- Latest From MailOnline
- Related Articles
- Is the modern version of Elliot Hulse natural?
- Post navigation
- 14 comments
Yo elliott how to lose weight
So the question is can you lose weight and maintain a crappy diet at the same time?
The short answer is, yes.
Weight loss is largely a function of calories in versus calories out. If you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight.
By now, of course, you know me well enough to know that the short answer is never going to cut it.
For you and my clients I am interested in more than just the quantity of weight loss, i.e. how many pounds you lose.
I am interested in the quality of that weight loss. Are you losing pounds of fat or are you sacrificing pounds of muscle?
I don’t know about you, but for me that makes a huge difference.
See, I care about quality, which is why I care about nutrition.
If weight loss is your only goal and you don’t care what kind of pounds you lose, only that the scale goes down. Feel free to keep eating crap.
If quality of life doesn’t really matter to you. If increased injury, diminished sex drive, poor thinking ability and an impaired immune system don’t bother you, then by all means keep eating HoHos and DingDongs and all the fast food you want.
However, if you care about your quality of life, if you truly care about being the strongest version of yourself, then you will care about nutrition.
You truly are what you eat. Every cell in your body is replaced every seven or eight months. Those cells are made from the food you eat.
So if all you eat are HoHos and DingDongs.
You are made of HoHos and DingDongs.
It’s real simple.
Eat shit, become shit.
So if you want to become the strongest version of yourself you need to eat the best food you can get your hands on.
That means clean meats. Buy organic, grass fed meats whenever you can. I know they are more expensive, but the quality of nutrition is far superior to normal factory raised meats.
Toxins are stored in fat cells. That goes for you as well as the cow, chicken or pig you want to eat.
Buying organic, grass fed meats eliminates the toxic waste of antibiotics, improper feeding methods and total lack of exercise that go into producing the factory meat you normally get.
Buy fresh, organic produce whenever you can. The heavy metals in the pesticides used in non-organic farming will build up in your body over time, leading to future health issues.
Again quality food is more expensive, but like with all else in life “you get what you pay for.”
If for now the best is outside your reach, don’t just give up.
You still have options.
Your local farmer’s market is great source for fresh and often local produce. It may not be organic but it will be fresher and higher in nutritional content that those tomatoes that ripened in a truck on the way back from Guadalajara.
Elliott Hulse’s Strength Questions & Answers
“You’ve got strength questions, I’ve got your answers!”
I’ll be trying something new this year. It’s a way for you to get all of your questions answered and for me to help more people with their strength, fitness and personal development challenges.
Basically, I’ve you’ve every asked me a question via e mail you’ve probably gotten an automated response since I get about one gazillion questions per day and have a hard time keeping up with them. So THE SOLUTION is for me to answer your questions for everyone to benefit from by posting them on YouTube.
Here is how it works.
If you have a question about strength, sports, fitness or personal development that you’d like for me to answer just post a video response on my youtube channel and I’ll create a video answer for you to see. All of the instructions on how to do this are on youtube.
Now, I totally understand that a lot of people do not even have a youtube account. So, if that is you then know that you can still post your questions on my Facebook Fanpage wall where I usually get around to checking once a week. And of course you can post comments on my blog posts.
BUT, YouTube gets top priority…. so, don’t get upset if I don’t get back to your facebook or blog questions right away (or ever). I hate to be “that guy”, but this is just the way it is folks 😉
I’ve got 4 women at home screaming for my attention, a newborn son, a gym to run and my own training to do… but I love answering your questions too, I just need a method for prioritizing them. And YouTube video questions get top priority. (of course if you are a customer you can get in touch with my assistant at by hitting the contact button above or CLICK HERE.)
So anyway… below you’ll find some of my Yo! Elliott videos answering your questions… I really hope this new format is helpful to you. Love ya!
CBS News Logo
Jan 4, 2010 4:34 PM EST MoneyWatch
generic, Dieting, Weight Scale, Healthy Eating, Weight,Healthy Lifestyle, Bathroom Scale CBS This story, by Jeanne Lee, originally appeared on CBS’ Moneywatch.com
With the holidays over, you may be looking down at the bulging evidence of too much merriment around your waistline. If you’ve resolved to lose weight in 2010, you might be considering signing up for a commercial diet plan, such as Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem, or Jenny Craig.
The TV ads, filled with celebrity endorsers and regular people holding out their enormous “old jeans” make the diet plans sound terribly tempting. Although a new FTC rule now requires testimonial ads to cite typical results, the looming question still remains: Which of these diet programs are worth your money?
To find out, MoneyWatch analyzed eight of the biggest diet plans. Three are support-only plans that don’t require you to buy their food, and five are food-delivery plans. We interviewed leading nutritionists and weight-loss professionals, pored through clinical studies, and tallied up membership fees and food costs to determine the ones most likely to help you slim down and to see how much you’d pay to drop 20 pounds.
Our favorite for value and efficacy is Weight Watchers, designed to help you change your eating habits for good. Nutrisystem is the least expensive meal delivery plan we reviewed (Medifast is cheaper, but you have to provide one meal a day on your own). And the silver-spoon award undoubtedly goes to In The Zone Delivery, a white-glove service for people who’ll spare no expense to drop the pounds.
Here’s how the plans stack up. See the handy chart at the bottom of the page for a side-by-side comparison.
Cost: Choose the $39.95 monthly pass, which includes unlimited meetings and online support. If you won’t go to meetings, the best online-only deal is the three-month $65 plan (with automatic monthly renewal at $16.95 thereafter).
The skinny: The oldest national weight-loss program, its members rave about the encouragement they get at weekly meetings led by former Weight Watchers dieters. Nutritionists praise the portion-control points system: Each food is assigned points based on its serving size, calories, fiber, and fat; and no foods are forbidden. Your point allowance is based on your weight, height, gender, age, and activity level. “Weight Watchers has done a good job incorporating cognitive behavioral change to weight management,” says Martin Binks, professor of psychology at Duke University Medical Center.
Does it work? Yes. A recent clinical study in the New England Journal of Medicine linked group counseling sessions to weight-loss success. That explains why Weight Watchers has impressive short-term results. A 2005 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed participants lost an average of about 5 percent of their body weight (10 pounds) in six months. Two years later, they had kept about half the weight off. To help members stay on track, Weight Watchers encourages them to attend meetings until they’ve stayed within 2 pounds of their goal weight for six weeks. After that, you get free lifetime membership. The company says members using its online tools in addition to attending meetings lost 50 percent more weight than those going to meetings alone.
How much can you expect to lose? 1 to 2 pounds per week
Cost to lose 20 pounds: $120 to $200 with the monthly pass, including membership and 12 to 20 meetings. Figure on about $80 more in the six-week maintenance phase.
Cost per pound of weight loss: $6 to $10, not including food
Worth the money? Yes. It’s economical and has a proven track record.
We looked at two plans from eDiets – one that offers support alone, and another with meal delivery.
Cost: For the support-only plan, about $18 per month, billed to your credit card (with a $25 fee if you cancel within three months). The optional meal delivery service, eDiets Fresh Prepared Meal Delivery, costs about $100 per week plus $20 shipping, and includes the online service.
The skinny: You can choose from among more than 20 diet plans, including ones for diabetics and vegetarians. Online tools let you set goals, plan menus and generate shopping lists. There’s no face-to-face support, but you get support through online message boards and a mentor program that connects newbies with an experienced member. Also, you can reach a registered dietitian or personal trainer by phone at any time. The optional meal delivery service offers freshly prepared, calorie-controlled meals delivered by FedEx. Daily calorie intake: 1,150 to 1,670 calories.
Does it work? “People really seem to love message boards, but there is no data yet to show whether they are effective in helping with weight loss,” says Binks. But telephone support has some evidence in its favor: “A couple of studies have shown that telephone support is just as effective as live support,” says Christine Gerbstadt, M.D., spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association.
How much can you expect to lose? 1.5 to 2 pounds per week.
Cost to lose 20 pounds: For online membership, $54 for three months; for meal delivery, $1,556 including online membership for 13 weeks.
Cost per pound of weight loss: $2.70 for online-only plan; $78 for meal delivery
Worth the money? Online membership: Yes, it’s a bargain for round-the-clock support. Meal delivery: No: For about the same money, other services offer better track records.
Cost: $65 for three months ($5 a week); minimum commitment of four weeks.
The Skinny: Southbeachdiet.com is an online version of the “good carbs/good fats” diet created by cardiologist Arthur Agatston. For the first two weeks, you eat three extremely low-carb meals a day plus mandatory snacks. After that, you gradually add “good carbs,” such as fruits and whole grains. You can customize menus, search a database of more than 1,000 recipes and get a personalized shopping list. There’s online support from staff dieticians and members plus daily motivational emails.
Does it work? Studies have shown that after one year, carb-restricted diets led to greater weight loss and increased heart health than low-fat diets. However, the advantage disappeared over the long term.
How much can you expect to lose? Figure on 8 to 13 pounds during the two- week kick-start phase, then 1 to 2 pounds a week thereafter.
Cost to lose 20 pounds: $65, plus the $15 cost of the South Beach book
Cost per pound of weight loss: $3.25, not including food
Worth the money? Maybe: It doesn’t cost much, but you don’t get as much support as with Weight Watchers or eDiets.
Cost: About $40 per day plus $3 to $10 delivery fee
The skinny: The Zone diet is mostly meat, fruits, and vegetables. Home-delivered “gourmet” frozen meals have a ratio of 40 percent carbs/30 percent proteins/30 percent favorable fats, designed to promote stable insulin levels, increased energy and weight loss. You eat three meals per day plus two Zone protein-powder snacks.
Does it work? Yes. A 2007 study of 160 people in the Journal of American Medical Association found the Zone diet helped people achieve modest weight loss after one year, comparable with those on the Atkins, Weight Watchers and Ornish diets, and improved cardiac risk factors.
How much can you expect to lose? “Many customers lose 5 pounds a week, but don’t get confused: Some of this is water weight,” says Don Ruttenberg, CEO of Fresh Food Delivered, the company behind In the Zone Delivery. “What you really lose in body fat is 1 to 1.5 pounds per week.”
Cost to lose 20 pounds: $4,480 for 16 weeks of food (assuming 1.25 pounds of fat loss per week)
Cost per pound of weight loss: $224
Worth the money? No, unless you’re looking for white-glove service.
Cost: $20 for 10-week membership, plus $84 to $126 a week for Jenny Craig food. One-year premium membership is $359.
The skinny: Premium-priced Jenny Craig lets you order its heart-healthy, nutritionally balanced packaged food by phone and pick it up at a Jenny Craig center or have it delivered through Jenny Direct. You eat three Jenny Craig meals plus a snack per day, and supplement with fruit, vegetables and dairy. “The food may lack zesty flavor, but it teaches portion control through visualizing, so when you go out to eat in a restaurant you’ll know how big a piece of meat you want to eat,” says Gerbstadt. Once a week, you get a weigh-in and pep talk with a consultant – who is not a dietician and who earns commissions from selling you products. There’s also round-the-clock phone support.
Does it work? Jenny Craig has a good track record for short-term weight loss (up to one year). In a UC San Diego clinical trial of 442 dieters (funded by Jenny Craig), Jenny Craig clients lost 11 percent of their initial weight after 12 months, compared with 3 percent weight loss by those who were dieting on their own.
How much can you expect to lose? 1 to 2 pounds per week
Cost of losing 20 pounds: $1,070 to $2,120, including food, depending on rate of loss.
Cost per pound of weight loss: $54 to $106 per pound
Worth the money? Yes – it’s got reasonably priced meal delivery and in-person support.
Cost: About $180 per week plus $25 FedEx delivery
The skinny: The “doctor-designed” Bistro M.D. program aims to provide a rotating menu of FedEx’d, portion-controlled, frozen meals that are a cut above the usual packaged diet fare. (The price is a cut above the competition, too.) The plan tries to help you avoid a weight-loss stall out by varying the daily calorie intake between 1,100 and 1,400. By eating a little more some days and a little less on others, you’ll supposedly prevent your body from becoming used to the same number of calories every day. Bistro M.D. also offers a Biggest Loser meal plan designed by the doctors and nutritionists associated with the TV show. Bistro M.D. doesn’t do much in the way of organized support, but you can speak with a registered dietitian by phone upon request.
Does it work? While no university studies support the theory that varying caloric intake aids weight loss, the high quality of the food and the relatively large portion sizes have been praised by Health magazine, Dr. Phil and The New York Times. Some plan users have complained of a lack of choices and menu flexibility compared to other plans, but a company spokesman says they offer more than 100 entrees and can make substitutions to accommodate allergies and food preferences.
How much can you expect to lose? 2 to 3 pounds per week
Cost of losing 20 pounds: About $1,440 for 8 weeks of food
Cost per pound of weight loss: $72
Worth the money? Yes. It’s a reasonable price for well-made food with slightly faster average weight loss than with Jenny Craig.
Cost: About $333 for four weeks of meals, plus $20 shipping; $148 for 14-day starter program purchased through Walmart
The skinny: This meal-delivery service, endorsed by Marie Osmond and Dan Marino, emphasizes foods with a low glycemic index. The underlying premise is that controlling blood sugar levels leads to weight loss. The heat-and-eat prepared meals and snacks contain roughly 55 percent “good” carbs, 25 percent protein, and 20 percent fats; like Jenny Craig, you add fruits, vegetables and dairy. Nutrisystem also offers the cheaper, five-day Flex plan ($235 for women, $260 for men) in which you eat food you choose for the other two days a week, and a fancier Select plan, which has frozen “restaurant-style” entrees ($411 for four weeks). Support is available through phone counseling and online chat rooms.
Does it work? There’s plenty of research showing that following a diet of 1,200 to 1,500 calories a day, such as Nutrisystem, can cause weight loss. For example, a study by the Obesity Research Center at St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital in New York found that postmenopausal women who followed a 1,200-calorie plan for 16 weeks lost an average of 21 pounds.
How much can you expect to lose? 2 to 3 pounds per week.
Cost of losing 20 pounds: About $706 for eight weeks of food on the standard plan.
Cost per pound of weight loss: $35
Worth the money? Yes: For a meal-delivery diet system, Nutrisystem is more economical than Jenny Craig.
Cost: About $300 per month or $80 per week
The skinny: Although today’s program is not as stringent as the original liquid fast Medifast launched decades ago, the low-fat, relatively low-carb plan is designed to bring about rapid weight loss by coaxing your body into a “fat-burning state” known as ketosis. With the Medifast 5 & 1 Plan, you eat five small, 100-calorie meal replacements a day (which you order online and have delivered) plus one “lean and green” meal you prepare, consisting of about 500 calories of lean chicken, fish or meat plus three servings of low-carb salad or green vegetables. The 70 meal replacement choices include shakes, bars, soups, pudding, oatmeal, chili, pretzel sticks, cheese puffs, and scrambled eggs.
Does it work? If you can stick with it, a diet of 1,000 calories a day can certainly induce rapid weight loss. A common concern with such low-calorie diets is that you’ll quickly regain the weight, but in a small clinical trial recently published in the journal Experimental Biology, after 10 months, only about one in five people regained all the weight they had lost.
How much can you expect to lose? 2 to 5 pounds per week
Cost of losing 20 pounds: $480, plus your own groceries for the “lean and green” meals
Cost per pound of weight loss: $24 (plus groceries)
Worth the money? Maybe: Choose this more extreme plan only if quick weight loss is your priority.
Yo elliott how to lose weight
By Antonia Hoyle for the Daily Mail and Tony Edwards For The Daily Mail 22:16 GMT 10 May 2015, updated 09:06 GMT 11 May 2015
- 11k shares
Latest From MailOnline
- Linda Monk, 47, drinks wine nightly and has lost 6lb in the past three weeks
- Samantha Merrit, 40, credits wine with helping her lose a stone and a half
- Joanna Kingston, 51, has swapped chocolate for a small glass of wine
- Joanna says that she feels more in control now than she did before
Every night, to round off her evening meal, Linda Monk pours herself a glass of full-bodied red wine.
It’s a relaxing routine, even if it does sound like a recipe for weight gain. After all, as the NHS Direct website points out, doesn’t a glass of wine contain the same calories as a slice of cake?
But Linda, 47, has lost 6lb over the past three weeks and is convinced she has her nightly tipple to thank.
Scroll down for video
‘The wine curbs my sugar cravings,’ she says.
‘My long-held desire to snack on sweets, biscuits and chocolate after my dinner has disappeared and the relaxing effect of the alcohol makes me feel that, despite cutting back, I’m not being hard done by.’
Controversial it may be, but Linda is far from the only one extolling the virtues of wine, albeit in strict moderation, as an aid to weight control, even if it does fly in the face of conventional thinking.
- 11k shares
In recent years, the British love affair with the bottle has been increasingly linked to the growing obesity epidemic, with experts such as Professor Fiona Sim, chair of the Royal Society for Public Health, insisting there is no reason why calories in alcohol should be treated any differently from those in food.
Indeed, the EU recently backed plans for the calorie content to be clearly stated on the labels of wine, beer and spirit bottles. But there is also a growing body of evidence which suggests that far from making us fat, drinking wine could actually be the key to staying slim.
A 13-year Harvard University study of 20,000 women found that those who drank half a bottle of wine a day had a 70 per cent reduced risk of obesity compared to non-drinkers. And the U.S. government’s official alcohol body, the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism concluded that ‘when alcohol is substituted for carbohydrates, calorie for calorie, subjects tend to lose weight, indicating that they derive less energy from alcohol than from food’.
Another study, presented at the European Conference on Obesity in Prague last week, found that a glass of red wine every night increased the levels of the ‘good’ cholesterol HDL.
It could help improve type 2 diabetes because it boosted glucose metabolism. This is the process by which simple sugars found in many foods are processed and used to produce energy.
Linda is following a diet plan called The 4-Hour Body: An Uncommon Guide To Rapid Weight Loss, by lifestyle guru Tim Ferris, which entails eliminating refined carbs and filling up on vegetables and lean protein.
And crucially, the author allows a glass of wine a day (he claims to drink one himself), with the idea being that if you’re allowed to indulge occasionally you’re more likely to persevere. Red wine is recommended over white on account of its antioxidant qualities.
‘I couldn’t stand to go on a hideous deprivation regime that I knew I couldn’t stick at,’ says Linda, who runs a boutique and lives with her husband David, 55, an environmental consultant, and their children Oliver, nine, and Lucas, seven, in Chorley, Lancashire.
‘I’ve never drunk to excess, but alcohol has always been an integral part of my life. In my 20s, I lived in Greece, where the Mediterranean culture meant we drank wine every day. My weight was a stable 10st then. I couldn’t imagine not being able to treat myself or giving up my social life for weeks on end just to lose weight.
‘Because alcohol is allowed — encouraged even — on this diet, I’ve found myself drinking more than I normally would.
‘In the past, I’d share a bottle of red wine with David at the weekend. Now, I’m drinking a glass every weekday night. But dubious as I was to start with, the weight’s been dropping off.
‘An average day’s food is scrambled eggs for breakfast, chicken salad for lunch and chilli con carne without rice for dinner, accompanied by a good quality glass of red wine.
‘My weight had been creeping up to 10st 6lb, but I now weight 10st and I’m edging towards a size ten.
‘If I had more than two glasses of wine a night I’m sure I’d suffer unwanted side-effects, but alcohol in moderation is good for you.
‘We all know about its antioxidant properties, but what a bonus that it can give us better bodies as well.’
Samantha Merrit, 40, also credits the glass or two of wine she enjoys most nights with helping her lose a stone and a half.
The stay-at-home mother from Stoke-on-Trent, whose partner Reece, 42, is a golfing instructor, admits her vice used to be junk food. She would have a Chinese takeway at the end of the week and countless bars of chocolate during the day as she rushed around after her three children, Charnelle, 23, Nicole, 19, and Reece, 11.
But now that she unwinds with a glass of Chilean red, she says her evening meal has been turned into an ‘event’, which she finds relaxing, as well as slimming.
‘Instead of eating mindlessly on the sofa, Reece and I dine at the kitchen table, and I savour every mouthful,’ she says.
‘I’ve swapped fast food for balanced, home-made meals to enjoy with my glass of wine. I no longer have cravings for crisps and chocolate. I’ve found wine curbs my appetite after my main course and quenches any desire for pudding.
‘And, crucially, the calories don’t seem to have made an impact on the bathroom scales. My waist is now 28in, I weigh 9½ st and I’m convinced wine is the reason.
‘When I was eating badly, my weight crept up to 11st and I was a size 14. I didn’t like my wobbly stomach and bottom, but didn’t have the willpower to resist my favourite treats.
‘Now, I can happily say no to a dessert and I treat myself to a glass or two around four nights a week. I found a full-bodied red — never white, which I think is too acidic — helped me sleep and lowered my anxiety levels, too.
‘I never drink enough to get sozzled or to the extent that I’m hungover the next day and reaching for the nearest doughnut to restore my blood sugar levels.
‘Like Mediterranean women — and I have friends in Bulgaria and Spain, who also credit their slender figures to regular wine — my motto is moderation. Reece jokes that I see wine as one of my five fruit and vegetables a day, but I honestly believe the benefits to my health and body outweigh any possible side-effects. I haven’t put on a pound and I have wine to thank for that.’
Drinking in moderation is key, warn the experts. A study funded by the Wellcome Trust found that male and female binge drinkers had larger waistlines.
There are also serious health risks linked to over-indulgence, such as an increased incidence of breast cancer. But a small glass of wine, savoured with a meal, can contribute to a healthy weight. Red wine in particular contains high concentrations of resveratrol, which is found in the skin of grapes, and this compound, according to one study, helps break down fats and reduce the total amount of fat in your body.
Another reason that wine may contribute to a healthy weight is that the process of digesting the drink triggers the body to burn calories, particularly in women, who make a smaller amount of the enzyme that metabolises alcohol than men.
This means that in order to digest a drink, they have to keep producing the enzyme that requires the body to burn energy. In other words, it’s not about the calorie content at all, but about the effect wine has on the body compared with snacking on chocolate, sweet treats or fattening snacks with a similar calorie content.
Certainly, swapping chocolate for a small glass of wine has paid dividends for Joanna Kingston, 51, a professional fundraiser who lives in Manchester.
‘I used to be a complete chocoholic. If I went to the petrol station to fill up my car or just nipped into the shops and saw chocolate by the till, I had to buy a bar.
‘And I couldn’t resist munching on chocolate when I finally sat down to relax at night,’ says Joanna, who is divorced and has a grown- up daughter.
‘Now I pour myself a nice glass of red wine and the thing is that unlike chocolate, I’m happy with just a glass — so even though it may be a similar amount of calories, I feel more in control.
‘I’ve found that giving up chocolate in the evening has helped my weight loss — together with exercising more. And the remarkable thing is that drinking in the evening hasn’t had any real impact on my weight.
‘I’ve no idea whether this is because, as the research suggests, wine is better than chocolate in terms of metabolising calories. But I don’t really care.
‘Anyway, I love the warm, slightly merry feeling I get after sipping a nice glass of red. You don’t get the same effect from a bar of Fruit & Nut.’
Why I’m certain the calories in wine don’t make you fat
by Tony Edwards
Tonight I will uncork a bottle of robust red wine and drink about half of it. It’s a ritual I’ve been performing for the past 20 years — and one I credit as the key to my ongoing good health.
But according to the medical establishment, this makes me an anomaly as my BMI is a healthy 25. Why it that so odd? Because alcohol, we are told, makes you fat — which is why a number of establishment bodies are campaigning for alcohol to be labelled with its calorie content, which is quite high. In theory, my half- bottle is the same as three slices of cake.
So how come, after a couple of decades glugging half a bottle of wine a day, I’m not a 20-stone porkie?
Let me tell you why I and millions of drinkers like me are not. A year or so ago, I spent months in the Royal Society of Medicine’s library in London, sifting through thousands of medical studies about alcohol. One of the first I read made me sit bolt upright.
It suggested that in highly controlled laboratory tests, if alcohol calories are substituted for food calories, subjects lose weight. In theory, calories are interchangeable: there’s no difference between an alcohol calorie and a food calorie. But here were top-notch scientists demonstrating this was nonsense.
To understand why, we need to go back to the origins of the calorie system. Back to the 1880s when an American agricultural chemist called Wilbur Atwater decided to see how much ‘energy’ different foods contained.
To measure this, he treated different foods like coal: burn them to ash in a furnace and measure how much heat it produced. He called the units of heat ‘calories’. He measured nine calories per gram coming off high-fat foods and about four calories per gram from carbohydrates and proteins. Alcohol, of course, is highly combustible. So when Atwater tested it, it burned like a firecracker. Hence the high calorie value ascribed to it today.
Now a small but growing number of nutritionists think the calorie theory is flawed. Atwater’s mistake, they say, was to assume that we use the energy in food as if our bodies were a furnace — and that if we don’t use up all the energy, it will be deposited as fat.
But take nuts. They are among the top-ten most calorific foods, yet studies show they don’t cause us to put on weight.
Which brings me to the Glycemic Index — the measure of how much glucose different foods produce in the bloodstream.
Called the GI Theory, it’s beginning to supplant the Calorie Theory as the explanation for weight gain. Foods that have a high GI score — such as bread and cakes — produce a large amount of glucose which, if not used to power muscles, is stored as fat. However, high-calorie foods such as nuts produce little glucose, so have a low GI score, explaining why they don’t put on weight.
Alcohol produces zero glucose, explaining its lack of effect on weight. And though wine has other ingredients (fermented grape juice), these score very low on the Glycemic Index, explaining why it isn’t fattening.
Other good news for wine lovers is that in laboratory tests, wine-drinking rats have been found to gain less weight than water-drinking rats on identical food intakes because wine has the miraculous property of reducing the size of fat cells. Constituents of wine such as ellagic acid and piceatannol may be responsible, but that’s still only a theory.
But what about beer? Finnish researchers have found that beer scores exceptionally high on the Glycemic Index — probably because of its non-alcohol ingredients (mainly malt). That’s why heavy beer drinkers tend to develop a tell-tale tummy — not because of the alcohol.
There is one major link between alcohol and weight, but that’s to do with food. Alcohol is a powerful appetite stimulant, so the more you drink, the more you are tempted to eat.
The clinical evidence from studies on animals and human beings is crystal clear that alcohol calories have no effect on weight. So, putting calorie values on alcohol labels will do nothing to stem the nation’s growing obesity epidemic. My findings prompted me to write a book called The Good News About Booze.
In fact, it may even cause harm: this newspaper has documented the rise in ‘drunk-orexics’ — predominantly young women who don’t eat on days when they intend to drink heavily, in the mistaken belief that alcohol will add to their weight. Labelling would only serve to reinforce their misguided behaviour.
It’s obvious to me what this initiative is really about. It’s about trying to get us all to drink less. This is, of course, wholly laudable. I’m all for heavy drinkers being persuaded to cut down, but not by lying to people.
Meanwhile, the obesity crisis, fuelled by slothful lifestyles and increasing consumption of sugar and carbohydrate-laden low-fat foods, rages on. But the so-called experts say the so-called calories in alcohol are also to blame. Nonsense! It’s enough to drive anyone to drink.
| March 9, 2014 by Truth Seeker |
Elliott Hulse is a professional strongman and a former high-school football superstar enjoying a tremendous popularity on YouTube for his videos on strength, muscle, and philosophy. He has thousands of subscribers who follow him and aspire to acquire his mass and strength.
The question is – can that happen naturally?
According to official statements made by Hulse, he has used steroids in the past. In a YouTube video uploaded in 2012 under the title “How To Use Steroids”, Elliot Hulse informs us of the following:
– he didn’t take steroids during his football career
– he decided to try steroids out of ”curiosity” after lifting naturally for years
– steroids worked like magic for him
– he used a rather heavy cycle for a beginner – testosterone + trenbolone
– he didn’t feel fine on steroids, and his life started to fall apart – personal problems, torn biceps…etc.
– he considers his steroid period useful, for the fact that he can now educate his audience through his personal experience rather than second-hand knowledge
Hulse also talks about steroids on one of his websites where he states the following:
“My personal experience is that manipulating my hormones unnaturally not only changed my body, but negatively impacted my physiology, psychology and character. I did not like the person I turned me into. I was NOT The Strongest Version Of Myself.” – Elliott Hulse
1. Elliot Hulse is not a lifetime natural bodybuilder according to the statements in his videos and website. Therefore, questioning his natty status makes sense only in regards to a specific time frame before or after his self-admitted steroid experience.
2. Elliot Hulse acknowledges the fact that steroids are very effective when it comes to building muscle mass and strength.
3. The cycle described in the video is not beginner friendly since it included multiple compounds, one of which was trenbolone – a harsh anabolic steroid.
Trenbolone (tren) was originally designed for animals. It’s common knowledge in the muscle community that beginners shouldn’t use tren. Moreover, most people rarely if ever combine multiple compounds during their initial cycles.
This is important because it partially explains why Elliot Hulse might have experienced so many negative events in his life during his steroid experiment. Many people who run a properly designed TRT (testosterone replacement therapy) actually report improvements in their life – more energy, more strength, more muscle…etc. However, since Hulse took trenbolone, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that this drug was the source of his physical and mental suffering.
This leaves us with one question:
Is the modern version of Elliot Hulse natural?
Elliott Hulse claims that he is no longer on steroids, but is this true?
Information provided by Elliott Hulse himself has revealed that when he is in shape he has the following body stats:
Image from Elliott Hulse’s website: http://www.leanhybridmuscle.com/build-muscle.php
Body fat levels:
Let’s see how Elliot Hulse compares to Mr.Olympia Frank Zane.
In his prime, Zane had the following stats:
The data above reveals the following:
1. At 9% body fat, Hulse has 186.55lbs of lean body mass (LBM) (91% of 205lbs)
2. At 5% body fat Zane has 175.75lbs of LBM (95% of 185lbs)
Note: LBM is the percentage of total body mass that is lean (muscle, bones, water, organs..etc.)
Elliott Hulse and Zane are about the same height. Yet Hulse has 10.8lbs more lean body mass than Zane. In case you don’t know, Zane competed against men like Arnold and Bertil Fox when steroids were widely available.
Let’s compare Elliott Hulse to another bodybuilding legend from the Golden Era of Bodybuilding – 1983 Mr. Olympia Samir Bannout.
In his prime, Samir Bannout had the following body stats:
Body fat levels:
The data above reveals the following:
1. At 9% body fat, Hulse has 186.5lbs of LBM (91% of 205lbs)
2. At 5% body fat, Bannout has 199.5lbs of LBM (95% of 210lbs)
Former Mr. Olympia Samir Bannout had only 13lbs more LBM than Elliott Hulse.
This leads us to a logical question – if the difference between a Mr. Olympia, albeit an old one, and a natural bodybuilder is 13lbs, why would anyone bother to use steroids? Why put your health at risk for 13lbs of muscle?
It’s best if you answer this question yourself.
What does the Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI) calculator say?
The Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI) belongs to the class of bodyweight indexes. It measures the lean body mass of an individual in relation to his weight and height. The formula was originally created in 1995 after a sample of 157 male athletes (83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers) underwent an analysis. The conclusion was that men whose FFMI is equal or over 25 are most likely taking anabolic steroids. As a consequence, the FFMI has served as natty or not detector for a long time.
At 205lbs @ 5’8′ ‘@ 9% BF, the FFMI of Elliot Hulse is 28.42 – a very high number for a natural athlete.
In comparison, the FFMI, of Zane in his prime was 26.01 whereas the FFMI of Bannout was 30.40.
According to the research behind the FFMI, a score between 28 and 30 is highly unlike to be reached without anabolic steroids.
Q: Hulse is 100% natural now. The muscle mass that he has today is every so slightly higher than the natural limit because he has kept some of his steroids gains. Correct?
A: You don’t get to keep your steroids gains after stopping steroids, contrary to popular belief. Anabolic drugs make you bigger by altering the regular synthesis of protein within a cell. When you remove them from the equation, the synthesis of protein returns to baseline levels, and the gains start to slowly disappear.
In order for someone to keep his steroids gains forever, his training and nutrition will have to compensate for the lack of drugs. That is impossible to happen.
If training and nutrition have failed to create the growth in the first place, how are they supposed to keep it?
In simple terms – if you work two jobs and suddenly lose one, the job that you still have will have to pay you more money in order for your income to remain the same.
Q: Hulse is not 9% body fat in the picture above. He is 13-14%. Therefore, he is natural. Correct?
A: You may be right. Who knows? The information was taken from material uploaded online by Hulse or someone from his team. One thing is certain, however – even at 14% body fat, Hulse’s stats are amazing for a natural. At 14% body fat, the FFMI of Hulse would be 26.86, which is still a very high number
Q: Hulse has been training for decades. Therefore, he is natural. Correct?
A: Many wrongfully assume that one could get exceptionally big with time. This is not correct.
Past a certain threshold (3-5 years), every extra year is negligible when you are natural, for the fact that you are already maxed out or brushing the limits of your potential. Even if you train for 50 more years past that threshold, you are not going to gain much. Not to mention that with age, there’s a natural decline. However, even if humans didn’t age, stagnation would still occur.
This is why steroids are so effective. They simply allow your body to synthesize more protein. Time, training and nutrition cannot do that . They simply don’t have the capacity to alter that process.
Training stimulates growth by damaging the muscle and putting it recovery mode whereas food provides the building blocks to repair the damage. Neither has an effect on how much protein the body is pre-determined to synthesize. Steroids, on the other hand, have that ability.
Nonetheless, even people on juice face a limit because the androgen receptors and the internal organs wear out sooner or later.
1.http://www.leanhybridmuscle.com/ (visited on March 9, 2014);
2.http://www.hulsestrength.com/steroids/ (visited on March 9, 2014);
3.http://www.bodybuilding.com/ (visited on March 9, 2014);
4.http://www.wikipedia.org/ (visited on March 9, 2014);
5.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHOm89QUchk [How To Use Steroids by Strength Camp] (retrieved on March 9, 2014)
No spam. Unsubscribe at any time.
There are 2 points worth making.
Elliott admits to taking steroids.
There is no way he is 9% bodyfat on the before and after picture.
He looks about 13%-14% in my opinion.
I think if someone has admitted to using PEDs, then it’s moot to argue whether or not he’s on gear.
If you gained a bunch of lean mass while on steroids, even if you stop using them, it’s pretty easy to maintain the muscle mass. You don’t start deflating like a balloon after you stop using them, of course, there are other factors like your BF% going up and stuff, but if your diet’s on point, I don’t see any reason why you’d start losing all the muscle.
Ask any professional bodybuilder, you lose all of your roid gains within a year of quitting steroids. Look it up before you parrot your pseudo-science next time.
You’re kidding, right? So, there’s a separate kind of muscle that steroids build, that you just can’t have otherwise? Is it made of gold? Yeah, if you have completely topped out what you’re capable of naturally then start gaining with steroids, sure. I don’t think anyone over 5’5″ is topped out at 200#. Grow up.
i follow you and admire your work. I really believe that 95% of cases you’re right when speaking someone is he’s natty or not.
But this time i think that you wrong. Check much betters the photo of Elliott, it looks like natural. When i was training hard, i achieved a body really close like that. Sometimes after a ‘hard’ workout, like pull ups or bench pressing with some grams of AAKG Arginine i was really impressive, doubting myself if taken steroids ahah ! but obviously i was (and i am) natural. bye!
Ask any professional bodybuilder, you lose all of your roid gains within a year of quitting steroids. Look it up before you parrot your pseudo-science next time.
Its obvious he used, easily 20lbs heavier 2013. respect to him for admission through experience. Pics are lies tho. 5″9′ ( by his account) & def 13% at 190. He isn’t that lean.
I’ve searched for his height. Some say he is 5’7″, others says he is 5’8″ or 5’9″. I used 5’8″ as a middle ground. But even at 5’9″ nothing changes significantly.
I have seen some exercise videos from this guy and he looks pretty buffed and with very thick muscles – frankly, he doesn’t look like natty to me
I actively dislike Hulse, at least the more recent weird version of him, but this article is utter trash.
Protip, author, getting down to 5% bodyfat is difficult. Hard to be at your highest LBM when you cut down that low, steroids or not. Hulse being 200 lbs and reasonably lean is obtainable for most lifters (looks more like 12% to me in his picture)
Being 185 lbs and build like Zane at 4-5% is a whole different level.
Just by looking at the size of his chest, not much lagging upper chest, traps, and shoulders in general, Eliot appears to be on steroids no question (still to this day) Its only common sense, that if you are taking test and tren you cannot have any lagging muscles. If he had a lagging chest or maybe rear delts I’d say hes natty but that isnt the case. You see with logic, if he is on drugs, one body part wont just lag they will all grow and mature. As far as im concerned, he has no lagging muscle groups. Yes I can say his traps are much too developed to be natural or I could say his upperchest is, but use that common logic i pointed out and it will make the answer quick and to the point. Thanks for the post.
I think we’re getting into one of those zones of being very very selective with information. In that transformation picture firstly you can see the difference in lighting, like all transformation pictures they take the worst possible picture and the best possible picture. I also doubt the body stats of any youtuber ever, if we’re looking at him in the best possible lighting and he looks like he’s 14% body fat or so he’s probably higher. I’ve been measured at 8%, personally thought I was 12-14% and looked much leaner than him under good lighting. Another 2 things is that 5% body fat with a high LBM is much harder than floating around the 15% mark with a high LBM, I gained weight from 82kgs to 90kgs and my body fat reading peaked at around 16% (again probably not even close to true) I think these guys will manipulate data and take their best body fat reading, highest weight reading and best photo in the space of a few days which could be significantly different.
Finally the guy already admitted he used so he’s not technically natural, I wouldn’t be shocked if he’s still using but I’ve watched the guy’s videos and he isn’t as lean or as big as that picture suggests. I definitely think people with the right body type (unlike me, my body wants to stay smaller) could look similar to him in his videos without steroids
Elliot has a much thicker bone structure/ skeleton than Frank Zane so I don’t think comparing them is valid.
Comparing Elliot Hulse to Samir Bannout is downright laughable. Use your eyes, it is extremely obvious that the latter is carrting way more lean muscle mass than the former. Elliot would probably weigh but a mere 165 lbs in contest condition as a natural.