Recommended Nutritition Books!

Hi everyone!

I'm busy reading Paul Chek's "How to eat, move, and be healthy". It seems good and sensible so far, although I intend to read up on "Biochemical Individuality" because these "metabolic typing diets" have always seemed to be a commercial stunt by the uber-commercial Dr. Mercola. Opinions about him and his books are welcome.

Are there any other books you guys recommend?

Josh, is there a recent/up to date book by Dr. Bernadot that you'd recommend? I just discovered his website btw. I'm using NutriTiming, but to be honest, I'm taking about 20+ hours of classes a week, working a part-time job, and trying to maintain a strict training routine of about 15-18 hours a week. I try to proritize NT, but it just adds an extra element of planning and work for me to do and it's getting harder to find the time. I'm thinking about just setting up a two day template (one day for strength days and one day for practice/conditioning days) and just using those rough templates to work off of. It won't be perfect.

I'm going to have enough spending money to pay for a decent blood analysis test in the next few weeks. My doc says I have adrenal fatigue and I suffer from metals poisoning (from dental work when I was young) which explains a lot, but I don't want to take any more medications. I don't think they've helped at all. Paul Chek seems to have a pretty thorough understanding of some rather non-traditional medicine methodologies though, so I'll try some of those instead.

Anyway, if you know any good books, let me know! I'm just getting started on a lot of this stuff.

Thanks.

The Second Edition of Dr. Bernadot's book Advanced Sport's Nutrition just came out about 6 months ago, it's about as up to date as you'll find.

Thanks, Cole. I'll look it up on Amazon!

I have Advanced Sports Nutrition (second edition) and its a great book!

And it is very cheap for such a book!

I'm not through with it yet, because it is written rather scientifically and therefore not the kind of book you read before you go to bed

It is definitely written for athletes, sometimes more for endurance athletes, and how to improve performance via nutrition. It covers everything from the standard nutrients, vitamins and fluids, gi function/delivery to nutrition plans for specific sports. Nutrient timing is also a part of the book, although not as much as i would have expected ( josh' post helped a lot to understand this better :wink: ).

I think this book is a great compromise between a pure scientific text book and a book written for normal people. I can recommend it!

Good to hear, JN! It has a straight five star rating on Amazon and it's only 16 dollars. I'll get it as soon as I can afford it. I briefly read his first book, but back then I thought it was just a bunch of high carb rot and didn't really give it a chance.

JN12 said:

I have Advanced Sports Nutrition (second edition) and its a great book!

+1

I have the Kindle version and I like how the book is written. There is a lot of up-to-date details inside, but they are explained very well. The book will teach you not only teach you how to plan your nutrition, but also how is your body working and why it is optimal to do it that way.

It will also provide me with a textbook for the lectures Josh, Nic, and Cole give us

Patrick Smith said:

It will also provide me with a textbook for the lectures Josh, Nic, and Cole give us

Yeah, that's right

JN12 said:

Patrick Smith said:

It will also provide me with a textbook for the lectures Josh, Nic, and Cole give us

Yeah, that's right

LOL! True.

And JN that was a great observation... Benardot does seem to have the majority of his experience with endurance athletes, though he does work directly with figure skating and that is without question a power sport. He is somewhat skewed towards the needs of very high level athletes, particularly endurance athletes, in some of his opinions regarding food sourcing in my opinion but that doesn't make him wrong. It just means we need to differentiate the needs of different caloric expenditures in different timeframes.

Glad people are enjoying the book!

Cole Dano said:

The Second Edition of Dr. Bernadot's book Advanced Sport's Nutrition just came out about 6 months ago, it's about as up to date as you'll find.

I'm not really sure how much I like this book. Don't get me wrong, I did learn some stuff from it, but the food choices are just terrible and it seems really biased toward just standard USDA stuff with too much "there's no evidence for this and that therefore it cannot be useful".

Well, Benardot is a very academic guy and has had extensive experience with world-class athletes.

One thing that he finds most of the time, and I tend to agree with this to a large extent, is that when supplements work magic it is either a steroid or it is filling in a gap in an athlete's nutrition that is there due to improper food selections.

There are some things like beta alanine + creatine (the combo specifically) that seem to have an effect, but there isn't enough consistent peer=reviewed research out there yet to say that it works for sure from an academic perspective. He is a well-respected academic, so it should be expected that he takes that position. There are an enormous number of supplements that independent research shows are literally placebos.

One thing that is for certain is that the supplements that have enough of a performance-enhancing or mass-building (not always the same thing) effect to be worth the money you pay for them can be counted on one hand:

Creatine

Beta alanine (or the combo of both this and creatine for anaerobic athletes)

Leucine (or high-leucine BCAA like Modern BCAA)

Calories

Water

Protein powder (just to have protein with your meals when you can't or won't carry meat around with you)

And that's seriously it.

In class, where he can actually have a dialogue, he will say "Look, we just don't know yet on some of this stuff."

In the book, he wants people to focus on where they generally need to focus: whole food nutrition and energy balance. Most people who pick that book up need to fix those things before they think about bottles and pills.

Where he and I diverge a bit is the importance of healthy food selections for normal people.

Something we all have to wrap our heads around, in my opinion, is that when you're performing at an elite level in an endurance activity OR when you are my size and working out for 1-2 hours per day 4-5 days per week it is almost impossible to get the calories we need in real time from healthy sources with the macronutrient breakdown we need at the time.

Perfect example: In 1 hour of regular working out I burn at least 800 kcal, and at least 500 of those need to be replaced with carbs within 2 hours preferably. They just don't absorb fast enough from nutrient-rich foods because of all the fiber, and it is pretty hard to get that much energy from white potatoes or rice because they soak up a lot of water and take a while to empty from the stomach. It is physically more or less impossible.

Imagine trying to eat 1600 kcal from healthy foods with 60-70% of it being carbs. Now imagine all of that going down your throat in 2-4 hours. I've got news for you: It's not going to happen. 200+ grams of carbs is HUGE when you look at it in real life. That's like 7 cups of rice dude. Where is my protein supposed to fit? Where is my water supposed to fit? Where is my dietary fat supposed to fit? I need frequent moderate-sized feedings to make that happen, even with the best possible intra-workout nutrition going on. If I am REALLY on my game I can get in 70-80g of carbs per hour with the glucose/protein water in a normal workout but not more. That does make things quite a bit easier when it comes PWO time, and that's part of why intra-workout nutrition is a big deal in my book.

However, with pop tarts I can easily get what I need during that time. It makes a noticeable difference.

After that I can get back to eating mostly healthy food but even then it is amazingly hard to get enough calories! That is always my big problem. It sounds crazy, and for smaller people OR those who just don't burn as much energy it is not as big of an issue.

For me, because of my size (and for people much larger than me as well as those smaller people who train for marathons and the like), it is simply not possible to get absolutely everything that I need at the right time with 100% healthy food choices. The major issue, by far, is simply the carbohydrates. Fats I can get. Protein I can get. Carbs? Sometimes I need more concentrated sources right after the workout than nature has available for me.

For the general population, and even for me during non-exercise times, this is not the case and it is here that I feel Benardot falls a bit short of the mark. We are understanding more about omega 3 to 6 ratios, of the differences between grassfed meat/milk and grain fed, and he is not as much of a stickler for the emphasis on healthy food selection.

He's got some good reasons, like the fact that realistically most people aren't going to go to that kind of trouble. Still, I believe his experience with high level athletes (who really do need to just get more calories on top of a nutritionally perfect diet) has led him to discount the importance of more slowly digesting food choices for the general population.

This ties in very tightly with his emphasis on energy balance, yet for some reason he just doesn't seem to think it's so important.

Also: USDA vitamin/mineral recommendations that are currently in place are designed to be sufficient for 90+% of the population. What they did is take what works for 50%, which is the WHO recommendation, and go up 2 standard deviations.

What that means is that the recommendations are actually too much for a lot of people. Even for athletes, there is not a multiplied demand for most micronutrients, and with an omnivorous whole food approach there is no need for supplementation at all.

Which recommendations get under your skin the most?

Joshua Naterman said:

Imagine trying to eat 1600 kcal from healthy foods with 60-70% of it being carbs. Now imagine all of that going down your throat in 2-4 hours. I've got news for you: It's not going to happen.

Challenge accepted. Help me remind that if/when we meet up, we'll do this.

Rik de Kort said:

Joshua Naterman said:

Imagine trying to eat 1600 kcal from healthy foods with 60-70% of it being carbs. Now imagine all of that going down your throat in 2-4 hours. I've got news for you: It's not going to happen.

Challenge accepted. Help me remind that if/when we meet up, we'll do this.

Sounds like the gallon challenge.

Rik de Kort said:

Joshua Naterman said:

Imagine trying to eat 1600 kcal from healthy foods with 60-70% of it being carbs. Now imagine all of that going down your throat in 2-4 hours. I've got news for you: It's not going to happen.

Challenge accepted. Help me remind that if/when we meet up, we'll do this.

HAHAHA!!! We are in for the biggest stomach ache of our lives, I'm just forewarning you

1600 kcals in 2-4 hours? HARD? Ok, maybe it's because I've been on IF for the last 2 months or so, but I can easily down 1800 kcal in one sittting, which takes me about 20-30 minutes max, and that includes 2 cups of oats which is pretty filling. A couple of days ago I downed 2300 kcal in about 1.5 hours. And I'm not a big guy at all at about 74 kilograms.

Before you ask, this is all done eating "healthy" (no such thing, but w/e) foods, such as oats, milk, whey protein, fruits, whole eggs, whole wheat bread, butter, etc.

I wish I had the problem of not being able to eat enough instead of always having to restrict myself, even on a bulk

Are you sure you're chewing enough, Lindahl?

1600 cals and 70% of it in form of carbs is easy as hell even in a single meal.

IF destroyed my ability to feel full.

Josh I didn't quote due to the length of the post, but anyways here goes:

First of all I don't think experience and results always goes hand in hand, there are many experienced coaches and nutritionists in the industry that I am not a fan of.

Secondly for the studies, of course it is hard as hell to prove that any supplement works. Most people who test these supplements are already on poor diets, have bad absorption and are not training hard. Furthermore most supplements are tested for a couple of weeks and baseline mineral status is often not tested for. Supplements are just that, supplements.

I agree with Bernardot that carbs have been underrated as of lately, but I do not at all agree with the choices (juices, cokes, candy, wheat etc.). This is where Poliquin is much more sensible and recommends as an example a carb/prot shake with different carbs aswell as greens powder, vit c and extra electrolytes. IMHO a much healthier choice that will lead to better performance over the long term.

Specifically I also disagree with the need for extra minerals and vitamins/anti oxidants beyond as a percentage of the extra calories. The stress response and the increase in blood pressure and the muscular contractions aswell as sweating increases the need for minerals (many whom are already missing in the food in the first place). Rakowski has some good sources on this, as does Poliquin. For food choices I really like Chris Kresser and Robb Wolfs work aswell, though more calorie dense sources such as shakes are needed for higher level athletes of course.

Razz I'm confused about your last point, I thought they all recommended mineral supplementation.

Bernadot does as part of the during workout drink.

With his food choices, my take is, they aren't really recommendations as much as examples, based on what is commonly consumed in the US. They don't have any bearing on the energy balance, just plug in the foods you feel good about.

Everyone has their own vantage point, Bernadot doesn't really focus the exact constituents of the diet, but there are plenty of sources for that kind of info, you mentioned some good ones.

Still like it or not, most of that is considered to be on the fringe by most scientists, so I imagine they choose to steer clear.

HECWAI said:

1600 cals and 70% of it in form of carbs is easy as hell even in a single meal.

IF destroyed my ability to feel full.

Right, and then you're spending 16 hours (assuming leangains style, more if not) in complete starvation. There's a reason why gains are so slow with that. There is also an absortion timeframe issue that tends to be a problem, particularly when your meals have real meat and lots of fat, that gets in the way of maximal protein synthesis.

When you're eating what you need, in real time, and you are chewing real food all day, it gets tiresome. If you don't believe me, go talk to some world class marathoners about how much they have to eat. The very best get tired of eating, because it's all they do outside of training.

Fortunately I'm not in quite that kind of a situation, but I still burn through a lot of energy and when my re-fueling comes from white rice (or god forbid brown rice... so much harder to chew) I have to eat 6-7 cups of rice to get those carbs. That's not counting the ~2 liters of water I need to a) replace what I sweated out and b) give my body the water it needs to absorb this food in a reasonable timeframe. It is much, much, much easier to get MOST of this from pop tarts.

Lindahl said:

1600 kcals in 2-4 hours? HARD? Ok, maybe it's because I've been on IF for the last 2 months or so, but I can easily down 1800 kcal in one sittting, which takes me about 20-30 minutes max, and that includes 2 cups of oats which is pretty filling. A couple of days ago I downed 2300 kcal in about 1.5 hours. And I'm not a big guy at all at about 74 kilograms.

Before you ask, this is all done eating "healthy" (no such thing, but w/e) foods, such as oats, milk, whey protein, fruits, whole eggs, whole wheat bread, butter, etc.

I wish I had the problem of not being able to eat enough instead of always having to restrict myself, even on a bulk

2 cups is drops in a bucket. Not even a third of the carbs needed at this time. This is exactly what I am trying to explain to you guys... At this time, it is extremely hard to eat enough carbs and get them to absorb fast enough to do you the most good.

I don't know if you've ever tried to eat 200g of carbs from mashed potatoes, or white rice, or anything else of that nature, but it ain't easy. Your jaw gets tired from chewing. You also have to have a lot of water with the meal if you expect it to empty in a reasonable amount of time.

I can tell you, from experience, that it is just so much more manageable to get these carbs from a bit of calculated junk (in the referenced immediate PWO timeframe) that it isn't even an option to me. The absorption speed, the ease of actual ingestion, it just creates a completely different feeling. You actually feel like you are being re-inflated, and if you don't keep getting those calories you will feel intense hunger because your body is in overdrive at the moment and requires much more energy than you realize. After a while this dies down.

I don't expect you to understand what I mean, because you have not actually done this yet. I certainly wouldn't understand the importance of what I am suggesting to you all if I hadn't done this myself and seen + felt the results.

All I can do is try to help you guys get better results, if you don't want the best your body has to offer you then that's fine by me.

Josh,

Considering how much you eat after your workout, is there any particular way you've been balancing your eating during the rest of the day? It seems like your post-workout eating should take up quite a large percentage of your overall daily intake. Do you think NT is a bit less important when you consider the important of eating so much after a workout? I don't use NT right now because I have so many classes I have to do stuff for, but I imagine if someone established a baseline hourly rate of kcal required and then established what each workout will cost then maintaining a balance of +/- a few hundred kcal shouldn't be too hard. What do you think?

For example, I used NT to calculate that my workout (just strength stuff) cost me around 450 kcal. I used a METS chart to get mostly the same number. Assuming about 130-160 kcal for an hour of sitting/very light activity and the 450 for the workout, would it be unreasonable for me to eat 1400 kcal over the next two hours after the workout?

Assuming 30g protein per hour/240 kcal (for two hours post-workout), the rest could be 290g carbs over the next few hours. It sounds like a lot when compared to the cost of the workout.

Patrick Smith said:

Josh,

Considering how much you eat after your workout, is there any particular way you've been balancing your eating during the rest of the day? It seems like your post-workout eating should take up quite a large percentage of your overall daily intake. Do you think NT is a bit less important when you consider the important of eating so much after a workout? I don't use NT right now because I have so many classes I have to do stuff for, but I imagine if someone established a baseline hourly rate of kcal required and then established what each workout will cost then maintaining a balance of +/- a few hundred kcal shouldn't be too hard. What do you think?

For example, I used NT to calculate that my workout (just strength stuff) cost me around 450 kcal. I used a METS chart to get mostly the same number. Assuming about 130-160 kcal for an hour of sitting/very light activity and the 450 for the workout, would it be unreasonable for me to eat 1400 kcal over the next two hours after the workout?

Assuming 30g protein per hour/240 kcal (for two hours post-workout), the rest could be 290g carbs over the next few hours. It sounds like a lot when compared to the cost of the workout.

No, this is in direct accordance with nutritiming.

Guys, this is like driving across the USA and stopping to race your car for 1 hour along the way. Sure, you burn up a huge amount of fuel during the race, and you have to give your car that fuel in real time, but then the hour is over and you're back to driving from New York to Cali.

No matter what you do on top of the straight trip, that trip has a specific cost. It may take you 100 gallons of gas, total, if you get 30 miles per gallon, and that doesn't change even if you burn 100 gallons of gas on the track!

See what I mean?

NT is garbage for figuring out workout expenditure in my opinion, which is something I have a big issue with, but that's how it is. When you use METs, which are much more accurate than a very vague 1-7 effort scale, you will get much larger numbers that reflect what you need. If you feel the MET chart and Nutritiming give you similar results, that's fine but it doesn't work for me.

The large number is for me, because I'm 224 lbs now. Nutritiming, no matter what I do, will never tell me to eat more than 574 calories or something around there for the entire hour of eating. At a 7 out of 7. My workouts are NEVER that intense, I nearly always keep it at about a 6-7 out of 10 overall. 1 hour at 6 METs is about that, but that's like a 4.5 to a 5 out of 7 for me. Nutritiming tells me to eat about A 7 would be doing a WOD, and that would be 10-12 METS for me, and that would be 1000-ish kcal at minimum. That doesn't include what I need to support accelerated metabolism after the workout. Granted, I would only be doing that for 30 minutes but even so Nutritiming would tell me 270 kcal instead of 500, and that's a huge difference. Nearly double.

That's using BMR. I tend to use RMR, because I honestly feel better with the slightly higher calorie count. With RMR things are about 20% higher, and that again doesn't include the extra energy required to support 2x protein synthesis.

That has been my experience, at any rate.

Also, I wouldn't get more than 70-80% of that energy from carbs. If there's one time it won't hurt you to go over, it's PWO but still... I always make sure there's a bit of fat in there. Another convenience taken care of by the pop tarts.

Isn't that because NT is geared for people wanting to lose weight, whereas on this board, we have mostly people wanting to increase lean mass & body composition?

For that reason, maybe NT is biased towards less intake than most of us would really need?

FredInChina said:

Isn't that because NT is geared for people wanting to lose weight, whereas on this board, we have mostly people wanting to increase lean mass & body composition?

For that reason, maybe NT is biased towards less intake than most of us would really need?

I think it's an ease of use issue. They feel it is good enough.

I disagree, but what you say is a good point: having a small built-in deficit will absolutely help people lose weight.