Poliquin Bro 3x5s2m

training/nutrition

Poliquin Performance

CHARLES

POLIQUIN

INTERVIEW PART II 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. : Yeah, because that’s actually what weightlifting does. The cleanest sport out there is actually weightlifting because weightlifting 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.

n Part II of our hard-hitting interview with Charles

I

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 interview 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? : 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

www.bodyofscience.com

WL: So this was a somewhat recent conversation? Can you tell me more about what he used to do. : The Wall had fallen by then and the athlete was competing for unified . He said when he was an East German, he took anabolics for 20 years. He said in the original days, he used Deca Durabolin, maybe 12 weeks out, but would switch to different compounds for testing. He would use Turinabol and he knew how many days to go off, and then he would take non-steroidal anabolic compounds 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 basically 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 doping system? : 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-

BODY OF SCIENCE Summer 2005

39

Poliquin Performance

Inside the Poliquin Performance Center

ming coaches to China.And the Chinese sent diving coaches to East . 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 levels were low.And they were like “um.. yyyeah”. It took the guy about 10 minutes to realize the Chinese doctor had no clue about anabolics.So ok,they knew the deal.They said they would bring in these two guys from East , 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 the East German training system. But that’s where the argument that anabolics are a requirement is bullshit, because there were countries that could actually beat the East Germans with anti-doping control. Right now Canada is doing very well in swimming, to spite no doping.The difference is they just didn’t follow the East German training 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.

40

Summer 2005 BODY OF SCIENCE

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

The cleanest sport out there is actually weightlifting because weightlifting chose years ago to do hormone profiling and not compound testing. 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? : Not as an organized country anymore. It is an individual thing. Correction, I think there is one country doing it as an organized system and if I said it on the record, I’d get sued. WL: Without mentioning any names, what technologies do you

www.bodyofscience.com

see right now? : 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 transdermal would have had a small delayed action effect. I would have thought orals would have been a little bit better. : 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? : They use a program to get rid of the metabolites. So like calciumd-glucurate. They’ll use what they basically call “pushers”, which are large injections of detoxing compounds, and they use mainly botanical liver detoxifiers that don’t mess up the androgen sites like milk thistle, which will actually decrease steroid absorption. WL: I also know that milk thistle has an anti-inflammatory effect,

www.bodyofscience.com

inhibiting the conversion of arachidonic acid to active prostiglandins. This also would be a negative for muscle growth. : 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.

The gut is your second brain. Some people get depression because they have a gut pathogen. WL: There’s also a test that they have to identify if the testosterone in your body is natural or synthetic. : 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. : I think they will implement it this year. But they’ve had the technology forever. Now they’re saying they can test for GH but I’m not sure what’s going on with that.

BODY OF SCIENCE Summer 2005

41

Poliquin Performance WL: I’ve been wondering that myself. I k now they’ve spent a lot of money working on that. They keep saying they have something. : 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. : 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. : 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? : 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 technologies? Or is it a legal concern? : 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

42

Summer 2005 BODY OF SCIENCE

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?

In the NHL, you could put a jar of Dianabol in the locker room, and nobody would be interested. : 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. : 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?’ : 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 magnitude of the base pool of great athletes. WL: So you think overall, we’re not as disciplined as we could be? : Nowhere near the potential. Nowhere ne a r. I rememb er w hen I co a che d the Olympic boxing team and won Gold, we used to look at athletes on the Americanside, and we used to laugh, ‘Imagine if we had those guys to work with’. I 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-cheeseburgers, 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 the Italian girl who was

www.bodyofscience.com

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? : 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? : 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 of services and equipment? I understand it is one of the best conditioning facilities in the country. : 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 information 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 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? : 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 neurotransmitters are made in the intestines.And 66% of the immune system is in the intestine. If

www.bodyofscience.com

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? : 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?

If you have a client that typically has a lot of cortisol, you’ll find that it compromises the immune system. : 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? : Correct. No carbs if you are fat. WL: Charles, I know we are running way over your allotted time, so I’ll end the interview 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 readers will appreciate what you had to say! : Thank you Bill! Anytime.

training/nutrition

B

R

Theory of Nutrition

I

N

K

’

S

UNIFIED T H E O R Y OF NUTRITION BY 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 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 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 sciences: 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 conclusion using various lines of evidence. www.bodyofscience.com

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of

“Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses” confusion by the general public, not to mention 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, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, 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 ed by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., s the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence, 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 BODY OF SCIENCE Summer 2005

45

Theory of Nutrition

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 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 (Us), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned. Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into 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 thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, 46

Summer 2005 BODY OF SCIENCE

Mr.Get-Off-Your-Ass

“Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."

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 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 different 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 www.bodyofscience.com

dieters, is quite clear on that reality. The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories 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 different 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,

www.bodyofscience.com

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 different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiolog y even when c a lor ie int a kes are ident ic a l (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11). Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the 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 dietary 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 calories 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 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).

BODY OF SCIENCE Summer 2005

47

Theory of Nutrition Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful 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 simply 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 peopleor 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 calories, 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 professionals, 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 not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this

People that want to know my thoughts on the correct way to lose fat should read my ebook Diet Supplements Revealed

•

•

diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; 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

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.

48

Summer 2005 BODY OF SCIENCE

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.musclebuildingnutrition.com . BTW, both ebooks also cover supplements 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 matter, 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):95104. 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. www.bodyofscience.com

• Human Growth Hormone (Generic also available) • Testosterone Replacement Therapy (Cypionate, Propionate, Enanthate, Suspension)

• Maximum Personal Enhancement • Nandrolone Deconate Introducing the world’s strongest injectable fat burner! • Winstrol - Stanozolol L-CARNITINE • Anavar - Oxandrin All orders are private and confidential. • Arimidex - HCG CALL TOLL FREE or • Viagra - Cialis - Levitra log onto one of our websites:

800.239.3951

MAXLIFE4U.COM • MAXIMUMTHERAPY.ORG • WHOLESALEHORMONE.COM