (steady state or intervals), the “optimal” ratio of intervals, or the “best” duration.Some people coast along on the treadmill at 2.3 miles per hour or some similar sloth-like pace and they think that just by hitting a TIME goal, such as 45 or 60 minutes, that with “X” duration completed, they are assured to get the results they want. On the other extreme, we have folks who have found or created some mega-intense, super-duper short training protocol like the “4-minute wonder workout from Japan.” Just because the workout is high in intensity and it is performed in intervals, they too think they are assured to get the results they want.

    What’s missing in both cases is the realization that total fat loss over time is a function of total calories burned over time (assuming you don’t blow your diet, of course).

    AND…

    Total calories burned is a product of INTENSITY times DURATION, not intensity OR duration.

    Too much focus on one variable at the exclusion of the other can lead to a less than optimal total calorie burn and disappointing results. And remember, intensity and duration are *variables* not absolutes! (“Variable” means you can change them… even if your “guru” says you can’t!)

    When you understand the relationship and interplay between INTENSITY X DURATION you will find a “SWEET SPOT” where the product of those variables produces the maximal calorie burn and maximum fat loss, based on your current health condition and your need for time efficiency.

    REASON #2: TOO MUCH FOCUS ON WHAT TYPE OF CALORIES BURNED

    As best as I can figure, there is one whopper of a mistake that is still KILLING most people’s cardio programs and that is…

    Way too much focus on WHAT you are burning during the workout – fats or carbohydrates – also known as “substrate utilization.”

    This idea comes from the notorious “fat burning zone” myth which actually tells people to exercise SLOWER and LESS intensely to burn more fat.

    Hold on a minute. Pop quiz. Which workout burns more calories?

    (A) A 30 minute leisurely stroll through the park

    (B) A 30 minute, sweat-pouring, heart-pounding, lung-burning run?

    Like, DUH!

    And yet we have trainers, authors and infomercial gurus STILL telling us we have to slow down if we want to burn more fat??? Bizarre.

    The reason people still buy it is because the “fat burning zone” myth sounds so plausible because of two little science facts:

    • The higher your intensity, the more carbs you burn during the workout
    • The lower your intensity, the more fat you burn during the workout

    And that’s the problem. You should be focusing on total calories and total fat burned during the workout and all day long, not just what type or percentage of fuel you are burning during the workout.

    It’s not that fat oxidation doesn’t matter, but what if you have a high percentage of fat oxidation but an extremely low number of calories burned?

    If you really want to be in the “fat burn zone,” you could sit on your couch all day long and that will keep you there quite nicely because “couch sitting” is a really low intensity (“fat-burning”) activity.

    (Of course, “couch sitting” only burns 37 calories per half hour…)

    HERE’S THE FAT-BURNING SOLUTION!

    In both cases, the solution to burning more fat is drop dead simple: Focus your attention on how you can burn more TOTAL calories during your workout and all day long. If you want to burn more fat, burn more calories and you can do that by manipulating ANY of the variables : intensity, duration and also frequency. If you build your training program around this concept, you will be on the right track almost every time.

    BUT WAIT – THERE IS MORE TO IT…

    Naturally, we could argue that it’s not quite this simple and that there are hundreds of other reasons why your cardio program might not be working… and I would agree, of course. But on the exercise side, the ideas above should be foremost in your mind.

    On the nutrition side, you have to get your act together there too.

    For example, many people increase their food intake at the same time as they start a cardio training program thereby putting back in every calorie they burned during the workout! Then some of them have the nerve to say, “SEE, cardio doesn’t work!”

    Incidentally, this is the exact reason that a few studies show that adding cardio or aerobic training to a diet “did not improve fat loss”: It’s not because the cardio didn’t work, it was because the researchers didn’t control for diet and the subjects ate more!!

    It should go without saying that nutrition is the foundation on which every fat loss program is built.

    Choose the combination of type, intensity, duration and frequency that suits your lifestyle and preferences the best, and WORK THE VARIABLES to get the fat loss results you want, but whichever cardio program you choose, remember that a solid fat burning nutrition program, such as Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle is necessary to help you make the most of it.

    Train hard and expect success,

    Tom Venuto Fat Loss Coach www.BurnTheFat.com

    About the Author:

    Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness Tom Venuto 8

    writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The

    Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without

    drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best

    bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of

    stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting:

    www.burnthefat.com