poliquin bro

In Part II of our hard-hitting interview with Charles

Poliquin, Charles delves into the taboo issue of drug

use in competitive sports. He discusses the evasion

techniques of the old East German Olympic doping machine,

as well as the current state of drug culture in professional

sports, including football, basketball, and hockey. Charles also

gives us a little more detail about what it is he does with his

elite clients at his Poliquin Performance Centers. Our inter-

view took place shortly before the 2004 Summer Olympics.

WL:What do you say to the person who says that you can do a

lot of things to build muscle and improve performance, but

nothing is ever going to bring it to the level that steroids do? You

must take anabolics to be a world-class athlete. What do you say

to that person?

CP: I think that’s bullshit really because I coach a lot of people

who don’t use anabolics. The only place it’s going to make a world of

difference is in bodybuilding. Even in track, a guy I coach, Dwight

Phillips is clean. Because of a variety of issues, I ran a hormone

profile on him. I don’t run a standard IOC drug test because any guy

with any smarts can cheat that test. So I have doctors runs test on LH,

FSH to see if anything is depressed.

WL: I always wondered why they didn’t look at that.

CP: Yeah, because that’s actually what weightlifting does. The

cleanest sport out there is actually weightlifting because weightlift-

ing chose years ago to do hormone profiling and not compound

testing. The reason they did that is to clean the sport, and it’s

obviously working because their weight performances are not what

they used to be. The trend in other sports is to get something that is

not on the list. But that is not an Eastern list. It is a Western list. That’s

why there has never been a positive Eastern on record. Look it

up. Why? Because actually at the ‘92 Olympics I had a friendly

discussion with an Olympian and he basically said,‘We were always

12 steroids ahead of the list’. So you know they would take a

steroid that they are testing, say oxandrolone, and add a chlorine

ion to modify it so the test couldn’t pick it up. Compound testing

doesn’t work.

WL: So this was a somewhat recent conversation? Can you tell me

more about what he used to do.

CP: The Wall had fallen by then and the athlete was competing for

unified Germany. He said when he was an East German, he took ana-

bolics for 20 years. He said in the original days, he used Deca

Durabolin, maybe 12 weeks out, but would switch to different com-

pounds for testing. He would use Turinabol and he knew how many

days to go off, and then he would take non-steroidal anabolic com-

pounds to prolong the affects of the cycle. They basically used

injectables and then switched to orals and then they would get to a

closer and closer period with the orals. They felt Turinabol was the

drug of choice because it maintained gains when they went off;

there wasn’t such a drop in performance. Both males and females were

on it. The difference between men and women back then was basi-

cally the time they would spend on Dianabol. They were onto other

stuff before the Wall fell too. Basically, the drug program was run by

the state security, which is equivalent to the U.S. Secret Service. It’s

maybe more equivalent to the KGB or CIA.

WL: The Germans definitely had the most in-depth doping system,

judging by a lot of the documents released the past 10-15 years.What

about China? How do you think they played into the Eastern dop-

ing system?

CP: The drug program basically set out to make the Eastern sports

system the one to beat. There was also cooperation with China. In the

80’s, the Germans were shitty at diving, and the swimmers in China

were terrible, so they swapped coaches. So they sent Eastern swim-

B O D Y O F S C I E N C E S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 3 9www.bodyofscience.com

training/nutrition

C H A R L E S P O L I Q U I N

INTERVIEW PART II

Poliquin Performance

ming coaches to China.And the Chinese sent diving coaches to East

Germany. So they started to show the Chinese the East German

training techniques, and two weeks later the swimmers were all sick.

So they asked if there was a chance it was because testosterone lev-

els were low.And they were like “um.. yyyeah”. It took the guy about

10 minutes to realize the Chinese doctor had no clue about anabol-

ics. So ok, they knew the deal. They said they would bring in these two

guys from East Germany, and now suddenly the Chinese start to

dominate in swimming.And then they got smarter with testing, and

they popped them for DHT. But anyway, so the East German doctor

and the pharmacist show up, and they gave them the anabolics to sup-

port the East German training system. But that’s where the argument

that anabolics are a requirement is bullshit, because there were coun-

tries that could actually beat the East Germans with anti-doping con-

trol. Right now Canada is doing very well in swimming, to spite no

doping. The difference is they just didn’t follow the East German train-

ing methodology. They said, well, we can’t do as much, so we’ll just

adjust the training.

So I don’t really agree with that statement. I think it was truer in

1996, and then after that there is more and more to help you outside

of steroids. Look, where there is money and profit, there are more

drugs. So like in weightlifting it is pretty much gone. But track,

swimming, cycling, tennis - probably the worst offender for steroids

is tennis, (which is)not well known by the general public.

WL: Yes, you wouldn’t think, but I have seen it myself.

CP: Do they use big dosages? No. Do they use stuff like Anadrol? No.

But they use small doses of designer stuff, just enough so the guy can

recover and play and make money every weekend. That is probably

where designer steroids first started; in tennis.

WL: So what do you think going into the Olympics this summer?

Who do you think is going in using? Do you think there is a lot with

organized doping and designer compounds?

CP: Not as an organized country anymore. It is an individual thing.

Correction, I think there is one country doing it as an organized sys-

tem and if I said it on the record, I’d get sued.

WL: Without mentioning any names, what technologies do you

4 0 S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 B O D Y O F S C I E N C E www.bodyofscience.com

The cleanest sport out there isactually weightlifting becauseweightlifting chose years ago todo hormone profiling and notcompound testing.


Inside the Poliquin

Performance Center

see right now?

CP: Self testing, they will test themselves to see how many days you

need to stop before a test to come back clean. They’ll find, say go 28

days on this compound, 14 days on another.With orals now, the test

can pretty much pick anything within 28 days. 4 years ago, some guys

were doing 8-10 days and they would use cream form. Like one

medallist I know used an oxandrolone cream and he tested clear in

8 days.

WL: That’s really interesting. I would have thought that the trans-

dermal would have had a small delayed action effect. I would have

thought orals would have been a little bit better.

CP: So would I. For some reason, they want the cream. But you got

to realize, this guy had bodyfat of less than 4%. And also, there is a

trend after they go off steroids to use detox protocols.

WL: Can you explain what you mean by a detox protocol?

CP: They use a program to get rid of the metabolites. So like calcium-

d-glucurate. They’ll use what they basically call “pushers”, which are

large injections of detoxing compounds, and they use mainly botan-

ical liver detoxifiers that don’t mess up the androgen sites like milk this-

tle, which will actually decrease steroid absorption.

WL: I also know that milk thistle has an anti-inflammatory effect,

inhibiting the conversion of arachidonic acid to active prostiglandins.

This also would be a negative for muscle growth.

CP: Yeah, milk thistle is not popular. Guys definitely stick with

other botanicals. They also use botanicals to increase free testosterone

during the detox or clean-up phase.

WL: There’s also a test that they have to identify if the testosterone

in your body is natural or synthetic.

CP: They’ve been able to do that since 1994.

WL: Yeah, I know they developed it, but I haven’t heard they’ve

implemented it yet.

CP: I think they will implement it this year. But they’ve had the tech-

nology forever. Now they’re saying they can test for GH but I’m not

sure what’s going on with that.


The gut is your second brain. Some people getdepression because they have a gut pathogen.


WL: I’ve been wondering that myself. I

k now t he y’ve s p ent a lot of mone y

working on that. They keep saying they

have something.

CP: The Australians have been pushing

for it. And they’ve had the technology for

a while.

WL: I spoke with a reporter not long

ago who assured me this year we were

going to see this test used. So what do

you think? Do you think a lot of people will

be taking the chance? I know I wouldn’t

risk it knowing the test might happen

this year.

CP: If they actually do test for GH,

they could theoretically catch 80% of

the Track & Field world. Especially in the

field events and the Shorts, anything under

200 meters, they will catch a shitload

of people.

WL: I know you don’t want that printed.

CP: That you can because it’s way more use

(pauses) than people realize. There’s a lot

of people being treated for dwarfism in Track

& Field.

WL: So you drug test people when they

come to work with you? You won’t work with

an athlete if they’re using gear?

CP: I’ve got too much money in there

(referring to his state-of-the-art training

facility). So what I do is run a saliva test,

which is as good as blood work. They do

it four times a day for 24 hours. This

way I can test testosterone, DHEA, and

I look at the ratio between all the hormones.

And the lab that I use, there is an HPLC

here, there is a RIA in Georgetown, and they

do an RIA at Georgetown so every sample is

tested twice with two different methods.

And they test 16 hormones, 4 times a day.

And we look at the ratio, so I can tell who

is using.

WL:What’s your reasoning for doing this? Is

it that you don’t want to work with people

using so that you can use your technolo-

gies? Or is it a legal concern?

CP: I think it can be done without steroids.

And the other thing too is a scandal would

ruin my business. I have to do the testing

here to protect myself. Plus, if there is a

problem with the hormones, I can correct

those through natural means. So if a guy

has too much cortisol for his training, we can

bring it down. If it’s too low, we can give

him liquor shoot to raise it so that he has

more energy. It is not uncommon to see

people with very depressed DHEA levels.

That’s mainly from over-training. And if

there is one thing I do a lot, it’s botanicals to

raise testosterone.

WL: So what about some other professional

sports. What about football and hockey?

CP: The NFL has very rigid doping controls.

In the NHL, they don’t give a shit. In the

NHL, you could put a jar of Dianabol in the

locker room, and nobody would be

interested. It’s not part of the culture. You’d

think that it was a sport that could probably

use it because they don’t test for it, but they

don’t care.

WL: That’s interesting to hear, especially

with the aggressive nature of hockey.

CP: I think in the NHL, if you ran doping

control unannounced, you’d maybe catch

four athletes. Alcohol and golf are more

interesting to them. It might be somewhat of

the “forbidden fruit” theory. If you ban it,

people will be more interested. In hockey,

they can do whatever they want, and they

don’t give a shit.

WL: So the athlete that comes to you and

says,‘I’ve got a chance to do the Olympics or

something big and I’m considering steroids,

but I really don’t want to go that route.What

can you do for me?’

CP: First, I’d take you in and do your hor-

mone profile and food sensitivity to see if

everything is normal. If they’re not perfectly

normal, then we work on fixing it, say

increasing free testosterone with botanicals.

We’ll look at your nutrition, and you’d be

surprised as to how many clients I work

with that don’t understand a lot about

nutrition. I have this one client. Her

breakfast consists of one egg, and then

she goes and trains. Obviously, genetics is a

big part. You’d be surprised as to how

common cheese puffs are among athletes.

I work with this one woman who is in the

4-person relay for sprinting. She basically

had the 7-Eleven Diet: microwave hotdogs,

cheese puffs, anything you can buy at

7-Eleven, she ate. I fixed her diet and

instantly, she started making progress. I

have a rule with my female athletes. They

have to have 50g of protein by lunch

everyday. It’s not enormous, but boom! It

makes a difference! (pauses) And also we’ve

noticed no decline in performance when

cheese puffs are dropped from the diet. In the

U.S., there are so many great athletes. One

of the reasons why we tend to do so well is

the mag nitude of the base pool of

great athletes.

WL: So you think overall, we’re not as dis-

ciplined as we could be?

CP: Nowhere near the potential. Nowhere

n e a r. I re m e m b e r w h e n I c o a c h e d

the Olympic boxing team and won Gold,

we used to look at athletes on the American-

side, and we used to laugh, ‘Imagine if we

had those guys to work with’. I remember

Hershal Walker in the ’92 Olympics,

this guy only ate French fries.We all stayed at

the Club Med, and that’s all he ate for

14 days. And the guy has an incredible

physique! I had another athlete that does

biathlon, which is basically Canadian

drive-by shooting. It’s a cross between

cross-country skiing and target shooting.

This woman ate a very strict diet, but on

the two days she won the Olympic Gold,

her pre-race meals were double-cheese-

burgers, French fries, and a Fresca. And I

asked her, ‘I’ve knows you for years,

and you’re like a granola head. How can

you eat that shit before you go and

compete?’ She said that ‘it’s the food I grew

up on as a kid, and it makes me feel

mentally secure to eat that before a race’.

And I remember the Italian girl who was


In the NHL, you

could put a jar of

Dianabol in the

locker room, and

nobody would

be interested.

her biggest competitor in the biathlon, and

she walked by her while she was eating her

cheeseburger and we almost said it at the

same time, ‘What is she doing eating that

shit?’ I know a number of athletes that do

that.

WL: So when you work with somebody,

how much time do you spend with them?

CP: They typically come every 25 days for

3 days at a time during their off-season.

WL: How much time do they spend at your

facility during the day when you’re there?

CP: 2 hours a day. 1 hour each for 2 visits.

And the rest of the time, they see the doctors

for IV’s or acupunctures, or whatever they’re

doing.

WL: Charles, what do you have at your

facility in terms of services and equipment?

I understand it is one of the best condition-

ing facilities in the country.

CP: Yeah, we’ve got a fully equipped

weight room.We also have two doctors, and

we run every test you can think of. We do

genomic profiles; we run all the hormone

tests. We run urinalysis tests, these energy

metabolism tests, and then with all the infor-

mation we have, we develop your training.

For example, I have this athlete; he had brain

fog when he tried to play in the Stanley Cup.

It turns out he had one of the highest doses

of antibiotics, which destroyed his good

bacteria, and by destroying the bacteria, it

destroyed the neurotransmitters, which

effected brain function. We treated him to

support his neurotransmitters, and replace

the good bacteria. We do a lot of diverse

things here.

WL: So too much antibiotic can actually

affect brain functioning?

CP: Yes, 66% of the neurotransmitters

are made in the gut lining, and 95% of

the serotonin comes from the gut. That’s

where you get sayings like, ‘I’ve got a gut

feeling that this is bad’. The gut is your

second brain. Some people get depression

because they have a gut pathogen. Or lets say

Candita, which is this type of yeast. They

have mood swings and don’t understand

why.You kill the Candita, and you don’t have

mood swings anymore. Your neurotrans-

mitters are made in the intestines.And 66%

of the immune system is in the intestine. If

you have a client that typically has a lot of

cortisol, you’ll find that it compromises the

immune system.

WL: How do you feel about glutamine?

CP: I’ve used a lot of it. I use it with fat

guys as a substitute to replace glycogens after

a workout. I use about 60g post-workout.

WL: How do you feel about glutamine and

general intestinal health? Do you think it’s

overrated?

CP: No. When a guy can’t gain weight, a

quick cure is 80g of glutamine per day for a

few days. It helps them repair the gut lining

so they can absorb food better. I actually

like glutamine. I consider fat as anyone with

more than 10% body fat. Until they get to

10%, I only use whey protein, glycine and

glutamine post workout. If they get over

10%, we start using glutamine.

WL: Will you do no carbs during the whole

2 hour window post workout when you are

using glutamine?

CP: Correct. No carbs if you are fat.

WL: Charles, I know we are running way

over your allotted time, so I’ll end the inter-

view here. I want to thank you for your time!

We’ve got some great stuff here, and I had a

great time talking with you. I know our read-

ers will appreciate what you had to say!

CP: Thank you Bill! Anytime.

www.bodyofscience.com

If you have

a client that

typically has a

lot of cortisol,

you’ll find that it

compromises the

immune system.

B O D Y O F S C I E N C E S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 4 5

set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock

all the secrets of nature and the universe

itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio

Katu, puts it “an equation an inch long that

would allow us to read the mind of God.”

That’s how important unified theories can

be. However, unified theories don’t have to

deal with such heady topics as physics or the

nature of the universe itself, but can be

applied to far more mundane topics, in this

case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory,

as stated above, seeks to explain seemingly

incompatible aspects of various theories.

In this article I attempt to unify seemingly

incompatible or opposing views regarding

nutrition, namely, what is probably the

longest running debate in the nutritional sci-

ences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the ‘old school’

of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight

gain is all about calories, and “a calorie is a

calorie,” no matter the source (e.g., carbs,

fats, or proteins). They base their position on

various lines of evidence to come to that

conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the

‘new school’ of thought on the issue, would

state that gaining or losing weight is really

about where the calories come from (e.g.,

carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates

weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they

feel, the “calorie is a calorie”mantra of the old

school is wrong. They too come to this con-

clusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate

between people in the field of nutrition,

biology, physiology, and many other disci-

plines, for decades. The result of which has

led to conflicting advice and a great deal of

confusion by the general public, not to men-

tion many medical professionals and other

groups.

Before I go any further, two key points

that are essential to understand about any

unified theory:

• A good unified theory is simple, con-

cise, and understandable even to lay

people. However, underneath, or behind

that theory, is often a great deal of infor-

mation that can take up many volumes of

books. So, for me to outline all the infor-

mation I have used to come to these con-

clusions, would take a large book, if not

several, and is far beyond the scope of this

article.

• A unified theory is often proposed by

some theorist before it can even be proven

or fully supported by physical evidence.

Over time, different lines of evidence,

whether it be mathematical, physical,

etc., supports the theory and thus solid-

ifies that theory as being correct, or con-

tinued lines of evidence shows the theory

needs to be revised or is simply incorrect.

I feel there is now more than enough evi-

dence, at this point, to give a unified

theory of nutrition and continuing lines

of evidence will continue (with some

possible revisions) to solidify the theory

as fact.

“A calorie is a calorie”The old school of nutrition, which often

includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a

calorie when it comes to gaining or losing

weight. That weight loss or weight gain is

strictly a matter of “calories in, calories out.”

Translated, if you “burn” more calories than

you take in, you will lose weight regardless

of the calorie source and if you eat more

calories than you burn off each day, you

training/nutrition Theory of Nutrition

“Total calories

dictates how

much weight

a person

gains or loses;

macro nutrient

ratios dictates

what a person

gains or loses”

B R I N K ’ S

UNIFIED T H E O R YO F N U T R I T I O NBY WILL BRINK When people hear the term Unified Theory, sometimes called the Grand Unified Theory, or

even “Theory of Everything,”they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory,

capable of defining the nature of the inter-relationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces,

would reconcile seemingly uncompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive

www.bodyofscience.com

will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact

that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat

approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories

matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one

reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and

so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each

day for gaining weight.

However, the “calories in, calories out” mantra fails to take into

account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and

proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless

pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin,

glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat

production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000

other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the

fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different

effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever

mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different

macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different

effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress,

etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra “a calorie is a calorie” proven

to be false,“all fats are created equal” or “protein is protein” is also

incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs.

saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and

health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their

own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins

can have unique effects.

The “calories don't matter” school of thoughtThis school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large

amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios,

calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style

diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate

intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain that calories don't matter

in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very

low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old

school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have

on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human

physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in dif-

ferent amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss,

and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and

they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of

Mr.Get-Off-Your-Ass

www.bodyofscience.com4 6 S u m m e r 2 0 0 5 B O D Y O F S C I E N C E

Theory of Nutrition

“Diets with identical energycontents can have differenteffects on leptin concentrations,energy expenditure, voluntaryfood intake, and nitrogen balance,suggesting that the physiologicadaptations to energy restrictioncan be modified by dietarycomposition."

dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at sup-

pressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calo-

ries and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often

from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people

can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but

the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects

often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two

schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they

appear to the untrained eye.What has become abundantly clear from

the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight

we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie

intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have dif-

ferent effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other

physiological variables...

Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition

which states:

“Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or

loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses”

This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the

differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies

often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes

but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different

amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find, for example, people on a higher protein lower

carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another

group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher

protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or,

some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro

nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual

weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss

is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been

seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low

fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one

might expect.

Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that

examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing dif-

ferent macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human

p h y s i o l o g y e v e n w h e n c a l o r i e i n t a k e s a r e i d e n t i c a l

(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked atthe issue concluded:“Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on

intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic

adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietar y

composition.”(12)

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the

actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what

is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calo-

ries has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you

starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the

“calorie is a calorie” school with the “calories don’t matter” school to

help people make decisions about nutrition?

Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand

the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of

course this does not account for the down right unscientific

and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad

books, TV, the ‘net, and well meaning friends, but that’s another

article altogether).


Knowing the above informationand keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us tosome important and potentiallyuseful conclusions:• An optimal diet designed to make a

person lose fat and retain as much LBM

as possible is not the same as a diet sim-

ply designed to lose weight.

• A nutrition program designed to create

fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie

version of a nutrition program designed

to gain weight, and visa versa.

• Diets need to be designed with fat loss,

NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but

total calories can’t be ignored.

• This is why the diets I design for people-

or write about-for gaining or losing

weight are not simply higher or lower

calorie versions of the same diet. In

short: diets plans I design for gaining

LBM start with total calories and build

macro nutrient ratios into the number

of calories required. However, diets

designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!)

start with the correct macro nutrient

ratios that depend on variables such as

amount of LBM the person carries vs.

bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc.,

and figure out calories based on the

proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve

fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM.

The actual ratio of macro nutrients can

be quite different for both diets and

even for individuals.

• Diets that give the same macro nutrient

ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or

70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calo-

ries, goals, activity levels, etc., will always

be less than optimal. Optimal macro

nutrient ratios can change with total

calories and other variables.

• Perhaps most important, the unified

theory explains why the focus on weight

loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of

people, including most medical pro-

fessionals, and the media, will always fail

in the long run to deliver the results

people want.

• Finally, the Universal Theory makes it

clear that the optimal diet for losing fat,

or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal,

must account not only for total calories,

but macro nutrient ratios that optimize

metabolic effects and answer the ques-

tions: what effects will this diet have on

appetite? What effects will this diet have

on metabolic rate? What effects will this

diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)?

What effects will this diet have on hor-

mones; both hormones that may

improve or impede my goals? What

effects will this diet have on (fill in the

blank)?

• Simply asking,“how much weight will I

lose?” is the wrong question which will

lead to the wrong answer. To get the

optimal effects from your next diet,

whether looking to gain weight or lose it,

you must ask the right questions to get

meaningful answers.

• Asking the right questions will also help

you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific

poorly thought out diets which make

promises they can’t keep and go against

what we know about human physiology

and the very laws of physics!

People that want to know my thoughts

on the correct way to lose fat should read my

ebook Diet Supplements Revealed, see this

website http://www.aboutsupplements.com.

If you want to know my thoughts on the

best way to set up a diet to gain weight in the

form of muscle while minimizing bodyfat,

consider reading my ebook Muscle Building

Nutrition (AKA Brink’s Bodybuilding Bible)

at this web site: http://www.musclebuild-

ingnutrition.com .

BTW, both ebooks also cover supple-

ments for their respective goals along with

exercise advice.

There are, of course, many additional

questions that can be asked and points that

can be raised as it applies to the above, but

those are some of the key issues that come to

mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are

following to either gain or lose weight does

not address those issues and or questions,

then you can count on being among the

millions of disappointed people who don’t

receive the optimal results they had hoped

for and have made yet another nutrition

“guru” laugh all the way to the bank at your

expense.

Any diet that claims calories don’t mat-

ter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they

have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any

diet that tells you any one food source is evil,

it’s a scam. Any diet that tells you it will

work for all people, all the time, no matter

the circumstances, throw it out or give it to

someone you don’t like!

References:

1. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2000

Dec;40(4):336-42

2. Neuroscience 2002;112(2):243-60.

3. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001

Nov;281(5):E1095-100.

4.Arthritis Rheum 1998 Mar;41(3):406-13.

5. Mol Cell Biochem 2003 Feb;244(1-2):95-

104.

6.Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001 Feb;33(2):183-8.

7. Sports Med 2000 Sep;30(3):155-70.

8.Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Mar;

32(3):706-17.

9.Med.Sci.Sport.Exerc.31:1108-1110, 1999.

10. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Feb;

32(2):291-6.

11. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003 Feb;

18(2):258-64.


People that want to knowmy thoughts

on the correctway to lose fat

should read my ebook DietSupplements

Revealed

Will is the author of the best selling ebook “Diet Supplements Revealed”, as well as the best selling print

book “Priming The Anabolic Environment”, which can be found at any bookstore, Amazon.com or

Barnes & Noble. He is also a monthly columnist for MuscleMag International, a regular contributing

writer to numerous other top fitness publications, and is considered by many to be one of the world’s

leading gurus on supplements and training.

Theory of Nutrition

800.239.3951MAXLIFE4U.COM • MAXIMUMTHERAPY.ORG • WHOLESALEHORMONE.COM

• Human Growth Hormone (Generic also available)• Testosterone Replacement Therapy

(Cypionate, Propionate, Enanthate, Suspension)• Maximum Personal Enhancement• Nandrolone Deconate• Winstrol - Stanozolol• Anavar - Oxandrin• Arimidex - HCG• Viagra - Cialis - Levitra

Introducing the world’s strongest injectable fat burner!

L-CARNITINEAll orders are private and confidential.

CALL TOLL FREE or log onto one of our websites:

• Human Growth Hormone (Generic also available)• Testosterone Replacement Therapy

(Cypionate, Propionate, Enanthate, Suspension)• Maximum Personal Enhancement• Nandrolone Deconate• Winstrol - Stanozolol• Anavar - Oxandrin• Arimidex - HCG• Viagra - Cialis - Levitra

Introducing the world’s strongest injectable fat burner!

L-CARNITINEAll orders are private and confidential.

CALL TOLL FREE or log onto one of our websites:

800.239.3951MAXLIFE4U.COM • MAXIMUMTHERAPY.ORG • WHOLESALEHORMONE.COM

poliquin bro

Documents

Transcript of poliquin bro