The other day, the bodybuilding and fitness online publication T-Nation posted another ‘dieting’ article. This time it was Chris Shugart writing a piece on a badly executed study comparing what some call “rigid dieting” and the even more retarded “flexible dieting.”
As I’ve actually coached in bodybuilding and fitness from the mid 90’s to around 2016, about 20+ years on a highly professional level, this will surely be interesting, or a big laugh.
Chris began his article with a little story about a bodybuilder getting ready for his first bodybuilding competition. He hired a coach and received a ‘rigid dieting’ meal plan, which simply is a daily plan with very detailed meals with specific food items that the alleged coach thinks are superior. Most of the time they’re not, since 99.99% of all coaches have a background in the pseudo-science of nutrition (and ‘bro-science’,) or simply competed themselves and learned from their previous coaches, and thus are completely clueless about real human nutrition, as in our species-specific, species-appropriate diet of strictly animal-based foods.
Chris gave the example that he had to consume tilapia at night and no other white fish would do – or that he had to eat Honeycrisp apples with almond butter to win, which is hilarious as these foods are extremely toxic and totally void of nutrients (hopefully Chris realizes this, but probably not.)
Then Chris painted another scenario where this aspiring bodybuilder might have hired another coach, someone who had given him a “flexible diet” plan, sometimes called IIFYM, as in the juvenile “If It Fits Your Macros,” which really shows how uneducated these charlatans and bigots are.
With that plan, the bodybuilder would only have to hit his “calorie goal” and get the right ratio of protein, carbs, and fats – while food choices didn’t really matter. In other words, he’d get more food options, maybe even an occasional treat, as long as it fitted his ‘macros.’
Well, “calories” are a concept of physics, as in burning something to raise the temperature of a body of water. That has nothing to do with how our bodies work, how our bodies extract energy and nutrients from food. Also, this approach shows total lack of understanding of what nutrients really are, as they only focus on protein, fat, and carbohydrates – instead on focusing on nutrient-dense foods with minimal toxic load.
Remember, you can only get fully bioavailable nutrients from animal-based foods, such as meat, organ meats, animal fat, eggs, and dairy. So, depending on the nutritional status at the start of the diet and the length of the diet, doing “IIFYM” can rapidly deplete you of nutrients, making you malnourished and really hurting your body and hormone production. As I’ve mentioned in other articles, one of my specialties was to help bodybuilders and fitness competitors to recover from retarded diets like this, where they had destroyed their bodies, their metabolism, and their hormone production.
As a note, if a coach recommends any type of carbohydrate or plant food, as in nuts, seeds, vegetables, or fruit, that coach is totally clueless and should be ignored, or even better, laughed at (sometimes they need to learn the hard way.)
Now, Chris went on with posing the question, “does any of it matter?” Then he continued, “If some basic rules are followed, like eating enough protein and getting into a calorie deficit, does it matter if he uses a flexible or rigid diet? That’s what the study below tried to figure out.”
Well, it does if you compare a coach who delivers a rigid meal plan with focus on some animal-based foods, like meat – and a coach who just fits some shit in his food calculator to get enough protein and to match the ludicrous “calorie” goal.
The Study
“Researchers recruited 23 iron-pumping men and women and put them on a 10-week diet. Some got a rigid diet and some got a flexible diet, but all of them ate 20% fewer calories and consumed .9 grams of protein per pound of body weight. All stuck to their usual lifting and cardio plans.”
You call that a study? I can see that you have never coached a client in your life. A bodybuilder that stays in decent shape will still need a minimum of 12 to 14 weeks to prepare for a show. Only the pros, and those competing on a high international level who have guest-posing and appearance obligations to their sponsors might stay in such a good shape that they might only need 8 to 12 weeks before a show, like the 10 weeks in the study. Most athletes however, as they tend to “bulk up” quite a bit, will need between 18 and 24 weeks. I’ve even had some really bulky ones who needed close to 30 weeks.
That is a much more realistic time frame and it is surely more realistic for those who trains and want to get in great shape, as in the readers of their online magazine. And as for those wanting to compete in bodybuilding, keep in mind that you need to be more or less ‘contest ready’ about 2 to 3 weeks before the show, and then you stabilize and fine-tune, and during the last week, you only go through the motions and let your body recover to minimize muscle inflammation from the stress and training-induced damage, and then, a couple of days before the show you focus on cutting the water weight to come in really dry. In other words, a contest diet can be a long ride, and if you do not know what you are doing, you will develop nutrient deficiencies that can really screw you up for a long time. So, right off the bat, this shitty study is extremely flawed. 10 weeks is a very short time to really do these shitty diet approaches justice and show how bad they can be.
Who Lost More Fat?
“Not surprisingly, both groups had about the same results. Averaged out, both groups lost roughly 6 pounds of fat. The rigid group did ever so slightly better, but nothing statistically significant according to the researchers.”
Yes, both methods are very flawed as they only count macros (protein, fat, carbohydrates) and non-existing “calories.” With that said, the “rigid diet” group would have done better if the diet would have been a more realistic 18 to 24 weeks, as they probably would have had a few more “nutritious” foods in their plans.
So, in essence, this shitty study did not show us anything. And 6 pounds, as in in 2.7 kg of fat in 10 weeks is laughable. You should be down 6 pounds of pure fat after the first 3 weeks.
And if you would follow a more sensible “fat loss diet,” as the ones I use on my clients with fasting and simply eating at “maintenance” 4 to 5 days a week with only highly nutrient-dense animal-based foods, you should be able to drop 2 pounds of fat a week, or 20 pounds easily in 10 weeks – without any muscle loss, probably with some muscle gain – making for a really dramatic change in body composition.
What Can We Learn from This?
Well, I pretty much already covered it above, but let’s see what Chris Shugart had to say…
“Both flavors of calorie reduction work if you’re getting enough protein and working out. The question becomes, what’s your favorite “flavor” of eating less?”
Yes, protein is important, but animal fat is even more so. And you should not follow a diet that have you ‘eat less.’ That will cause nutrient deficiencies over time, and it will decrease your metabolism and interfere with your hormones. And no, one “cheat day” or “re-feeding day” a week will not do shit. I covered this many, many times. These diets only work when you take drugs, and yet, they are way less effective in comparison to utilizing fasting while eating at maintenance.
“Some people prefer a strict plan with rigid food rules. They thrive on it. In fact, they don’t want choices. The drawback? They’re probably following rules that don’t matter much, like eating only a certain magical fish.”
Yes, most people I’ve coached simply want a plan to follow. They do not want to spend time thinking, worrying, and thus likely making mistakes. And as for fish, it’s a bad choice for dieting, just like chicken, as these are some of the least nutrient dense meats. You should focus on ruminant animals like beef and sheep, and then get plenty of animal fat and some organ meats and eggs to be sure you get plenty of nutrients.
“Others thrive on a flexible approach. Paradoxically, a “flexible” diet isn’t that flexible. Sure, they can have 1.5 Oreo cookies after dinner every night, but they must carefully measure and manage those macros. But the variety makes them happier and more compliant.”
Well, both approaches will require that you measure and weigh your food. However, the problem here with IIFYM is obvious, they rely on, or sneak in food that are highly processed, very toxic, and have even less nutritional value. If you follow a retarded diet of eating less, there is less room for such shitty foods. So, this approach will increase the toxic load while accelerating you towards unavoidable nutrient deficiencies.
Also, that “variety” can easily turn into an eating disorder as the likelihood of binge-eating increases, in the same manner as with those who have idiotic “cheat days” on their diets.
The Protein Lynchpin
“But for the rest of us, the real lesson here is about protein. When the average person cuts calories, he or she doesn’t focus much on eating a lot of protein. All macros get reduced. But study after study tells us that protein is the lynchpin. All successful diets – defined as losing fat while keeping your metabolism-dependent muscle intact – involve keeping protein intake high.”
Yes, we covered this many times as this is Chris Shugart’s favorite subject. Still, it’s very narrowminded. Hitting a protein target that will sustain and protect your muscle mass during a diet is extremely easy, especially within the fitness-, bodybuilding- and gym industry where everyone is obsessed about protein. It’s only among the average clueless “weight loss” practitioners that protein might become an issue, as they rely on typical retarded plant-based “weigh loss foods.”
All this however, is never a problem if you follow our natural species-appropriate carnivorous diet of animal protein and animal fats. And as protein is easy to cover, people should really focus on animal fat for better health and results. This is the real secret.
And after that, Chris did what he always does; he pushed their protein supplements. So, in short, this extremely bad article, based on a total irrelevant study, was simply another advertisement for their products.
Well, if you want to cut some body fat, I have several detailed articles on that subject and a whole archive with articles on human nutrition. And if that is not enough, and/or you want some help and a clear-cut individualized plan, I’m available for coaching and consulting.
