Toning, Real or Marketing? Part Two

Here is part two of my toning discussion, here is part one if you haven't read it, but if you don't care to read it I wont shed a tear. Now lets see if doing push ups and dumbbell lunges will make us look like fitness models

Looking Back

In part one I talked about the idea and use of “toning” and how it can/has lead to misuse and misinformed ideas about the body. Now in part two I am going to dig deeper into the programing that a lot of these “toning” workouts/routines will have.  First a quick review, we can not "tone" a muscle, the look of “toning” comes from a lower body fat percentage and more than average amount of lean body mass (simple overview), and when we break it down “toning” when used to describe a look has no holding. Now let me get started on why most of these programs fall short when it comes to reaching your goals and why their results do not continue.  

Overview

As I stated above improving ones body composition comes from lowering body fat/raising lean mass and/or (preferably) both, so when you look at these workouts/programs how are they doing this? Most are just body weight or band movements put together with short rest periods and continuous rotation of the movements with some type of aerobic work mixed in, but how is that going to increase lean mass or decrease body fat? Both factors are highly dependent on one's dietary habits (caloric deficit or surplus), doing such programs may stimulate the body for muscle growth and will burn calories but without the other piece of the puzzle its very hit or miss. Yes, people will probably see results when they first start programs like the above, but this is mainly due to it being a new stimulus and the fact that most people who start these are sedentary or minimally trained individuals (so anything you throw at these people will show results). How long do the changes or results last, weeks maybe a month or two? Sound familiar? Let me explain below...

The Thick of It

So if a increase in muscle and or decrease in body fat is what someone is looking for they should be lead in that direction, first making sure they are eating towards their goal (deficit or surplus) and then specific training for that goal. So remember that the “toning” workouts rely on mostly bodyweight and band movements with little rest time as the main way of changing intensity (mechanical tension and exertion level). This leads into one of the falls of most “toning” routines, the stimulus you usually give your body is low and can not vary/increase to the degree of weight bearing exercise (machines and free weights, also the varying repetitions and intensities). As I stated above if you are a beginner this will be enough to see improvements at first but eventually your body will adapt to the stimulus and then will plateau (increase in muscle size will slow or fully stop). So if most of if not all "toning" routines use a stimulus that most trainees will get used to after around 3 months what are they to do after? Now a lot of people usually shy away from strength training or the idea of using weights that only allow for rep ranges of  3’s and 6’s, but a lot of great adaptations can come from this since the body is being greatly stimulated. Also varying intensity and volume is a main factor to further progress after someone is out of untrained category and even more necessary once they are not a beginner anymore. Most routines will sell a second package or more advanced version but the stimulus has not changed much when it comes to intensity (mechanical tension on the body) which is a primary variable in adaptation, so the effect for the person will be no more than a caloric burning routine that like I previously stated unless ones nutrition is being accounted for then the program will possibly not do much (when it comes to improving body composition). After all this rambling I come to my problem with “toning” programs, low stimulus routines when it comes to intensity, and lack there of to raise that intensity to further produce results that people are seeking.

To Sum It Up

Now I know not everyone wants to deadlift 3x their body weight, some people prefer machines, others free weights, powerlifting, olympic lifting, crossfit etc. So the most important thing is to stick with what you love because that is going to allow you to adhere to an active lifestyle. The problem rises when people are telling others that they can grow 20 inch biceps by doing their “toning” program, or that they can gain 25-35 pounds of muscle mass from it as well. The outcome of those two are highly unlikely, this is when (if those or any similar goals are yours) some more specific programming will have to come in to play. One might have to start doing more free weight or machine movements while implementing a structured periodized program, but this doesn't mean you have to stop doing cross training or whatever else you love, you just need to add some specificity to your programing to reach your desired goal. If you or someone is happy with these programs and you don't have any specific goals then keep on going. I a not trying to deter anyone from programs like these if they are happy with what they are getting out of them, I am just trying to shake loose some of the lies and misinformation that they usually come with.  

Toning, Real or Marketing? Part One

This is going to be a two part series, part one I dig into the definition and semantics. Part two I dissect the programs that are usually associated with "toning". Please do not be so emotionally tied to this term that you automatically disregard everything I say, now break out the pink dumbbells and get the circuits started, its time to tone!

What is Tone?

You see it in on headlines all over, magazine covers, the internet and youtube, “toning”, what does it mean? Most people use the term "toning" in place of desired body composition, usually the image of a lightly defined body where the the major beach muscles are etched through body fat is what comes to most minds. When we say body composition we are usually talking about

“In physical fitness, body composition is used to describe the percentages of fat, bone, water and muscle in human bodies. Because muscular tissue takes up less space in our body than fat tissue, our body composition, as well as our weight, determines leanness”.

how much lean body mass and body fat you have on your person, someone who weighs 190 pounds at 15% BF (body fat) is going to look more "toned" than a gentleman who is 190 pounds at 20% BF, with muscle mass being the exact same. So we can argue that "toning" is mostly understood but it is vastly dependent on body fat where usually the focus is on the muscle itself. This part is more about semantics and some may think its a petty thing to argue about, but if the base of an idea is wrong even in the slightest it allows for other ideas that stem from it to be vastly deranged.

Here is the actual definition of tone, 

verb past tense: toned; past participle: toned

1.give greater strength or firmness to (the body or a part of it)."exercise tones up the muscles"

2.harmonize with (something) in terms of color."the rich orange color of the wood tones beautifully with the yellow roses"

Breaking it Down

So you see that tone only speaks of the actual firmness/strength of a muscle from exercise, a muscle can be as firm as it can be, but if you still carry enough body fat your body will not have that prefered sculpted look to it or your desired body composition. So now you may be thinking, “okay, yea so the term may not be 100% correct but people get what we are saying and I know what I mean”. Yes, you may know what you mean but how does that help anyone else? Why use a term if it changes per person (similar to the term clean eating), the term has no holding. Now remember that the definition of tone talks only of the strength/firmness of a muscle, but the whole idea of a “toned” body heavily relies on having a reduced body fat (in most cases, some people may need only to increase muscle size but both is more likely) and the definition makes no connection to body fat, very similar to how people think of toning the body.

As I stated earlier, “if the base of an idea is wrong even in the slightest it allows for other ideas that stem from it to be vastly deranged”, now we get to the deranged parts of using the term “toning”. People sell programs and devices of all sorts with the idea of “toning” behind them, but very rarely will the idea of losing body fat be the main focus, most of the time it will be some quick 20 min home workout circuit to tone the body (focusing on the muscle development not body fat). So from the start these programs are terrible because the idea they are based on is wrong (In part two I go into deeper inspection of “toning” programs). I saved the best for last (in this article), the bastardization of “toning” has become so bad that people (who usually are trying to sell you something, go figure) have used toning as an idea of changing the shape and length of an actual muscle/muscles. Human physiology would like to say other wise, the shape and length of a muscle is already pre determined by ones own genetics. We can not “tone” a muscle, the muscles insertion point, muscle belly, and genetics have decided that for us. A muscle can grow and shrink, holding a dumbbell semi lateral while doing tricep kickbacks while sanding on a bosu ball in hope to tone the tricep muscle to grow a certain way is futile. We can only hope to increase the muscle size (hypertrophy) and keep our body fat at a desired level to give us the body we are looking for.

Toning Real?

I hope this post has shown how a wrong use of a word can lead to such deranged branches of it, usually in the hope of selling something by appealing to the masses. So remember to tone is to strengthen or make more firm, if you are looking to change your body composition then usually a increase in muscle size and reduction in body fat (neither have to be to the extreme) will more than likely give you the body and “look” you desire. I might add that following those “toning” routines/workouts will usually have a very small effect that will not last long, but I dig deeper in part two.

Food is Fuel, It Also Taste F#cking Amazing

This post is more of a rant than educational piece, I go and rant on the ideology that food is fuel and you shouldn't enjoy it and if you do enjoy your food it's probably unhealthy.

The fitness community is a weird one (generally speaking, mainstream fitness), when you sit back and really take a good look at it. “Food is fuel!” and “Food will not control me!” are very popular sayings among the diehard health wairy. I dont care how any one person decides to eat or their philosophy on food, if they decide that food is just a means to survive and they feel that anything else and they are being controlled then that is fine it doesn't bother me (even if I see that as a very unhealthy view on food). When people start to proclaim that the above view is healthy and is the way to better oneself to others is when I have a problem, why is it that people who try to be 110% healthy seem to only view life in black or white? Back to the idea that food is fuel, yes food is fuel, it gives us macro and micro nutrients that enables our bodies to run at its finest, why do people then make the correlation that if they enjoy their food then they will immediately be controlled by it and then fall into a vicious downfall of gluttony and laziness? A recurring theme I bring up is the overrestriction that leads to such binges that is rooted from misleading and wrong information. 

Here is a scenario to think about, Lacy is 5’3” 120 pounds, she works out 6 times a week doing HIIT resistance training along with cardio 3 times a week. Lacy wants to lose 10 pounds and maintain it so she overly restricts the food she will allow herself to eat and follows the ideology that food is fuel. Now over a 2 week period Lacy lost 7 pounds, but on the third week she binges on food she saw to enjoyable (“unhealthy”) and gained back 4 pounds (mostly water weight but some tissue weight), Lacy then becomes depressed and believes food is controlling her again so she falls into a slump for another week until she feels she is strong enough and goes back onto the program again. Lacy continues this vicious cycle posting things on facebook and instagram about her journey and how happy she is and also how she will never let food control her again because “healthy” feels so good. 

The above scenario is not far fetched a quick look through your friends list may show some similar journeys. Now compare Lacy to Bethany...

Bethany is 5’3” 130 pounds, Bethany has decided she wants to lose 10 pounds so she starts to work out 2 times a week weight training, she doesn't do any hardcore or advanced style of weight training she just goes at her pace and uses progressive overload. Bethany puts herself in a slight caloric deficit with no restrictions on the foods she eats, she does start to eat more vegetables, fruits, protein and whole foods all while still eating foods that others (Lacy) might see as “unhealthy”. Two weeks go by and Bethany has lost 3 pounds, on the third week Bethany decides to introduce some walking with friends once a week for some SS (steady state) cardio. Another 7 Weeks go by and Bethany has hit her goal of 10 pounds lost, Bethany continues to eat foods she enjoys and has introduced one more day of weight training. Bethany is able to follow her lifestyle since she can adhere to it very easily. 

Now decide who is more healthy, Lacy or Bethany? So why do people continue to push the idea that food is controlling and only fuel? If someone has a real issue with self control and food then they need to go see a medical professional to advise them and help them through their disordered eating. 

My unprofessional advice would be to take a deep breath and understand that food can not control you if you understand that eating foods you enjoy in respectable amounts (depending on the person and goals of said person “respectable” changes quite a bit, context is key) is not going to damage you, yes food is fuel but it also taste so f#cking good! There are so many different cultures around the world that prepare and cook foods so differently, different taste and textures are amazing to experience and yes, enjoy. I have just recently been eating more guava, guava jelly on my toast with small amount of butter is amazing, also I have been mixing 3 servings of vanilla ice cream with a 4 oz of guava nectar in a blender, the guava shake is highly enjoyable and refreshing and I make it whenever I feel like one, that can be once a week or maybe 3 times. The thing is I have not gained 10 pounds or lost controll, my health has not plummeted and you could say my mental health has improved. 

Like I said in the beginning if you want to eat food on the idea that its mainly fuel and you are in control then by all means go ahead, but it is not necessary or some would say even healthy. In the end eat how you want but don't let people make you think that enjoying one of lifes greatest pleasures is counter productive to health or your goals.   

Sugar and What We Actually Know

I am not an authority on any topic when it comes to nutrition or fitness and I will never claim to be, I am someone who likes to challenge myself and my own beliefs to continue learning. With that being said I do not preach pseudoscience and try to take the most unbiased and evidenced based approach when it comes to training and nutrition. Also I am sorry if your predetermined beliefs on this subject already have you convinced that I am an idiot, but I would ask you to read this with an open mind.

Recently sugar has been called everything from addictive, deadly, the white devil and etc, I guess it was only time before I saw a local authority do the same. Here is a post by Vero Beach Crossfit on the addictive white stuff http://crossfitverobeach.com/?p=7786, the person doesn't state to avoid sugar at all cost but they word their post negatively and most of it is misleading. I really believe the person who wrote this really cares about their clients and is trying to help them but this does not excuse misinformation that can lead to harm.

First let us tackle the idea that sugar is addictive, when this topic is brought up people love to immediately jump to correlating sugar addiction to drug addictions, like many things it is not that simple. There is no objective consensus on sugar addiction right now, so for someone to say that sugar is addictive or is not is a false statement (1). What seems to be more probable is when sugary fatty foods are overly restricted this creates a biological “need/want” for them that eventually will lead us to giving in and binging on these very palatable foods (sugary fatty foods)(2, 3), but this does not make these foods inherently addictive. I do believe there to be a small population of people who deal with stress by means of over indulging in sugary delights to release a reward effect/dopamine, this then builds a habit of stress eating that some may call addiction but I don't know if I would go that far. People who suffer from the above need help and should look for professional assistance not the internet. For me this raises the question of if we got rid of the unnecessary fear based ideology on such foods and allowed balance and moderation to be acceptable would we see reduced numbers of sugar addicts and a rise in healthier individuals.

When someone talks about sugar I have to wonder, are they talking about sugars that are found in whole foods already? Or are they talking about added sugars from refined grain products, sodas, pre packaged desserts etcetera? There is a difference between these two but don't mis-understand this and believe one to be “bad” or “worse” than the other, in a healthy (physical/psychological) diet both added and dietary sugars can be found. Dietary sugars have the benefit of pairing up with nutritionally sound food; milk and fruit for instance. Milk and fruit are micro nutrient packed foods that taste amazing (for most people) and support a healthy lifestyle. Added sugars are usually prepackaged foods with little to no micronutrient value, this does not make them inherently bad or unhealthy, so one can still implement them in their lifestyle as long as they do not inhibit their overall micronutrient intake and lead to an unintentional calorie surplus (that overtime can lead to weight issues). The USDA does not have an absolute standard on sugar or added sugar intakes, but is this a bad thing? Here is a snippet from the USDA on added sugars and solid fats,

“Foods containing solid fats and added sugars are no more likely to contribute to weight gain than any other source of calories in an eating pattern that is within calorie limits. However, as the amount of solid fats and/or added sugars increases in the diet, it becomes more difficult to also eat foods with sufficient dietary fiber and essential vitamins and minerals, and still stay within calorie limits. For most people, no more than about 5 to 15 percent of calories from solid fats and added sugars can be reasonably accommodated in the USDA Food Patterns, which are designed to meet nutrient needs within calorie limits.” (4)

so it seems that the USDA sets out a flexible approach for people to make intelligent decisions on their sugar intake and not arbitrarily restrict foods or set absolutes. I am a fan of flexibility as evidence leans towards it compared to restrictiveness when it comes to diet adherence (5). So it does seem the USDA has a recommendation when it comes to sugar; dietary sugars enjoy them, in the form of added sugars enjoy them but have balance and moderation.

From the 1950’s - 2000’s we saw a 39 percent increase in caloric sweeteners (combination of sucrose and HFCS), this comes out to be around 155 pounds per year per person (6). In the past couple of decades we have seen a rise in HFCS as the main leader of added sugar being used, but very recently HFCS has been in decline while sucrose has been rising (this is probably from consumers wanting soft drink manufacturers to stop the use HFCS), in 2010 HFCS consumption was around 66 pounds per year and sucrose was 64.5 pounds this totals out to be 130.5 pounds per year per person on average (7). So we seem to be shifting out of HFCS to sucrose being the leader in added sugars and an overall decrease of added sugars in our diet, comparing 2000’s 155 pounds to 2010’s 130.5 pounds (around 15.8 percent decrease). To just state that added sugar has increased is true but I feel to not state that added fats have increased as well to be misleading. After America’s blame on fats for weight increase during the late 80’s and early 90’s (the blame was not warranted) added fats were 67 percent higher than in the 1950’s (6)

“Average use of added fats and oils in 2000 was 67 percent above annual average use in the 1950s (table 2-3). Added fats include those used directly by consumers, such as butter on bread, as well as shortenings and oils used in commercially prepared cookies, pastries, and fried foods. All fats naturally present in foods, such as in milk and meat, are excluded.”

The fact that added fats and added sugars have increased does not make them the root of all disease and evil but rather one should take notice of them in ones diet and eat them according to ones own goals, health status, and preference that still allows for plenty of whole foods.  

Our body's preferred main source of energy fuels our brain, kidney, muscles (glycogen) and almost all of our other cellular functions, this energy source is glucose. This brings me to the statement that sugar feeds cancer and that a ketogenic diet can prevent cancer. As I stated above most of our cells use glucose for fuel, so yes sugar does feed cancer just like the rest of our body. With that same logic we should stop taking in oxygen because it allows the cancer to live, do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Even if you we were able to cut out all carbohydrate sources in our diet our body will continue to make glucose from other materials, via Gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis (10, 11). Some may say that sugars ability to “drive” insulin also aids cancer in growing, the flaw here is that protein is just as insulinogenic as carbs if not more (8, 9), so should we stop eating protein as well? Whats wrong with both cases of the insulin and sugar theory is the fact that no matter what we do there will always be a insulin response and glucose in our blood, if either of those were to stop we would cease to live. There are more than a hundred different types of cancer and if anyone is claiming that one single thing is able to stop all of them (or just uses the blanket term “cancer”) then they take a very over simplistic view on human physiology. 

Now back to the ketogenic diet, this diet may help some with brain tumors as recent research (one study) has shown in mice to be beneficial, but the problem with taking this at face value is that this is just one study and it was done on mice. To take a single study and claim truth from it is scientifically wrong, reasearch on any topic builds up through time and each study is just a piece of the puzzle that helps people to piece together the truth (people who are qualified). Who knows, the future of research might show that sugar has a lead role in causing cancer but as of right now the research does not show this (12, 13).

To wrap this up, sugar is not evil and it will not kidnap your kids. Eat foods that you prefer while having most of your diet come from whole foods, eat towards your goals if you have any (surplus or deficit), eat foods that your body tolerates, and for bloody sakes if you want that piece of pie then eat it! Enjoy your life

Sources:

1.http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0261-5614/PIIS0261561409002398.pdf

2.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21549136

3.http://www.scienceofeds.org/2013/04/04/binge-eating-when-should-we-call-it-an-addiction/

4.http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/Chapter3.pdf (pg.28)

5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790

6.http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

7.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sssm-sugar-and-sweeteners-outlook/sssm273.aspx#.Uw4cpCiGlEc

8.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060863 (no full text)

9.http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319 (explains above study)

10.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

11.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogenolysis

12.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9806115

13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21328345

Advocare Mass Impact Is A Dud

Here is a review of Advocare’s Mass Impact, part of their Performance Elite line. The product has the word MASS in it so right away we know this is going to be good.

Quick Look

The product calls itself a multi nutrient amino acid supplement with the key benefits being aiding in muscle building, supporting muscle performance and helps increase physical endurance. Mass Impact contains 3 grams of creatine monohydrate, 2 grams of leucine, 1 gram of glycine and 500 mg of glutamine in the form of Sustamine. The product comes with 50 servings with a retail price of $72.95 (Distributor price: $58.36 / Advisor price: $43.77).

Creatine/Claim

“Mass Impact™ helps maintain ATP levels for cellular energy and to preserve muscle glycogen, which promotes muscle mass, volume and strength.”

The products first ingredient is creatine monohydrate with 3 grams per serving. Recommended doses of creatine can be found anywhere from 2-5 grams with 2 being the bare minimum to maintain average stores and 5 being the most common to keep creatine stores elevated. Creatine is the most studied supplement to date with its effects on power output and muscle endurance (through storing phosphocreatine) are well supported by the scientific consensus. So, their claim is not false with what creatine does but they do leave some important factors out. Creatine needs to be supplemented every day to keep levels elevated (to get the effect). Mass Impact only has 50 servings, so the product will only last under two months which is a short amount of time when you are taking it daily, compare this with 200 servings that can be commonly found in your local Vitamin Shoppe at a lower price as well. It seems that they try to sell you this as a better quality creatine when in fact it is not, creatine monohydrate is creatine monohydrate.

Sustamine/Claim

“Sustamine supplementation results in improved performance and promotes protein synthesis, inhibiting muscle breakdown and reducing muscle tissue damage.”

Sustamine is a trademarked product that is a specific blend of l-glutamine and l-alanyl, Im first going to talk about glutamine and then tackle sustamine. Glutamine is a well known product in the supplement world since not to long ago (and still sometimes today) it was told to be the anabolic messiah. So far there has been no evidence of glutamine supplementation to increase muscle building in healthy individuals, I say healthy since the only benefits of glutamine supplementation have been noticed in severe physical trauma patients(burns or knife wounds) and disease states that are muscle wasting (AIDS). The average persons protein intake will satisfy their glutamine needs and this is especially true to people who are into fitness since most of them over eat protein to begin with. So as to the claim that this product will be “inhibiting muscle breakdown and reducing muscle tissue damage” seems to be a very bold stretch.

Now lets look at Sustamine as a whole, I could not find to much on it and unfortunately only found one study that I could look at the full text (1). The study looked at “fluid regulation, immune, inflammatory, oxidative stress, and recovery was examined in response to exhaustive endurance exercise, during and in the absence of dehydration”, the study size was 10 men and a the conclusion was, “Results demonstrate that AG(Sustamine) supplementation provided a significant ergogenic benefit by increasing time to exhaustion during a mild hydration stress. This ergogenic effect was likely mediated by an enhanced fluid and electrolyte uptake”. So it seems that in this one study that they saw a significant difference in time of exhaustion (I am not sure if it is clinically significant but this is just a overview), the kicker is though that the trial that saw the biggest difference was taking 0.2 g·kg of Sustamine. With the average body weight being  77.4kg this comes out to be around 15.5 grams of sustamine that the study above worked with. This product only has 500mg per serving.

Other Amino Acids/Claims

“Several other amino acids found in Mass Impact™ help optimize fat cell and muscle tissue communication to promote muscle leanness, activating cell signaling pathways for muscle growth.* They also contribute to muscle repair and strength”

So what we have here is 2g of leucine and 1g of glycine, now the above claim is true amino acids help with muscle growth, repair and strength, but we get amino acids from eating protein through our diet, and as I stated above most people who are into fitness eat well over enough protein. Take this into perspective to get the above aminos all you would have to eat is approximately 3.5 ounces of chicken, 3.5 ounces gives you 2.3 grams of leucine and 1.5 grams of glycine. It seems they try to hype the amino acids in Mass Impact to be different or better then what we get through our diets, but that is just false.

Conclusion

This product is a highly overpriced creatine supplement, as I have stated the Sustamine is more then likely to have no affect on the individual taking this (unless you take about half the container) and the miniscule amount of aminos would not have any effect on someone who eats adequate amounts of protein. If your goal is to increase muscle size and or improve performance getting enough whole protein should be your priority over wasting your money on supplements. Now if you are looking for a creatine supplement then I would suggest you to purchase creatine monohydrate by itself, 2.2 pounds of creatine can be purchased for 20 dollars with 200 servings (5g per serving) the cost per serving comes out to be .10 cents. Now compare that to Mass Impacts 1.45 (at 72.95 price) per serving. Save your money and do not buy Mass Impact.

Sources

1.http://www.jissn.com/content/7/1/8

2.http://www.advocare.com/products/performance_elite/P2800.aspx

3.http://examine.com/supplements/Glutamine/

4.http://examine.com/supplements/Creatine/

5.http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/poultry-products/703/2

6.http://www.amazon.com/NOW-Foods-Creatine-Powder-Pounds/dp/B0013OXD38/ref=sr_1_3?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1391967328&sr=1-3