THE PROTEIN BOOK LYLE MCDONALD PDF
The Protein Book is a comprehensive look at the issue of protein intake for both Ever since working with Lyle and using his sound training and nutrition advice, as a hardcopy book, in PDF format by itself or bundled with the PDF version. Lyle McDonald - The Protein Book - A Complete Guide for the Athlete and Coach .pdf. Download ( MB) · English · 日本語 · Português (Brazil) · Deutsch. The Protein Book: A Complete Guide for the Athlete and Coach Paperback – November 20, The Protein Book: A Complete Guide for the Athlete and Coach examines the topic of protein nutrition for both endurance and strength/power athletes. With over pages and referencing.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|ePub File Size:||17.35 MB|
|PDF File Size:||8.22 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
permission in writing from the publisher, except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. For information contact: Lyle McDonald Publishing. Lyle McDonald. This book is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical. to ensure adequate protein and calories for growth, and the rest of your diet will be . Note: My job, as a diet book author, is to turn A-D into a page book.
Frankly, you have no way of knowing with just the scale unless it's one of those Tanita bodyfat scales, which attempt to estimate bodyfat percentage but more or less suck, by the way. You could have lost fat or muscle or just dropped a lot of water. Even a big bowel movement can cause a weight loss of a pound or two or more, depending. A colonic that clears out your entire lower intestinal tract may cause a significant weight loss. The scale can't tell you what you've lost, it can only tell you how much you have lost.
When you're worrying about long-term changes, the real goal is fat loss some LBM loss is occasionally acceptable but that's more detail than I want to get into here. That is, cycling water weight on and off of your body as frequently happens with certain dieting approaches isn't really moving you towards any real goal even if makes you think you are.
Don't get me wrong, it may be beneficial in the short-term again, I'll talk about reasons to crash diet shortly but it doesn't represent true fat loss.
My point in bringing up this distinction is that it's easy to hide the true results of a diet by not making the distinction between weight loss and fat loss. In many diets, and in the case of the crash diet I'm going to describe, total weight loss will drastically outstrip true fat loss. As above, this may have benefits or not but I wanted to make sure everyone was clear coming out of the gate. I also don't want to get accused of misleading my readers by making them think that the total weight loss is all fat loss; it's not.
Just how quickly So just how quickly can you lose fat or weight for that matter? Most mainstream diet books and authorities echo the idea that 2 lbs per week a little less than 1 kilogram per week for the metrically inclined is the maximum. Where did this value come from? Frankly, I have no idea. To understand this, I have to do a little bit of math for you. One pound of fat contains roughly 3, calories of energy.
Meaning you either have to restrict your food intake or increase your energy expenditure with exercise or drugs by that much. You either end up having to restrict food pretty severely or have to engage in hours of exercise each day. From that perspective alone, losing faster than 2 pounds per week is considered unrealistic or unwise. At the same time, it's not uncommon to see claims of weight losses of one pound per day or lbs per week on some diets.
In the initial stages of some diets, weight losses of pounds are not unheard of. Are these all lies? Not exactly. Part of it has to do with the issue of weight loss and fat loss discussed above. An extremely large individual, put on a restrictive diet can probably lose significantly more than two pounds of weight per week.
But it's not all fat. This is especially true for the myriad low-carbohydrate dieting approaches out there. You pick a different set tling point depending on the circumstances. So a given individual might settle at one bodyfat level and maintain around that level fairly closely if they were inactive and eating the modern American diet and settle at a different and generally lower bodyfat level if they start exercising and eating better.
They would regulate just fine around those settling points i. If you think about this within the context of human weight gain, the idea of a settling point is probably a little closer to the truth: Rather, based on their environment and, of course genetics , they gain some amount of weight and then stay pretty stable around that new weight. So while you may have weighed a fairly lean in college, when you were active and too poor to afford a lot of food, you stayed around that level of weight.
Now that you're older and less active and can afford more food , you're maintaining at or , but you're not continually gaining weight. Anyhow, the issue of set vs. The main idea I want you to take away from this is that within some range, the body appears to 'defend' another way of saying 'regulate' bodyweight against change to some degree or another.
Towards this goal, the body can, in premise anyhow, adjust metabolic rate, appetite and a whole host of other systems up or down to try and defend against changes in bodyfat or bodyweight. The physiology of bodyweight regulation: Your body senses this and should decrease metabolic rate, increase appetite, decrease activity levels and make fat mobilization and loss more difficult in response.
This would make it progressively more difficult to lose weight and easier to regain the lost weight once it was lost. Depending on a host of circumstances, including gender, genetics, and starting bodyfat percentage with some others , the body does this pretty well. Both during a diet as well as afterwards in what are called the 'post-obese' , metabolic rate tends to be depressed, fat mobilization and burning is decreased, appetite and hunger are increased, and there is a host of other stuff going on.
This all serves to make regaining fat after the diet that much easier, something anyone who has fallen off their diet knows all too well: I should mention there that this is part of the reason that exercise has been shown to have a greater effect at helping to maintain weight loss than to increase weight or fat loss on a diet: In the reverse direction, the body should increase metabolic rate, decrease appetite, increase activity and make fat mobilization easier when you gain weight.
However, for reasons discussed in detail in my Bromocriptine book, the system is asymmetrical and most people find it far far easier to gain weight than to lose it. The basic reason, for folks who didn't read that book, being that getting fat was never a problem during our evolutionary past, while starving to death was a very real possibility.
So, Page 13 http: In general, we gain weight pretty easily as the rapid increase in obesity in the modern world demonstrates and lose it with more difficulty. I should mention that a lucky few appear to resist weight gain, their bodies tend to radically increase caloric expenditure and decrease appetite when they start to overeat or gain weight. However, they are in the minority. There is also a group of people who seem to lose weight and fat fairly easily, they too are in the minority.
Depressingly enough, the same people whose bodies resist weight gain the most tend to lose weight the most easily and vice versa: Researchers refer to these as spendthrift lose weight easily, gain weight with difficulty and thrifty lose weight with difficulty, gain weight easily metabolisms and are busily trying to determine the mechanisms behind the spendthrift metabolism so they can figure out ways to help the thrifty metabolism people.
Until the mechanisms behind the different types of metabolism are determined and solutions which will either require long-term drug intervention or gene therapy are developed, dieters simply have to accept that some people will have a harder time than others. How does this work? Ok, now I don't want to get too deeply into the details of this system, to say it's complicated is an understatement of epic proportion.
Rather, I want to sketch the basics since it will be important later in the booklet. And, of course, the output then affects the input, forming a loop.
The equivalent of the thermostat in the temperature example above is a part of the brain called the hypothalamus. This is where the body's setpoint is both set and monitored. Sort of tangentially, how the setpoint is set is still being researched. Some of it is assuredly genetic, some people are simply born with a higher setpoint than others. There also appear to be critical periods in development, while you were a fetus, immediately after birth, puberty and pregnancy are a few places where the setpoint can change almost always going up based on the environment mainly nutrition and food intake.
There is also some evidence that becoming and staying fat can almost permanently raise the setpoint. There is almost no data indicating that the setpoint can ever be brought back down, at least not within any reasonable time span.
Studies of both animals and humans who have maintained weight loss for several years shows no spontaneous recovery of metabolism, it remains slightly depressed. My best guess: In that most people will regain the weight within a few years, this is the same as saying that it never happens. Anyway, what is the hypothalamus monitoring, what's the source of input?
For years, this was the primary question, what was the signal that told the brain what was going on. In , a hormone Page 14 http: They also inform the hypothalamus about how much you're eating. These hormones include leptin, insulin, ghrelin, peptide YY, glucose and probably several others don't worry too much about the names here. Those changes essentially 'tell' your hypothalamus when it's moving away from the setpoint and it takes action. And what are those actions, that is what's the output?
The Protein Book: A Complete Guide for the Athlete and Coach
Well, metabolic rate can be adjusted upwards or downwards due to changes in nervous system output and levels of thyroid hormone. Appetite and hunger can change, sometimes drastically. Spontaneous activity can go up or down which is part of why people tend to get lethargic when they diet.
Levels of other hormones such as testosterone, estrogen and progesterone can be affected. This is part of why dieting tends to affect women's menstrual cycle and why men who get extremely lean can have problems with libido or sexual function.
That's only a partial catalog of the changes that occur. Those changes further affect bodyweight and food intake which changes the input and that's how the regulatory loop is formed.
This is shown schematically vastly simplified in figure 2 below. Figure 2: Hypothalamus Metabolic rate, appetite Hormones, activity Bodyweight Food intake Basically, the brain more or less adjusts the function of the entire body in terms of metabolism, appetite, activity, and hormones when you either undereat or overeat.
In general, the response to overeating is the opposite of what happens with undereating: But, as I mentioned above, the system is not symmetrical and the body is far better at defending against weight loss than weight gain for most people. As well, women tend to better defend against weight loss than men for some rather clear evolutionary reasons discussed, again, in the Bromocriptine booklet ; their bodies fight back harder against diet and exercise programs. I'm not going to go into much more detail about the system than that, I just wanted readers to have an overview since later chapters dealing with structured refeeds and full diet breaks will make mention of such in terms of how increasing caloric intake can help to fix some of the hormonal problems.
Page 15 http: Why Diets Fail Part 2 Introduction With all of the current research into the biology of bodyweight regulation and many other topics related to human genetics , a great many people have started to reach conclusions about bodyweight being completely biologically determined, how there's nothing we can do about it, hence there's no point in trying in the first place, etc.
But, this is an incorrect interpretation of the data. Now, I could go off on a multipage rant about this topic genetics versus environment here but I'll spare you: Ok, I take that back, our biology dictates that we will die, it's about the only genetic certainty out there although some researchers think we can even fix that.
However, put them in the modern Western environment, with easy access to inexpensive, tasty, high calorie food and low daily activity requirements and they will get fat. A good and heavily researched example of this is the Pima indians, a group that is divided into roughly two different environments but which share identical genetics.
One group of Pima is living the standard Western lifestyle with rather minimal daily activity and easy access to tasty, high-calorie foods; the other is living a much more traditional lifestyle with high levels of daily activity and a more traditional diet. The first group shows a much more extreme prevalence of obesity and Type II diabetes than the second. Once again, it's always genetics plus environment than determine the end result.
That is to say that the biological systems that are trying to pull bodyweight back to where it was the 'setpoint' are not deterministic. Human biology works through tendencies and people seem to show varying abilities to resist or act against those tendencies. That is, people clearly do lose weight and successfully keep it off.
Are they hungry? Are their bodies slowing metabolism?
But they simply ignore those signals and control their food intake and increase activity to compensate. Basically, they lose weight and keep it off regardless of the biology that is trying to pull them back to their previous weight.
How do they do it? They do it by changing their behavior fairly permanently. Which is basically just a rather long winded way for me to introduce the next few chapters. Do diets fail dieters or do dieters fail diets? As I mentioned before, because of the generally dismal success rates when it comes to dieting, some have even concluded across the board that "Diets don't work".
This is only true inasmuch as it ties into the other issues I want to discuss in the following chapters as well as what I discussed last chapter. That is, realizing that diets fail quite often, we might ask what's failing: Who you ask determines the answer you get.
Generally speaking, the people who are designing and advocating certain diets tend to blame Page 16 http: They turn it into a discipline or a laziness issue. Registered dietitians are notorious for this: The idea that maybe the diet or their overall dieting paradigm is inherently flawed is not even considered. On the other side, dieters tend to blame the failure on the diet, for a variety of different reasons.
Of course, there is some truth to both of the positions and I want to look at both sides of the issue in the next two chapters. As I've mentioned, a diet will continue to work as long as the dieter sticks with it. The question then is why dieters have so much time sticking with diets in the long term, which is what I'm going to address next.
Page 17 http: How dieters fail diets In this chapter, I want to discuss two of the primary ways that dieters tend to sabotage their own efforts on a diet, that is the way that dieters fail diets. These two ways are being too absolute and expecting perfection and by thinking only in the short-term. And before you complain about how bad it is form wise to write a short introductory paragraph instead of just going straight into the text, I'll defend my style choice by explaining that I don't like starting a chapter with a bold-faced subcategory.
So there. Which is altogether fine as long as they stay on the diet. The problem is that any slip, no matter how small, is taken as complete and utter failure. The diet is abandoned and the post-diet food binge begins. As I've mentioned, this tends to put the fat and frequently a little extra back on faster than before. We have all either known or been the following person: Anything worth doing is worth overdoing, right? I'm quite sure this type of attitude is not limited to dieting, probably any behavior you care to name finds people at one extreme or the other.
As a side note, you can oftentimes see the same attitude with people starting an exercise program. The first few weeks go great, workouts are going well, then a single workout is missed. The person figures that any benefits are lost because of missing that one workout and they never go back to the gym.
Now, I could probably go on for pages about this one topic but I'll spare you the verbiage. My main point out that there are times most of them when obsessive dedication or the expectation of perfection becomes a very real source of failure.
Sure, if it drives you towards better and better results, such an attitude will work. But only until you finally slip. Note that I said 'until you slip' not 'if you slip'.
In most cases, it's a matter of when, not if you're going to break your diet. If you take the attitude that anything less than absolute perfection is a failure, you're pretty much doomed from the start.
Now, there are some exceptions, places where results have to obtained in a very short time frame and you can't really accept mistakes. Athletes who have a short time to get to a certain level of bodyfat or muscle mass, for whom victory or defeat may hinge on their ability to suffer for long enough are one. I mentioned some others in The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook, situations where individuals need or want to reach some drastic goal in a very short period of time; even there I included some deliberate breaks for both psychological and physiological reasons.
But in the grand majority of Page 18 http: Not unless you make it one. Once again, the exception is for those folks under strict time frames, who don't have the option to screw up. For everyone else, seeking perfection means seeking failure.
Focusing only on the short-term The second primary way that dieters fail diets is focusing only on the short-term and this applies in a couple of different ways. The first is a reality issue. Ignoring diets promising quick, easy weight loss my Rapid Fat Loss Handbook caused rapid weight loss, a great deal of which was water, but it sure isn't easy , about the best you can usually do with true fat loss is somewhere between 1.
Sure you can drop a lot more total weight if you factor in water weight and other contributors but true fat loss typically peaks at about that rate some lighter women may have trouble even losing one pound of fat per week For the sake of example, let's say 2 lbs.
For someone with a large amount of fat to lose, 50 or pounds, this may mean one-half to a full year of dieting. Possibly more since it's rare to see perfectly linear fat loss without stalls or plateaus. Consider the reality of that, you may have to alter eating and exercise habits for nearly a year just to reach your goal. Do you really expect to be hungry and deprived for that entire period? I thought not. As a second issue: So they change their eating habits drastically, drop the weight and then go right back to the way of eating that made them fat.
And, to their apparent surprise, they get fat again. If you go back to the diet and exercise habits that made you fat in the first place, you'll just get fat again. This actually makes a profound argument for making small, livable changes to your eating and activity habits and avoiding the type of extreme approach that I described in my last booklet. The simple reason being that small changes seem to be easier to maintain in the long-term, even if they don't generate results as rapidly. At the end of the day, here's the painful reality that all dieters must come to terms with: Forever, basically even though that's a little too depressing to consider.
Maybe we should just think long-term instead. Hopefully we'll get genetic engineering soon enough to make it a not-forever kind of deal. Dieters or anyone seeking to change a long-standing behavior must stop thinking of diets as a short-term behavior change, you'll have to maintain at least some of those changes in the long-term.
As I talked about in the Rapid Fat Loss Handbook, there are situations where an extreme diet can be used initially and used to move into a proper maintenance phase. I do think it's helpful is the diet that caused the fat loss can be used to move into a maintenance approach again, something I discussed in some detail in the last booklet and will make mention of in this one but they needn't be the same.
If eliminating all of the carbohydrates from your diet makes it easier to lose fat in the long run, and you are able to move back to a maintenance diet that contains some carbohydrates, I don't see what the problem is. Once again, the diet you use to lose the fat doesn't necessarily have to be the same diet as you use to maintain that fat loss. If nothing else, you get to eat more when you move back to maintenance, the types of foods you allow yourself may change as well.
Summing up this section, it's not that diets per se fail, it's that diets that are only followed shortterm fail. The body is really good at storing incoming calories as fat after a diet and if you return to old eating habits, you can just watch the pounds come flying back on.
To hopefully cement this point in your mind, studies of successful dieters those who have lost weight and kept it off for some period of time, usually years have shown several very consistent behavior patterns of which this is one: If you're not going to maintain at least some of your changed dietary and exercise habits in the long-term, you might as well not bother with one major exception discussed below.
I'd recommend either doing one full body workout on day 1 or 2 of the 4 day cycle or, if you're going to be at the gym to walk on the treadmill, doing a VERY SHORT workout with some type of split routine.
So do minutes of leg training on Day 1, then get on the treadmill. And then either nothing or some core on Day 4 before the treadmill. But keep it short, and focused, the walking is the key here and you don't want to tire yourself out before the treadmill. Supplements For the most part, everything in the Rapid Fat Loss handbook diet book regarding supplements holds true for the Extreme Rapid Fat Loss approach. It not only helps with taste but ensures adequate electrolyte levels and will help prevent fatigue and plummeting blood pressure.
I'd also recommend extra magnesium, mg of something high quality like magnesium citrate per day. I won't re-write all of that information here but a fairly standard dose is 20 mg ephedrine and mg caffeine taken up to three times per day with the last dose no later than PM since it can interrupt sleep. If you are new to the stack and this is assuming you still have it available , I recommend starting with a half-dose 10 mg ephedrine and mg caffeine for at least the first day to assess your tolerance.
If you have any history of arrhythmia or heart issues or anything of that sort, I highly recommend not using this stack in the first place. The study didn't and it is by no means necessary. I'd also recommend a basic one per day multi-vitamin. You needn't spend a ton of money on this, get a basic vitamin to cover your nutritional bases and take it with a meal. Ending the Diet The Extreme Rapid Fat Loss diet approach is short and to the point but let's talk a little about what to do when it's over.
In the original study, after the 4 days of extreme caloric restriction, subjects were told to eat their normal diet but also to try to reach 10, steps per day of walking this is a common recommendation for weight loss maintenance. The researchers primarily wanted to give the subjects to come back into water balance to get a more accurate measure of true lean body mass loss water counts in LBM loss for more accurate body composition numbers.
I mentioned in the introduction that the subjects kept losing fat over those 3 days but whether the subjects subconsciously adjusted their food intake or the added steps caused it is unknown. It's hard for me to give very specific recommendations for coming off the diet beyond that, some of it will depend on why you're using the diet in the first place. If you were using the 4 day Extreme Rapid Fat Loss approach for a specific event personal or sporting , clearly you may need to keep your diet somewhat under control to avoid reversing it.
I should mention that it's fairly normal for body WEIGHT to spike up a bit it can be by anywhere from pounds depending on your size when you reintroduce carbs into the diet.
If you were using the approach to make a weight class, this may be a problem and you may have to keep carbs at least semi-reduced to avoid this or drop water weight a day out, a topic far beyond the scope of this booklet. If you were using the Extreme Rapid Fat Loss diet to get into a wedding dress or tux for a formal event, you may not care about a slight spike in weight.
The Protein Book: A Complete Guide for the Athlete and Coach
Or you may need to still keep carbs under control for a few days to make sure you're lean and mean. I'd probably recommend that you go to the chapter on setting up a moderate deficit diet in the main Rapid Fat Loss Handbook manual for more specific recommendations on how to eat in the first few days after you finish the Extreme Rapid Fat Loss diet.
Alternately just go back to some version of what you were eating assuming it's not too horrible prior to undertaking the program. And don't forget to keep some walking in. The goal is 10, steps per day of walking and there are pedometers and probably phone apps that will help. It equates to about 30 minutes of brisk walking or thereabouts, given that you just came off of hours of walking, I'd say go nuts, shoot for an hour.
For people who are on intensive weight training programs, the three days immediately after the program ends would be a place to get in a good quality workout or two now that calories and carbs have been increased again. Conclusion And that's that. This program is very extreme, I'd only recommend it under the most extreme situations, when you literally in the actual sense of that word only have a few days to lose a tremendous amount of fat.
I don't claim that it's sustainable although oddly, in the original study, the subjects still maintained a small fat loss a year later which is interesting or even a fantastic idea. I present it simply as an option when there isn't time for anything else to work. Instructions for Using the Rapid Fat Loss Handbook Online Calculator Please note that the numbers youll be entering into the calculator will make much more sense after youve read the book and I recommend that you do so before trying to run the calculator.
You may want to print this page so that you can follow along as you use the calculator.When you make people remove a category of foods that probably makes up a majority of their daily calories, they can't help but eat less.
If you were using the approach to make a weight class. Lyle McDonald Thornhill Dr. In that case, where maintenance is just as important as the loss itself, absolute attitudes and focusing only on the short-term hurt far more than they help, and should be avoided as much as possible.
If you were using the Extreme Rapid Fat Loss diet to get into a wedding dress or tux for a formal event. And I have a rather simple rule: Even athletes and bodybuilders, who should be prepared to suffer for their sport, will complain in this respect. As I've mentioned, this tends to put the fat and frequently a little extra back on faster than before.
After three decades of research and endless argument in the journals, it's now well established that human bodyweight is regulated it might be more accurate to say that bodyfat percentage is regulated. Generally speaking, the people who are designing and advocating certain diets tend to blame Page 16 http: