The Paleolithic Diet: If man made it, dont eat it!

QUESTION: Hi Tom: Your Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle ebook was an eye-opener for me. I am following your advice closely with very good results. I'm a semi professional windsurfer and a mountain biker, and especially for the latter I need to be as lean as possible. Thanks in large part to your program, I'm well into single digit body fat and dropping. Just recently I came across a book called the paleolithic diet and I was wondering if you ever heard about it? What's your opinion on this book? Is it worth reading if I already have your book? Is the program any good?

Mariusz
Poland

ANSWER: The "paleolithic," "stone age," "cave man," or "neanderthal" eating plans have been around for a while and there are quite a few books that have been written on the subject.

In general, with a only few minor constructive criticisms, I think they are right on point, and will benefit your health and definitely your fat loss efforts.

A "Paleo Diet" is actually quite similar to my Burn The Fat program, only with the starches and grains (and dairy products) removed completely.

In fact, a "paleo" or "cave man" diet is very, very similar to the "contest" (bodybuilding or physique) diets I recommend in Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle and this is most definitely a great way get very lean, very fast.

On physique competition diets (bodybuilding, fitness, figure, etc), you leave the lean proteins, lean meats, nuts and seeds, the green veggies (fibrous carbs), and some fruit in the diet, while reducing or removing ALL processed foods and SOME of the grains and starches. (usually the dairy products go too).

When it comes to MAXIMUM FAT LOSS, the removal or reduction of grains and calorie dense starchy carbs in favor of lean protein and veggies will definitely help speed the process - even if that's only because it reduces caloric density of the food intake, although there are other reasons.

Lean protein (fish and meat) + good fats & nuts + lots of green veggies + some fruit = LEAN!

And thats basically what the "paleolithic" diets recommend, because the principle there is to eat like our "stone age" ancestors did - before there was McDonalds, Coca Cola and other junk food.

The premise is that since our genetic code (the human genome) has changed less than 0.02 percent in 40,000 years, this means that our bodies are still expecting to get the same foods and nutrition they were getting 40,000 years ago.

By eating what our "stone age" hunter and gatherer ancestors ate, say the paleo diets, we will rid ourselves of the health problems and the obesity problem that has only recently begun to plague us as a result of modern lifestyle and processed manmade foods.

Forty thousand years ago, you had to eat nature-made food. There was no food in cans, boxes or packages was there? The packaging was peel, a skin or a shell!

There were no TV dinners. There was no drive in fast food. There were no convenience stores.

There was no corn syrup. There was no white sugar. There were no hydrogenated oils. No chemicals. No preservatives. No artificial anything.

There was only what could be hunted and gathered: Meat, fish, nuts, seeds, plants, vegetables, fruits.

My only real constructive criticism is that some of these programs not only recommend removal of all grains and starches (and even dairy), they outright condemn them - sometimes unfairly, I believe.

They say that agriculture arrived on the scence only 10,000 years ago so foods produced as a result of agriculture should also be on the "banned" list and that includes 100% whole grain products and even rice, potatoes and other starches which are not manmade.

The truth is there are some starchy carbohydrates and grains which are very minimally processed or completely unproceseed (the only processing being cooking).

Also, some people can metabolically handle starches and grains just fine, while others cannot. The same can be said for dairy products.

This is known as metabolic individuality. Because this individuality exists from person to person, I don't believe it's necessary to recommend that "EVERYONE" cut out "ALL" the starches and grains "ALL" the time.

I do believe that many people are getting an overdose of refined carbs and sugar and that moderating intake of concentrated carbs almost always accelerates fat loss.

However, the nutrition program you choose should depend on your metabolic/body type, your current body composition and state of health as well as your goals (maximum fat loss vs. muscle growth vs. maintenance, vs. endurance athleticperformance).

I don't believe that "agriculture" and everything that came with it is "evil."

I believe that highly processed and refined and packaged foods are the "nutritional evils" we should be aware of.

To remove brown rice, 100% whole grains, sweet potatoes, oatmeal, legumes and so on for healthy carb tolerant people, especially those who are highly active and or already at a normal body fat level doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

In particular, for athletes with a high energy expenditure, eating the concentrated complex, starchy carbs and grains - from natural sources - can be quite important.

Sure, there are some "renegade' nutritionists who prescribe high fat diets for endurance athletes and claim that will provide high energy and high performance, but that is controversial.

Also, an explanation for athletes successful on such plans may be that they are metabolically suited for more fat and protein to begin with, so that conclusion shouldn't be generalized to everyone.

Thats the trouble with so many programs -- the creators might say, "It worked for me and for some of my clients, so this is the way EVERYONE should do it."

Everyone is different, so the true inquiring minds will inquire about what is best for THEM, not the other guy... In the case of highly active healthy people and athletes, I would lean towards a decent amount of natural carbs forperformance goals (and pull back on starches and grains when goals change to maximum fat loss).

The key word here is NATURAL!

There is a HUGE difference between natural starches and grains and refined starches and grains.

For example, look at old fashioned unsweetened oatmeal versus sugary, white flour cereal grains. How can you throw those together into the same category??? They are no where near the same, but often they get lumped together by those who are adamantly "no-grain" or "no-cereal" allowed.

What about sweet potatoes? why cut something like that out of your diet? They are not processed or man made at all are they?

Aside from that minor quibble I have with some of these programs being too strict with their "Absolutely no grains or starch allowed," there is a lot anyone can learn from the "paleolithic" eating concept.

The questions raised from these programs and books are good ones:

"What were we eating tens of thousands of years ago?"

"What are we genetically and environmentally predisposed to eat?"

"what has gone wrong with the modern day diet that has led to so much disease and obesity which didn't exist thousands of years ago?"

I believe that too many people get caught up in low fats or low carbs or whatever the trend of the month is, but the real source of our problem is neither fat nor carbs, it is an excess of processed, refined man-made food! (combined with a serious shortage of exercise)

If you study and understand the concept of eating according to your personal goals and your unique body/metabolic type first, which I discuss in chapter 5 of my book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, then I believe you will get even more benefit from the further study of the "paleo" eating concept, as you will be informed and flexible enough to adapt it to your personal situation.

Loren Cordain and Ray Audette have written two of the more notable works on the subject (the Paleo diet and Neanderthin). You can get either of these at almost any bookstore or Amazon.com. You can get my Burn The Fat program at www.burnthefat.com

ANY good nutrition program - for health or for fat loss - is going to be focused on natural foods and it will teach you how to get the processed food OUT and the natural food IN

When you analyze ANY diet or nutrition program, keep in mind what ageless Fitness Icon Jack Lalanne has always said,

"If man made it, dont eat it!"

THAT is the essence of eating how we're supposed to eat!

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder and author of the #1 best selling e-book, "Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to burn fat without drugs or supplements using the little-known secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and turbo-charge your metabolism by visiting: Burn The Fat.

Fat Loss With 7-KETO

7-KETO

Weight Loss Aid & Immune System Support -> click for more information

7-KETO is a natural metabolite of DHEA that has all of the benefits but none of the side effects associated with DHEA. 7-KETO is trademarked by Humanetics Corporation and may help to support energy production, healthy skin, lean muscle, liver function and other body functions. The high-potency 100 mg capsule is an excellent complement to the popular 25 mg dosage.

The American College of Physicians conducted a clinical trial to study the effects of 7-KETO on body fat. Thirty overweight adults were recruited. Half were given 100 mg of 7-KETO twice daily, the other half a placebo. All subjects did aerobic exercises three times per week for 60 minutes. Body composition was tested at the start of the trial and twice more at the 4- and 8-week marks. The 7-KETO group showed a 1.8% reduction in body fat while the control group lost 0.57% body fat. No side effects were reported. Researchers concluded that 7-KETO may reduce body fat at a dosage of 200 mg per person per day.

DHEA is the most plentiful hormone in the human body, but its production declines with age. As the levels of DHEA decrease, so does this important metabolite, 7-KETO. 7-KETO is a powerful antioxidant that aids fat metabolism and supports the production of lean muscle tissue.

During the aging process, the levels of certain hormones participating in the metabolic process decline. For example, the level of the female hormone estrogen, made by the ovarian glands, is dramatically reduced after menopause. The level of melatonin, a hormone made at the pineal gland, also declines steadily after the age of 40. The levels of dehyroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its numerous derivatives, manufactured in the adrenal glands, begin to decline after the age of 30 with about a 50% decline by the age of 40 and about 85% decline by the age of 70. On the contrary, the levels for cortisol and aldosterone, steroid hormones also manufactured in the adrenal glands, essentially remain constant throughout the entire lifespan or, in cases of excessive stress and anxiety, increase.

Concurrent with the decline of these hormone levels during the aging process, there occurs a series of detrimental physiological and anatomical effects. These include a substantial reduction in protein biosynthesis leading to a net loss in muscle mass, and reduction in bone tissue regeneration leading to a net loss of bone mass (a serious risk factor for the onset of osteoporosis). Other negative effects include the substantial decline in the basal metabolic rate leading to a net increase in fat tissue accumulation, the decline in many immune system functions, and the increased rate of neurodegeneration leading to memory loss.

Given these observations, many reputable scientists attest to a definitive relationship between the age-associated decline in hormones, such as DHEA, and physiologic and anatomic trends observed during the aging process. These same scientists also affirm that the restoration of the levels of these declining hormones could potentially delay the rate of muscle and bone tissue loss, strengthen the immune system, increase the capacity to burn fat, and increase the expression of neuroprotective properties. However, the ingestion of hormones as dietary supplements must reliably demonstrate safety and efficasy in order to eliminate short term and long term side effects.

DHEA is actually an intermediate in the biosynthesis of testosterone and estrogen taking place in the adrenal glands. In addition to this, DHEA exhibits a range of physiological effects that are not related to sex hormones. In in vivo clinical trials on genetically obese and normal animals, DHEA demonstrated anti-obesity (fat reducing) properties. Other controlled experiments in animals resulted in DHEA reducing serum cholesterol, strengthening the immune system and improving memory functions through the improvement of neuroprotective properties.

In order, however, to provide a definitive structure-function claim or a mechanistic rationale as to how these liver mediated metabolic improvements take place, a receptor (either bound to a membrane or existing on an enzyme) for DHEA must be identified. The nature of the receptor would then allow for an explanation as to how these biochemical effects take place. To date, no such DHEA receptor has been found. Therefore, it may be that some metabolite or derivative of DHEA may be responsible for the aforementioned positive physiologic effects. In addition, numerous controlled experiments in both animal and human subjects have demonstrated that the ingestion of DHEA has resulted in the net increase of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen. Elevated levels of these sex hormones pose an increased risk for a range of undesirable effects.

Based on the seminal work of Professor Henry Lardy, a Villas Professor Emeritus of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Biochemistry, over 150 derivatives of DHEA were prepared and assayed for safety and efficasy over a period of 10 years. One of the prerequisite criteria in selecting these derivatives for further testing was for them not to convert to any of the sex hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen. Eventually, these carefully executed studies led to the identification of the DHEA analog named 3-acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone (trademarked 7-KETO), which exhibited the highest biochemical efficacy with no measurable toxicological side effects.

One of the effects from the ingestion of 7-KETO in a double blind, placebo controlled clinical study in humans was the stimulation of liver thermogenic enzymes, which increase heat production using fat as the primary source of energy. Naturally, this resulted to the reduction of adipose fat tissue when combined with systematic exercise. Analogously executed clinical studies in humans resulted in 7-KETO improving immunologic profiles (the various attributes characterizing a healthy immune system) and improving memory-related functions. In all cases, 7-KETO was demonstrated to be substantially more efficacious than DHEA without the unwanted, sex hormone related, side effects.

The safety evaluation of 7-KETO was based on observations from an extensive array of pre-clinical and clinical safety studies in both humans and animal subjects. In all cases, 7-KETO was consistently found to be safe for human consumption as a dietary supplement. -> click here to order

Supplements or Foods?

Protein Supplements Vs. Protein Foods?
By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
Burn the Fat

Are protein supplements really better than protein foods? Before attempting to answer this question, I should first preface it by mentioning that I do not sell supplements, nor am I associated with any supplement company, so you’re getting an honest and unbiased opinion. Don't get me wrong; I am not anti-supplement by any means. It would simply be more accurate to say that I am "pro-food." There are a lot of good supplements on the market, and I've used many of them, including a multi vitamin, creatine and essential fatty acid (EFA) supplements such as Flaxseed oil. Protein powders and meal replacements can also be indispensable if you don't have time to eat every three hours. However, protein supplements are not the master key to your success, real food is!

Did you ever notice how articles about protein in certain bodybuilding magazines are seldom objective? Instead, they all seem to be slanted towards hyping some "revolutionary" new product. Did you ever wonder why? In my opinion, most articles on protein supplements are nothing more than thinly disguised advertisements (some very thinly). Sometimes they give you a very persuasive-sounding argument, replete with dozens of references from scientific studies (mostly done on rodents, of course). They even give you an 800 number at the end of the article to order. (How convenient!)

When protein manufacturers throw around fancy words like cross flow microfiltration, oligopeptides, ion-exchange, protein efficiency ratio, biological value, nitrogen retention and glycomacropeptides, it sure sounds convincing, especially when scores of scientific references are cited. But don't forget that the supplement industry is big business and most magazines are the supplement industry. Lyle McDonald, author of "The Ketogenic Diet," hit the nail on the head when he wrote "Unfortunately, the obsession that bodybuilders have with protein has made them susceptible to all kinds of marketing hype. Like most aspects of bodybuilding (and the supplement industry in general), the issue of protein is driven more by marketing hype than physiological reality and marketing types know how to push a bodybuilder’s button when it comes to protein "

Many nutrition "experts" (read: people who sell supplements), state that there are distinct advantages of protein supplements (powders and amino acid tablets) over whole foods. For example, they argue that whey, a by-product of the cheese-making process, is a higher quality protein than most whole food sources. There are many different methods of determining protein quality, including biological value (BV), protein efficiency ratio (PER), Net Protein Utilization (NPU), chemical score, and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS). If you have ever seen advertisements for protein powders and supplements, you have undoubtedly heard of one or more of these measures of protein quality.

BV is one of the most commonly used and is arguably, the best measure of a protein's quality. BV is based on how much of the protein consumed is actually absorbed and utilized by the body. The higher the amount of protein (nitrogen) that is actually retained, the greater the BV. If a protein has a BV of 100, it means that all of the protein absorbed has been utilized with none lost. Whole eggs score the highest of all foods with a BV of 100, while beans have a BV of only 49.

Protein quality is certainly an important issue, but it is one that has been enormously overstated and even distorted for marketing purposes. Whey protein is truly an excellent protein with a biological value at or near 100. Many advertisements list whey as having a BV between 104 and 157, but if you look in any nutrition textbook it will tell you that it is impossible to have a BV over 100. In "Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism," BV is defined as "a measure of nitrogen retained for growth and/or maintenance that is expressed as a percentage of nitrogen absorbed."

When a protein supplement is listed as having a BV over 100, the company has intentionally manipulated the number for marketing purposes or unintentionally confused BV with another method of rating protein quality. Certain whey proponents claim that whey is "superior to whole egg" so the percentage sign on BV had to be dropped and the scale extended beyond 100. It was noted by bodybuilding writer Jerry Branium in IRONMAN magazine that in a study where the BV of whey was reported to be 157, the author confused BV with chemical score. Chemical score is a comparison of the amino acid pattern in an ideal reference protein to a test protein and therefore the number can exceed 100. 157 was actually the chemical score and not the BV.

Most bodybuilders and strength athletes already consume more than enough protein (an understatement if there ever was one), so the importance of BV to these athletes who are already consuming copious amounts of protein has been overplayed. Even though whey has a higher BV than chicken breast, fish or milk protein, if the total quantity of protein you consume is sufficient, then it is not likely that substituting whey for food proteins will result in any additional muscle growth.

Whether you choose a whole protein food or a protein supplement isn’t as important as some would like you to believe. For the purposes of developing muscle, the only guidelines for protein that you must follow are: (1) consume a source of complete protein with every meal, (2) eat at frequent intervals approximately three hours apart (about six times per day) and (3) consume a minimum of .8 grams to 1 gram per pound of body weight. There are times when it would be beneficial to consume more than one gram per pound of body weight, but that will have to be the subject of another article.

Because whey protein does have a high BV, it probably offers the most benefits when you are dieting on very low calories. When your energy intake and correspondingly, your protein intake, are reduced, whey protein could help you get greater utilzation of the smaller amount of protein that you are taking in. In other words, choosing proteins of the highest quality is more of an issue when you are dieting than when you are focusing on mass gains when total calories and protein are being consumed in abundant amounts. Whey protein also provides a way to get high quality protein without the fat, which is also important when dieting.

It has been suggested that whey may have other advantages besides high protein quality, although they are frequently overstated. These benefits include enhanced immunity, increased antioxidant activity and quick absorption. Several studies in "Clinical and Investigative Science" by Dr. Gerard Bounous of Montreal have shown that whey protein provides anti carcinogenic properties, protection from infections, and other enhanced immune responses. Whey protein was also been shown to raise levels of Glutathione, an important antioxidant that can offer protection from free radical oxidative damage. While such findings are very promising, all these studies, which are frequently quoted in whey protein advertisements, were performed on mice, so it is unclear how well the results extrapolate to humans.

Another acknowledged benefit of whey protein is its fast absorption rate. Although there isn’t any evidence that protein supplements digest more efficiently than whole foods (as is often claimed), they are definitely digested faster. This is most important after a training session when the rates of protein synthesis and glycogen re-synthesis are increased. This is the reason it is often recommended that a liquid meal containing protein and a high glycemic carbohydrate be consumed immediately post-workout and that whey is the ideal protein for this purpose. Even in considering post-workout nutrition, there is still little proof that a liquid protein-carb complex will actually produce better muscular growth than whole foods, as long as complete whole food protein foods and complex carbohydrates are consumed immediately after the training session and every three waking hours for a period of 24 hours thereafter.

Speaking of protein absorption rates, the discussion of fast acting versus slow acting proteins seems to be the latest hot topic these days in bodybuilding circles. The interest was sparked by studies in 1997 and 1998 that examined the differences between the absorption rates of whey versus casein. The researchers concluded that whey was a fast acting protein and was considered to be more "anabolic" while casein was slower acting and was considered to be more "anti-catabolic. " It was further hypothesized that consuming a combination of these two types of proteins could lead to greater muscle growth. These findings have prompted the supplement companies to market an entirely new category of protein supplements; casein and whey mixes. The problem with drawing such conclusions so quickly is that these studies looked at the speed of whey and casein absorption in subjects who had fasted for 10 hours before being fed the protein. Any suppositions drawn from this information are probably irrelevant if you are eating mixed whole food meals every three hours. Obviously, more research is needed.

This recent fascination with various rates of protein absorption could be compared to the interest in the glycemic index. The glycemic index is a scale that measures the rate at which the body converts various carbohydrate foods into blood glucose. The higher the glycemic index, the faster the food is converted to glucose and the larger the insulin response. Therefore it is said that high glycemic foods should be avoided in favor of low glycemic index foods. The error in relying solely on the glycemic index as your only criteria for choosing carbohydrates is that the index is based on consuming a carbohydrate food by itself in a fasted state.

When carbohydrates are consumed in mixed meals that contain protein and a little fat, the glycemic index loses some of its significance because the protein and fat slow the absorption of the carbohydrate. That’s why the glycemic index is really much ado about nothing and the same could probably be said for the casein and whey argument. It's just the latest in a long string of new angles that supplement companies use to promote their protein: free-form vs peptides, concentrate vs isolate, ion exchange vs microfiltration, soy vs whey, casein and whey mix vs pure whey and so on. Every year, you can count on some new twist on the protein story to appear. Certainly there are going to be advances in nutrition science, but all too often these "new discoveries" amount to nothing more than marketing hype.

What about amino acid pills? Amino acids pills are simply predigested protein. Proponents of amino acid supplementation claim that because the amino's are predigested, the body will absorb them better, leading to greater improvements in strength and muscle mass. It sounds logical, but this is a gross underestimation of the body's capacities and actually the reverse is true: The human digestive system was designed to efficiently process whole foods; it was not designed to digest pills and powders all day long. Amino's are absorbed more rapidly in the intestine when they are in the more complex di and tri-peptide molecules.

Your body gets better use of the aminos as protein foods are broken down and the amino's are absorbed at just the right rate for your body's needs. In "Exercise Physiology; Energy Nutrition and Human Performance," authors Katch and McArdle state that "Amino acid supplementation in any form has not been shown by adequate experimental design and methodology to increase muscle mass or significantly improve muscular strength, power, or endurance."

Furthermore, consuming predigested protein when you are seeking fat loss is not necessarily advantageous because it shortchanges you of the thermic effects of real food. Whole foods have a major advantage over protein supplements; they stimulate the metabolism more. This is known as the "thermic effect of food." Protein has the highest thermic effect of any food. Including a whole protein food with every meal can speed up your metabolic rate as much as 30% because of the energy necessary to digest, process, and absorb it. This means that out of 100 calories of a protein food such as chicken breast, the net amount of calories left over after processing it is 70. In this respect, the fact that protein foods digest slower than amino acid tablets is actually an advantage.

A final argument against amino acid supplements is the cost. Amino's are simply not cost effective. If you don’t believe it, pick up a bottle and do the math yourself. One popular brand of "free form and peptide bonded amino acids" contains 150 1000mg. tablets per bottle and costs $19.95. 1000 mg. of amino acids equals 1 gram of protein, so the entire bottle contains 150 grams of protein. $19.95 divided by 150 grams is 13.3 cents per gram. Let's compare that to chicken breast. I can buy chicken breast from my local supermarket for $2.99 a pound. According to Corinne Netzer’s "Complete Book of Food Counts," there are 8.8 grams of protein in each ounce of chicken, so one pound of chicken (16 oz) has about 140 grams of protein. $2.99 divided by 140 grams equals 2.1 cents per gram. The amino acids cost more than six times what the chicken breast does! I don’t know about you, but I’ll stick with the chicken breast.

The biggest advantage of protein supplements is not that they can build more muscle than chicken or egg whites or any other whole food protein, the biggest advantage is convenience. It is easier to drink a protein shake than it is to buy, prepare, cook and eat poultry, fish or egg whites. Consuming small, frequent meals is the optimal way to eat, regardless of whether your goal is fat loss or muscle gain. To keep your body constantly in positive nitrogen balance, you must consume a complete protein every three hours. For many people, eating this often is nearly impossible. That's when a high quality protein supplement is the most helpful.

Aside from convenience, the truth about protein supplements is that they offer few advantages over protein foods. There is no scientific evidence that you can't meet all of your protein needs for muscle growth through food. As long as you eat every three hours and you eat a complete protein such as eggs, lean meat or lowfat dairy products with every meal, it is not necessary to consume any protein supplements to get outstanding results. Whey protein does have some interesting and useful properties and supplementing with a couple scoops each day is not a bad idea, especially if you are on a low calorie diet for fat loss or when you're using a post workout shake instead of a meal. Aside from that, focus on real food and don’t believe the hype.

References

1) Groff, James, et al, Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, West Publishing company, 1995.

2) Fruhbeck, Gema. Slow and fast dietary proteins. Nature, 391: 843-844

3) Boirie, Y. et al. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion. Proc National Acad Sci, 94: 14930-14935, 1997

4) Lemon, Peter, Protein and Exercise: update, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol 19, No. 5, S179 - S190, 1987

5) Carraro, F., et at, Effect of exercise and recovery on muscle protein synthesis in human subjects. Amer Journal of physiology, 259: E470, 1990

6) Lemon, Peter, Is increased dietary protein necessary or beneficial for individuals with a physically active lifestyle? Nutrition reviews, 54:S 169-175, 1996

7)Bounous, G., et al, The immunoenhancing property of dietary whey protein concentrate. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 11: 271-278. 1988.

8) Sadler, R., The benefits of dietary whey protein concentrate on the immune response and health. S Afr. J Dairy Sci, 24: No 24, 1992

9) Bounous, G., Dietary whey protein inhibits the development of dimethylhydrazine-induced malignancy. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 12: 213-217, 1988

10) Bounous, G., et al, The biological activity of undenatured dietary whey protein; role of glutathione. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 14: 4, 296-309, 1991

11) Netzer, Corinne. The Complete Book of Food Counts. Dell Publishing, 1997

12) Katch, Katch & McArdle, Exercise Physiology; Energy, Nutrition and Human Performance, Wiliams and Wilkins, 1996.

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder and author of the #1 best selling e-book, "Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to burn fat without drugs or supplements using the little-known secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and turbo-charge your metabolism by visiting: Burn the Fat