A Calorie Is Sometimes Not A Calorie

by Dr. Jade Teta   02/26/14

Here's what you need to know...

•  Anyone that says calories don't matter has zero credibility. But anyone who claims calories are all that matter has even less credibility.

•  Balance the metabolism first, then worry about calories if needed. Hunger, energy, and cravings (HEC) are your keys to understanding your metabolism and working with it, rather than against it.

•  The combo of sugar, fat, and salt will short circuit your appetite centers, turning that "cheat meal" into a cheat week, or worse.

•  The idea that calorie excess always leads to fat gain and calorie reduction always leads to fat loss is not accurate.

•  The standard "eat less, exercise more" approach to dieting leads to about 20-50% loss of lean tissue.

•  The quality of food you eat can directly affect the future efficiency of your metabolism.

So, I'm at this health and fitness business mindshare thing. There are all kinds of successful authors, clinicians, health bloggers and other experts in attendance. It's not long before I find myself in a small group discussion about calories and weight loss.

There's the "calories are everything" camp and the "hormones are everything" camp. I'm thinking to myself, "This is like arguing about what's more important to driving a car, the steering wheel or the gas peddle." It borders on comical. I just silently watch for a while, then I ask a question: "Out of curiosity, what would you guys recommend to a client who's trying to lose weight?"

Suddenly there's immediate consensus. Everyone agrees the diet would be mostly protein and veggies, that weight training would be the dominant form of activity, and sleep and stress management are critical. Then I ask, "Why the higher protein? Why not carbohydrate? They're equal in calories. And why weights over cardio? Cardio would burn more calories. And why are we putting an emphasis on sleep and stress management? Neither has any calories."

And from there, the argument once again spirals out of control with the calorie counters taking their stance and the calorie deniers taking their stance. Damn shame. They missed my point.

Is a Calorie a Calorie?

Anyone that says calories don't matter has zero credibility. But anyone who claims calories are all that matter has even less credibility.

There are two things required for sustained, lasting fat loss: a calorie deficit and a balanced metabolism. Anyone can lose weight for a time, but done the wrong way and you risk gaining all the weight back, just like 95% of all dieters do. And you're likely to gain even more fat than you started with. This occurs in 66% of dieters.

But why? Most people think the metabolism works like this:

Cut calories → Lose weight → Have a balanced metabolism

It actually works like this:

Get a balanced metabolism → Naturally reduce calories → Lose weight effortlessly

Calories are a part of both equations; it's their degree of importance that's different. To understand how this works you need to understand what I call the 3 Laws of Metabolism. They're really just general guidelines, but I call them laws because of their central importance to understanding metabolism.

The Law of Metabolic Compensation

If you eat less and exercise more you'll easily create a calorie deficit, but you'll also create an unbalanced metabolism. This is one of the most well understood and least controversial aspects of weight loss research. Eat less and you get hungry. Exercise more and you get hungry and develop cravings. Do both to the extreme and your motivation goes out the window and your energy is sapped.

Another thing that happens is your metabolism slows down. In weight loss research this is called adaptive thermogenesis, and it's highly variable from one person to the next. Research suggests this metabolic slow down averages about 300 calories, but can be as a high as 500 to 800 in some and very low in others. This isn't just a result of loss of body mass. A person who weighs 180 pounds who diets to get there burns 300 calories less on average per day compared to a person of the same weight who did not diet.

Let's say you come to me at my clinic and ask me to help you lose fat. I take a purely caloric approach and tell you we need to cut your daily calorie intake by 500 calories per day through some combination of eating less and exercising more. You follow my directions and, for the first few weeks, are losing weight.

Then the Law of Metabolic Compensation kicks in. You start feeling hungry all the time. Your energy falls and becomes less predictable. You start getting late night cravings for salty, fatty and sugary stuff. But you have an iron will, so you suck it up. But now adaptive thermogenesis kicks in. And let's say you're one of those people that's highly adaptive so your metabolism slows things down by about 500 to 800 calories per day.

Now you not only stop losing weight, but you may even start gaining it. Not to mention you're perfectly primed to go on a three-month eating orgy because your metabolism is making you crave and desire salty, fatty and sugary foods rich in calories.

At this point you have a few choices. You can double down on your efforts and make things worse. You could just give up and go back to eating normally, which will cause you to blow up like a helium balloon. Or you can try to do things a little more intelligently by trying to balance your metabolism first.

Balance the Metabolism by Assessing HEC

Hopefully you can see why taking a "calories first approach" can get some people in trouble. It's easy to see the appeal. Calories are easy because you can count them. And when you cut calories you usually will see some short-term benefit. The initial results are alluring and keep many dieters stuck.

You can think of this like a metabolic credit card. You get some benefit in the short-run, but there are long-term penalties to pay later. Hunger, energy, and cravings (HEC or what I call "heck") is your key to understanding your metabolism and working with, rather than against it.

If your HEC is in check then you can be pretty sure your metabolic system is balanced. And when it is, you're more likely to achieve a calorie deficit without even trying. So it's not about throwing calories out the window; it's about balancing the metabolism first, then attending to calories if required.

Certain calories impact HEC differently. The differences between a doughnut and a chicken breast makes this point nicely. Both have 250 calories, but which is going to make it more likely that HEC stays in check? And yes, reliable intervention trials in humans have shown substituting equal calories of carbohydrate with protein leads to greater weight loss, more fat loss, greater muscle maintenance, and less chance of weight regain.

Now, I'm not the type to throw a whole bunch of obscure science references at you that vaguely support what I'm saying. I'm going to provide you with one very good one, from a highly respected journal and one that will get you up to speed on the Law of Metabolic Compensation quickly. It validates pretty much all of what I just said. Check it out here.

Calorie Combinations

Another part of metabolic compensation is the way calorie combinations impact HEC. One emerging understanding is the way the combination of sugar, fat, and salt (the so-called fast food diet) short circuits your appetite centers. Research in animals is showing that these food combinations not only increase food consumption at the current meal, but also cause increased cravings for the same calorie-rich foods at future meals.

So that 250 calorie doughnut not only makes you want to eat more doughnuts now, but also crave more doughnuts later. There's no reason to suggest this isn't the case in humans. This may explain the frequent finding in my clinic of patients who engage in "cheat meals" who then find themselves on a cheat week, unable to regulate their hunger, energy, and cravings.

The Law Of Metabolic Multitasking

The body is not a good multitasker. It likes to be either burning or building, but not both. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but the two big ones are beginners and those using anabolic hormones.

Another name for this law is the Law of Metabolic Demand. The body responds to what you subject it to. This is another major insight to the calorie argument. The idea that calorie excess always leads to fat gain and calorie reduction always leads to fat loss is not accurate. You can reduce calories and lose weight, but that weight may or may not be mostly body fat.

Research tells us the standard "eat less, exercise more" approach to dieting leads to about 20-50% loss of lean tissue (water, glycogen, muscle). That's important because metabolic rate (BMR) accounts for over two-thirds of calories burned at rest and more than half of BMR is determined by your muscle mass.

So you can be increasing calories and gaining weight, but that weight may or may not be fat. You could instead be gaining lean tissue (water, glycogen, muscle) and if you do, you're doing your metabolism a favor. The demands you place on your body will determine whether excess calories become fat or muscle and whether reductions in calories will result in fat or muscle loss.

This is why all those experts agreed that weight training should be the dominant form of activity in fat loss programs. It's the only type of movement that can funnel extra calories into muscle gain versus fat. But it's not a high calorie burning form of exercise.

There's a study to illustrate the point. It was published in the April 1999 Journal of the American College of Nutrition and looked at two groups of obese subjects put on identical very low calorie diets. One group was assigned an aerobic exercise protocol (walking, biking, or jogging four times per week). The other group was assigned resistance training three times per week and did no aerobic exercise.

After 12 weeks, both groups lost weight. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds, 27 of which was fat and 10 of which was muscle. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds, and 32 pounds were fat, 0 was muscle. When resting metabolic rate was calculated after the study, the aerobic group was burning 210 fewer calories daily. In contrast, the resistance-training group had increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day.

What you do has a direct impact on whether a calorie is a calorie. You can't separate calories from lifestyle.

The Law of Metabolic Efficiency

There's no such thing as a perfectly efficient engine, and the human body is no exception. This is the second law of thermodynamics at work. As an aside, many quote the first law of thermodynamics to prove "a calorie is a calorie." Truth is, the first law doesn't apply to open systems like humans. The second law does however.

Here's an oversimplified example to make the overall point: Diesel gas versus regular unleaded. Each has a different efficiency. Put the diesel in your car and you'll get better gas mileage. It more efficiently converts its energy into movement and less is lost as heat. Regular unleaded will give you less gas mileage. More energy is lost as heat.

Protein is like unleaded gasoline – more of its energy gets lost as heat. Carbs are more like diesel – less gets converted to heat. And fat? It's the most efficient of the macronutrients.

Both carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram, but your body will capture less of those calories when you're burning protein versus carbs. And yes, this has been studied. Substitute equal protein in place of carbs and you'll see body heat go up and more weight loss.

Protein is not only less efficient and more thermogenic, it's more satiating too. And it's more likely to result in muscle mass maintenance in a low calorie state. This means it's one of the best tools we have to control all three laws. So is 4 calories of protein the same as 4 calories of carbs? No!

POPs and Bugs

This discussion wouldn't be complete without discussing two other aspects of metabolism that impact efficiency: POPs and bugs. POPs is an acronym for persistent organic pollutants. These things come from the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. They accumulate in our bodies and are stored in fat.

When we lose weight they're released from our fat and make our metabolism more efficient at storing fuel. (Remember, for weight loss you want a less efficient engine, one that puts out a lot of heat.) They do this because they short-circuit our metabolic hormones, especially thyroid. These compounds have been shown to be more correlated with weight regain than even the master hormone leptin. They are a very big deal.

This calls into question the wisdom of paying zero attention to food quality. The quality of food you eat can directly affect the future efficiency of your metabolism. These compounds bioaccumulate in the fat of animals we eat. Lower fat diets and organic animals may play a role in future fat loss attempts.

And then there's the "bug" issue. "Bugs" is a term we use in the functional medicine world to describe the bacteria populations living in our gut (aka probiotics). You have more bacteria inhabiting your digestive tract than you have cells in your body. Research has now shown certain bacterial colonies impact the efficiency at which we digest and absorb calories.

You can think of these bacteria like an annoying friend who keeps stealing french fries off your plate. They subtract from your calorie intake, because they soak up the energy first. This is a very exciting area of research. One 12-week study showed significant weight loss (2 pounds) and waist reduction (more than half an inch) from just adding a probiotic supplement. Not bad results for doing nothing but swallowing a bit of bacteria each day.

The Right Questions

So the question "is a calorie a calorie" is not the correct question. The right question is, how important are calories in the short and long-term fat loss equation? And what other factors are influencing how calories are used and stored? If we want to work with our metabolism instead of against it we need to understand quantity and quality are inseparable and linked.

References

Tackling overweight and obesity: does the public health message match the science? PUBMED 23414295

Medicare's search for effective obesity treatments: diets are not the answer. PUBMED 17469900

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics. PUBMED PMC506782

A free-choice high-fat high-sugar diet induces changes in arcuate neuropeptide expression that support hyperphagia. PUBMED 20029382

January 2007 issue of Sports Medicine (vol. 37 # 1)

Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. PUBMED 10204826

Postprandial Thermogenesis Is Increased 100% on a High-Protein, Low-Fat Diet versus a High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet in Healthy, Young Women. JohnstonThermogenesis2002

Dietary protein - its role in satiety, energetics, weight loss and health. PUBMED 23107521

Thermogenesis and weight loss in obese individuals: a primary association with organochlorine pollution. PUBMED 15148504

Regulation of abdominal adiposity by probiotics (Lactobacillus gasseri SBT2055) in adults with obese tendencies in a randomized controlled trial. PUBMED 20216555

Burpee Equivalents: Understanding Junk Food in terms of Your Favorite Exercise

by Dr. Jeff Godin, Ph.D., CSCS, & Spartan Coach

Occasionally we slip up with our diets and sneak in some junk calories. When we do, we have to pay the price…In Burpees!  At Spartan Coaching HQ we have been conducting research to quantify energy expenditure during the Burpee exercise.  Here is what we found:

	Calories (kcals)	burpees for 130lb individual	burpees for 180lb individual
1 large French Fries	500	524	349
1 IPA beer	195	204	136
1 Slice of Dominos Peperoni Pizza	260	272	182
1 8 ounce Ted’s Bison Cheesburger	730	765	510
1 scoop of Ben Jerry’s Cookie Dough ice cream	270	283	189
1 12” Roast beef sub from Subway	970	1016	677
1 Cola soft drink	200	210	140
1 Fried Calamari Appetizer	700	733	489
1 Plain Bagel	320	335	223
1 Slice of Cheescake	1000	1048	698
1 Egg McMuffin Sandwich	300	314	210
1 Cadbury Creme Egg	59	62	41

First we calculated the amount of work being performed during the Burpee. We calculated work as:

-  Work (w) = force (f) x distance (d)
-  f = weight of the individual in kilograms
-  d = distance from the floor to the maximal height of the head during the jump in meters.

Example:

Male Athlete A:

-  Height: 71 inches (1.80 meters)

-  Weight:  180 lbs ( 81.8 kg)

-  Average Vertical jump during 5 minute Burpee test:   5 in. ( .12 m)

-  Total vertical displacement from the floor to maximal jump height:  1.92 m (height plus jump height)
-  work = 81.8 x 1.92
-  work  = 157 kg/m
-  Given:  1kcal = 426.4 kg/m
-  Thus, 0.368 kcals of mechanical work per Burpee

External mechanical work or the work that is being performed does not equal the amount of work that is being produce internally, humans aren’t 100% efficient.  Efficiency during running and cycling is about 25%, thus for the body to perform 25 kcals of external work, it must produces 100 kcals of energy internally. That means that the body has to produce 1.47 kcals of internal energy to produce 0.368 kcals of external mechanical work per Burpee repetition.

We can also calculate energy production during the Burpee exercise by measuring oxygen consumption with metabolic cart.  We had several athletes perform the Burpee exercise at a constant rate for 3 minutes while wearing a portable metabolic measuring system that continuously measured oxygen consumption.  The average Burpee rate was 10 Burpee repetitions per minute and average oxygen consumption during the last minute of exercise was 35 milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute (ml O2/kg/min). We found the measured oxygen cost of a single Burpee repetition to be 3.5 ml O2/kg/Burpee.

To convert oxygen cost to energy expenditure we did the following:

Example same athlete as above:

-  Total oxygen consumed during a single Burpee is calculated as the product of body weight (kg) and O2 cost in ml/kg/.min
-  81.8 kg X 3.5 ml O2/kg/Burpee =  286 mlO2/Burpee or .286 liters (l) of O2/Burpee.
-  One liter of oxygen is equivalent to about 5 kcals.
-  0.286 l O2 X 5 kcals/l  = 1.43 kcals/Burpee.

As you can see , there is good agreement between the 2 methods (1.47 and 1.43 kcals/Burpee respectively).

Founders Breakfast Stout is one of my favorite beers. If this athlete had 2 beers at 250 kcals per beer he would need to perform 349 Burpees to burn off those calories.

2 slices of Domino’s pizza = 600 kcals or 419 burpees

Pint of Ben and Jerry’s Cookie Dough = 980 kcals or 685 burpees.

Use the chart below to figure out your Burpee equivalent of junk food calories.

Energy Expenditure During the Burpee Exercise (kcals/Burpee)
Body Weight (lbs.)	120	130	140	150	160	170	180	190	200	210
kcals per Burpee	0.95	1.03	1.11	1.19	1.27	1.35	1.43	1.51	1.59	1.67

Example –  for a 140 lb person:

2 slices of Domino’s pizza = 600 kcals

600kcals/ 1.11 kcal per Burpee = 540 burpees

You can have your cake and eat it too, but be ready to pay in Burpees!

5 Reasons Why Calories Don't Count

Calories (cal-o-rie, noun): Tiny creatures who live in one’s closet and sew one’s clothes a little bit tighter ever night.

Tiny creatures aside, the common use of the term “calorie” refers to a kilocalorie. Kilocalorie (we’ll just use the common terminology and call it calorie from now on) is a measure of the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree C (Campbell et al, 2009).

This unit of heat measurement, originally developed in the early 19th century by a French engineer, was harnessed as a simple and universal method to measure the energy content of food. Eventually, processed foods began carrying a label with the total energy content, as well as the gram measurements of fats, carbohydrates and protein (Hargrove, 2006).

 With the help of FDA caloric suggestions, consumers ran into an alarming dietary deception. The use and obsession of food calories presents a greater danger than small creatures making our jeans tight… it corrupts the whole concept of healthy eating.

Calories Distort Focus to Quantity, not Quality

Common story: a shopper starts by scouring the snack isle, searching for a product to satiate their potato chip craving with the least amount of calories per ounce. After careful deliberation and calculation, he or she settles on a bag of air-popped popcorn laden with artificial butter flavor and toxic vegetable oils.

 As the result of compelling media, marketing and labeling, many consumers focus more attention on quantity, not quality. Instead of shopping the nutritional label, shop the ingredient list. That deserves your time and attention.

Calories Falsely Simplify “Healthy Eating”

Healthy eating is complicated, no doubt about it. First you hear butter is bad, then it prevents cancer. First carbs kill you, then they make you lose weight. Even spinach is confusing… should one eat it raw or is that dangerous?  Nutrition labels, however, deceptively simplify healthy eating. Few calories = good, high calories = bad. Simple. Yet dangerous.

That mindset leads to eating disorders, infertility, disease, and depression since it encourages the consumption of processed foods instead of nourishing foods. I believe that healthy eating is simple, but not simple in terms of calories. Make healthy easy by finding calorie-free food (yes, I’m going to explain that in a second).

Calories Prevent a Genuine Relationship with Food

Calorie-conciousness shifts emphasis from how you eat to how much you eat. Counting calories ultimately prevents a harmonious relationship with food. Instead of welcoming food as life-giving nourishment, calorie counting produces apprehension of food.

Most importantly, calorie-concsiousness drowns the body’s communication. I believe our bodies knows what, when and how to eat and–if we listen to that quiet voice–we can heal ourselves. It is hard to change habits and blindly trust our bodies, however. So if you need help, try visiting a naturopath or energy practitioner to get tested for food allergies and dis-ease in the digestive system.

In the same way, calorie-counting de-personalizes one’s relationship with food. A common practice is determine one’s ideal daily calories or even calories burned while exercising. Sadly, that creates a mechanical, stressful relationship with food.

It also doesn’t take into consideration one’s food sensitivities, nutrient deficiencies, inflammation, autoimmune/adrenal/hormonal/thyroid issues, or body type. And those things are *really* important to reaching one’s ideal weight.

Weight loss begins with whole, nourishing foods prepared at home. It means eating mindfully, chewing thoroughly, and releasing gratitude and joy for each bite you raise to your lips. Finally, when it comes to weight loss, forget the calories and remember this:

Calories Promote Stress, Not Satiety

As I mentioned above, paying attention to calories establishes a stress-based relationship with food. Stressing out while eating is a bad idea because it interrupts the entire digestive process.

The sympathetic nervous system triggers the flight-or-flight response in the body. Arousing this reaction shuts down the digestive system so the body can focus on the dangerous situation at hand.  Of course, considering calories doesn’t induce a flight-or-flight response, but even less severe stress works in a similar manner to slow digestion (Suarez, 2010).

Additionally, an article from a 2010 volume of Psychosomatic Medicine explains how stress affects the vagus nerve, a key piece in the digestive process:

Because the vagus nerve innervates tissues involved in the digestion, absorption, and metabolism of nutrients, including the stomach, pancreas, and liver, vagal activation directly and profoundly influences metabolic responses to food… Both depression and stress have well-documented negative effects on vagal activation as indexed by heart rate variability (Kiecolt-Glasser, 2010).

Calories Don’t Deserve Your Attention

End of story.

If calories are out of the picture, what does healthy eating mean?

Healthy Eating Means Finding Calorie-Free Food

No, I’m certainly not suggesting one should subsist on toxic sugar substitutes or even bizarrezero-calorie noodles. Look for food that doesn’t come with a nutrition label. Real food–Mother Nature’s nourishing bounty–does not list calories.

 Scouting calorie-free foods may mean shifting your grocery shopping trips from the supermarket to the farmer’s market, joining a CSA, finding a cow share program (for access to raw milk) and/or starting a garden. Pastured eggs, local produce, rendered lard/tallow, wild caught seafood, local honey, grassfed beef and butter, and unprocessed grains (if you do grains)… that is what I mean by calorie-free food!

  Real, unprocessed food is nurturing, majestic, gratifying, and sublime. Forget the calories, have fun in the kitchen, and eat with joy!

 Eat well and heal!™

Manquer de sommeil donne faim

Lorsque vous manquez de sommeil, vous mangez presque 300 calories de plus par jour que lorsque vous êtes reposé, selon une étude de l'Université de Columbia (Etats-Unis). (1)

L'effet est particulièrement dévastateur pour les femmes. Ce sont elles qui augmentent le plus leur consommation de nourriture lorsqu'elles manquent de sommeil : plus 329 calories, contre 263 pour les hommes. Or, les femmes ont en principe moins besoin de calories que les hommes.

Dans le cadre d'une vie active dans un bureau, une femme a besoin de 1800 à 2200 calories par jour, alors qu'un homme a besoin de 2500 à 3500 calories par jour. 329 calories, c'est l'équivalent pour elles d'un demi-repas en plus sur la journée.

Bonnes calories, mauvaises calories

Et ce n'est pas tout : compter les calories sans tenir compte du type de nourriture consommée n'a pas beaucoup de sens. Il existe des bonnes calories, et de mauvaises calories. Les mauvaises calories sont, essentiellement, celles qui se trouvent dans l'amidon et les céréales raffinées, car elles provoquent des pics d'insuline dans le sang, surtout quand elles sont grillées (biscottes, chips, céréales du petit-déjeuner, viennoiseries, frites). Les bonnes calories sont celles qu'on trouve dans les huiles crues, les légumes et fruits frais, les oléagineux (noix, amandes, noix du Brésil...), les produits animaux non transformés et cuits à basse température.

Or, justement, les femmes qui manquent de sommeil, plus encore que les hommes, ont tendance à consommer leurs calories supplémentaires sous forme de snacks, pizzas, frites, bonbons et glaces.

« La glace est ressortie comme l'aliment préféré durant l'état de manque de sommeil », a déclaré Marie-Pierre Saint-Onge, assistant-professeur de nutrition à l'Université de Columbia, et principale auteur de l'étude. « Le manque de sommeil vous rend plus susceptible de trop manger, et c'est une chose qui peut être prise en compte lorsque vous essayez de perdre du poids. »

Un combat contre votre propre corps

De précédentes études avaient montré que le manque de sommeil pourrait :

• augmenter les niveaux de ghréline, une hormone qui stimule l'appétit ;
  
• diminuer les niveaux de leptine, une hormone qui supprime la faim, et qui augmente le taux de métabolisme, c'est-à-dire la production d'énergie par le corps.
  

Autrement dit, lutter contre la faim et surtout contre le grignotage lorsque vous n'avez pas assez dormi revient à lutter contre votre corps lui-même, qui vous envoie dans tous les sens des signaux pour vous donner envie de manger plus.

Ce qui nous ramène, une nouvelle fois, à l'importance de bien dormir.

Difficile de bien dormir

Il est juste de dire que nous sommes « plus occupés » que nos parents ou grands-parents ne l'étaient à notre âge. Non que nous ne travaillions plus. Mais la télévision, jusque tard dans la nuit, Internet (24h/24), les jeux en ligne, les smartphones (qui sont devenus pour beaucoup d'indispensables compagnons de vie, et pour certains, malheureusement, leur meilleur, voire leur unique « ami » dans l'existence), tous ces appareils nous stimulent au point que les périodes d'inactivité, de calme, de repos et d'ennui se sont considérablement réduites. Beaucoup d'entre nous vivent dans des environnements où dormir assez est un défi. Car lorsque vous avez beaucoup à faire, le temps de sommeil est généralement le premier sur lequel on empiète.

Comme il n'est en général pas possible de rattraper le matin le temps de sommeil perdu, pour cause d'horaires de travail ou d'enfants à préparer pour l'école, la seule solution est de se coucher plus tôt.

Solution (souvent) miraculeuse

Une solution souvent miraculeuse pour cela est de supprimer la télévision. C'est difficile, mais ce que nous pouvons tous faire est de sortir la télévision de notre chambre à coucher, sauf bien sûr si vous habitez en studio. Si vous remplacez la télévision au lit par de la lecture au lit, vous sentirez vos paupières s'alourdir bien plus vite, et la qualité de votre sommeil s'améliorera.

De nombreux spécialistes recommandent d'établir une routine, qui consiste essentiellement à se coucher et à se lever à la même heure tous les jours. On comprend bien que cela convienne mieux à notre « horloge biologique » mais la réalité est qu'une telle règle est difficile à suivre : trop de contraintes, trop d'imprévus bousculent nos vies pour que nous puissions, tels des paysans d'autrefois, nous coucher le soir avec le soleil et nous lever au chant du coq.

En revanche, nous pouvons parvenir à nous mettre régulièrement au lit un peu plus tôt. En prévoyant de dîner vers 19h30, cela nous laisse du temps ensuite pour ranger puis lire, parler, voire faire quelque travail important. Même s'il se produit un événement inattendu, il sera en principe possible de se coucher vers 22h30, ce qui laisse amplement le temps pour une bonne nuit réparatrice.

Bien reposé, vous grignoterez moins le lendemain, et vos artères vous diront merci.

A votre santé !

Jean-Marc Dupuis

Reasons You're Not Gaining Muscle

by Brad Schoenfeld – 9/04/2012
You hit the gym on a regular basis and you train hard – really hard – but for some reason you're just not making the gains that you should. All that sweat and effort, and without much to show for it.
If this sounds familiar, chances are you're making at least one of the four critical mistakes outlined below. The good news is, with just a few simple tweaks to your program you can once again be packing on some serious muscle. Here's how.

Mistake #1: You're not varying your rep range.

The optimal number of repetitions for hypertrophy-oriented training is a source of ongoing debate in the fitness field. Although the research is by no means conclusive, evidence indicates that a moderate rep range (approximately 6-12 reps per set) is generally best for maximizing muscle growth.(1)
This is often referred to as "bodybuilding-style training" as it seems to provide the ideal combination of mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress – the three primary factors involved in hypertrophic gains.(2) The problem is, most lifters seem to think this means all training should be carried out in this rep range and thus they rigidly adhere to the same loading patterns. Wrong assumption.
Understand that maximal muscular development is built on a foundation of strength. This mandates that at least some of your sets need to be carried out in the lower rep ranges (1-5 reps per set).
Stronger muscles allow you to use heavier weights, and thus generate greater muscular tension in the moderate repetition ranges that optimally stimulate hypertrophy. By increasing muscle tension without compromising metabolic stress, you're setting the stage for enhanced growth.
On the other end of the spectrum, high rep sets (in the range of 15 to 20 reps per set) also have a place in a hypertrophy-oriented routine. Provided that training is carried out at or near your sub-rep max, lower intensity sets help to increase your lactate threshold, the point at which lactic acid rapidly begins to accumulate in working muscles.
The problem with lactic acid is that beyond a certain point its accumulation interferes with muscle contraction, reducing the number of reps you can perform.(3) (Technical note: it's actually the H+ component of lactic acid that hastens the onset of muscular fatigue.)
Here's the good news: Higher rep training increases capillary density and improves muscle buffering capacity, both of which help to delay lactic buildup. The upshot is, you're able to maintain a greater time under tension at a given hypertrophy-oriented workload. In addition, you develop a greater tolerance for higher volumes of work–an important component for maximizing hypertrophy (see Mistake #2).
Take home message: Optimal muscle development is achieved by varying your rep range over time. This is best carried out in a structured, periodized program. Both undulating and linear periodized approaches can work, depending on your goals. Whatever scheme you employ, though, make sure you include the full spectrum of loading ranges.
Sure, hypertrophy training is probably best achieved with moderate rep sets, but higher and lower intensities are nevertheless important for optimizing muscular development.

Mistake #2: You're not using sufficient volume.

Back in the 1970's, Arthur Jones popularized the so-called high-intensity training (HIT) approach to building muscle. HIT is based on the premise that only a single set of an exercise is necessary to stimulate growth, provided you train to the point of momentary concentric muscular failure.
According to HIT dogma, performing additional sets beyond this first set is superfluous and perhaps even counterproductive to muscle development. Other prominent industry leaders such as Mike Mentzer and Ellington Darden subsequently followed Jones's lead and embraced the HIT philosophy, resulting in a surge in its popularity. To this day, HIT continues to enjoy an ardent following.
Now before I get accused of being anti-HIT, I'll readily admit that it's a viable training strategy. There's no denying that it can help build appreciable muscle. And if you're time-pressed, it can provide an efficient and effective workout. That said, if your goal is to maximize muscle development, HIT simply doesn't do the trick. You need a higher training volume. Substantially higher.
The prevailing body of research consistently shows that multiple set protocols are superior to single set protocols for increasing strength and size. Recent meta-analyses published in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research show that multiple set training results in 46% greater increases in strength and 40% greater increases in muscle growth when compared to single-set protocols.(4, 5)
Whether the hypertrophic superiority of multiple sets is due to greater total muscle tension, muscle damage, metabolic stress, or some combination of these factors isn't clear. What's readily apparent is that multiple sets are a must if you want to maximize your muscular potential. Problem is, even if you employ multiple sets it's very possible you're still not training with sufficient volume.
The optimal number of sets needed to elicit superior growth will vary from person to person and depend on a host of individual factors such as genetics, recuperative ability, training experience, and nutritional status.
But individual response is only part of the equation. The size of a given muscle also has relevance. Larger muscle groups such as the back and thighs need a higher volume than the smaller muscles of the arms and calves (which, by the way, also get significant ancillary work during multi-joint exercises).
Another important consideration here is the structure of your program. All things being equal, training with a split routine allows for a greater daily training volume per muscle group versus a total body routine.
And if you do indeed follow a training split, the composition of your split will influence training daily volume (i.e., a 3-day split allows for a greater volume per muscle group compared with a 2-day split). Accordingly, training volume is best determined on a weekly basis as opposed to a single session.
Whatever your target weekly volume, optimal results are achieved by taking a periodized approach where the number of sets are strategically manipulated over the course of a training cycle. Understand that repeatedly training with high volumes will inevitably lead to overtraining.
In fact, evidence shows that volume has an even greater correlation with overtraining than intensity.(6) Only by embracing periodization can you reap the benefits of a high training volume while avoiding the dreaded overtrained state.
Here's a periodized strategy that I've found to be highly effective. Let's say you've determined that your maximum weekly volume should entail performing 18-20 sets per muscle group. Focus on a three-month mesocycle where you target 8-10 sets a week the first month, 14-16 sets the second month, and then culminate with an overreaching cycle in the final month where you perform 18-20 sets per week.
Follow this with a brief period of unloading or active recovery to facilitate restoration and rejuvenation. Given that it generally takes one to two weeks for the full effects of supercompensation to manifest after completion of an overreaching cycle, you should realize optimal muscular gains sometime during the restorative period.

Mistake #3: You're not adhering to the principle of specificity.

Most lifters don't just want to get big, they also want to get leaner in the process. During the initial stages of training, this is a viable goal. Beginners can pack on serious muscle while simultaneously losing body fat without much of a problem.
The same applies for those with significant weight to lose (more than 30 pounds or so), as well as regular lifters who've taken an extended break from the gym. And yes, pharmacologic enhancement also will enable you to get huge and shredded in a hurry.
But if you've been training for more than a year or so, are fairly lean, and not "anabolically enhanced," the quest to gain muscle while shedding fat becomes exceedingly difficult. At a certain point, you ultimately need to choose between one or the other.
If your choice is to bulk up, then this needs to be your training focus; otherwise results will be compromised. And this entails reevaluating how much aerobic exercise you perform.
The issue with concurrent training (i.e., combining resistance exercise and aerobics) is that it can interfere with the processes that drive anabolism. This is consistent with the AMPK-PKB switch hypothesis, which postulates that endurance and strength-related exercise activate and suppress distinct genes and signaling pathways, and these pathways have conflicting actions.(7)
Specifically, aerobic exercise regulates AMPK (adenosine monophosphate kinase), which is associated with pathways involved in carbohydrate and fatty acid metabolism. This of course has beneficial effects on fat loss.
Problem is, AMPK also inhibits activation of PKB-mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin), an anabolic pathway that's critical to protein synthesis and thus muscle building.
Now this doesn't necessarily mean you should refrain from performing any cardio. While evidence supports the concept of an AMPK-PKB switch, recent research shows that it's overly simplistic. Instead of a "switch," adaptations between aerobic endurance exercise and resistance training appear to take place along a continuum, whereby substantial overlap exists between pathways.(8)
So while frequent, lengthy cardio sessions are bound to compromise muscle development, a more moderate aerobic routine likely won't. And if nothing else, cardio is certainly good for your health and well being.
How much cardio is too much? Impossible to say. As with all aspects of exercise, individual response will vary based upon numerous genetic and lifestyle factors. Remember, too, that everyone has an upper limit to how much exercise they can tolerate before overtraining sets in.
Add in a cardio component to your routine and you increase the total amount of exercise-related stress placed on your body. At some point, these stresses can interfere with your recuperative abilities and bring about an overtrained state.
So for those looking to maximize muscle growth, the best advice is to err on the side of caution and limit the frequency, intensity, and duration of your aerobic sessions. Three days a week of 20-30 minute bouts is probably a good general guideline, but again this will vary from person to person. Monitor your progress, stay in tune with any signs of overtraining, and tweak your program as needed.

Mistake #4: You're not taking in enough calories.

This mistake goes hand in hand with Mistake #3. In an attempt to get shredded while packing on mass, lifters will frequently restrict caloric intake while continuing to lift hard and heavy. Bad idea.
As previously noted, losing fat while gaining muscle is improbable for well-trained, natural lifters. If you fall into this category, it's imperative that you consume a surplus of calories in order to support muscle growth.
This is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; only changed from one form to another. Simply stated, take in more calories than you expend and the excess energy will be stored in the form of body mass.
All-too-often lifters will take this to mean that it's okay to eat everything in sight. This is consistent with the old-school "bulking" and "cutting" cycles where bodybuilders would scarf down massive quantities of food to get as big as possible and then go on an extreme diet with calories cut to starvation levels.
The problem with this approach is that upwards of 75% of weight gained during the bulking phase is in the form of body fat. Sure, you do gain muscle, too, but much of that is catabolized during the subsequent dieting process.
When all's said and done, you're lucky to retain half of your muscular gains. Worse, repeated cycles of bulking and cutting can reset your biological "set point," leading to higher body fat levels in future cycles.(9) Bottom line, it's simply not a smart nutritional strategy.
So what is an ideal caloric consumption for building muscle without porking up like a Sumo wrestler? A general guideline is to consume between 18 to 20 calories per pound of body weight. If you're a 200-pound guy, this equates to a target caloric intake of about 3600 to 4000 calories a day.
Those who are endomorphs typically do better with slightly lower calories, while those who are ectomorphic usually need a higher energy intake; as much as 25 calories per pound for extreme hard-gainers.
Once you settle on a given caloric intake, monitor results over time and adjust consumption according to your individual response. If you've been lifting for a while, a realistic goal is to gain 1-2 pounds per month when focusing on mass-building.

Conclusion

If your muscular development has stagnated, it's likely you're making one of the aforementioned mistakes – perhaps you're even a multiple offender. Fortunately, you're not doomed to remain in a training rut. Identify the errors of your ways and then employ the solutions discussed above; you'll soon be back on track to getting the most out of your muscular potential.

References

1. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomee R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med. 2007;37(3):225-64.

2. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2857-72.

3. Debold EP. Recent insights into the molecular basis of muscular fatigue. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Feb 9.

4. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1150-9.

5. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: A meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Sep;23(6):1890-901.

6. Kreider RB, Fry AC, O'Toole ML, editors. Overtraining in sport.

. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998.

7. Atherton PJ, Babraj J, Smith K, Singh J, Rennie MJ, Wackerhage H. Selective activation of AMPK-PGC-1alpha or PKB-TSC2-mTOR signaling can explain specific adaptive responses to endurance or resistance training-like electrical muscle stimulation. FASEB J. 2005 May;19(7):786-8.

8. Gibala M. Molecular responses to high-intensity interval exercise. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009 Jun;34(3):428-32.

9. Nagaoka D, Mitsuhashi Y, Angell R, Bigley KE, Bauer JE. Re-induction of obese body weight occurs more rapidly and at lower caloric intake in beagles. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2010 Jun;94(3):287-92.