[John M Berardi]

The G-Flux Interview with Tom Venuto
Highlights From Part 1

A few weeks back, Tom Venuto, author of Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle, caught wind of my May 5th and 6th Boston G-Flux seminar. And although he couldn't make it out to the event, he had a few questions for me.

Well, as usually is the case, a few questions lead to a few questions more. And we eventually ended up with a full-out, no-holds barred Q&A article covering everything from exercise volume to energy needs, to the value of calorie restriction.

In fact, when the smoke cleared, we ended up with the most comprehensive and in-depth G-Flux interview that's been published to date.

The entire full length interview is available to both Tom's Burn the Fat Inner Circle members and our Precision Nutrition customers.

So if you're not yet a customer, here's another reason to become one.

However, Tom and I believe the concept is so important and fundamental that we decided to edit the interview and publish the highlights for free for all of our newsletter subscribers and blog visitors.

Therefore you can read the highlights of this in-depth interview below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Venuto: John, Thank you for the interview. I’ve been following your work for years with interest, but the first time I heard you talk about “energy flux” or “G-flux”, it really got my attention and I said to myself, “He is right on the money with that one!” It fell right in line with my experiences as a bodybuilder and with what I’ve been teaching to my clients.

I have a program called Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, which suggests that it’s better to exercise more (burn) and eat more (feed) than to try to lose fat by eating less and exercising less. Are we talking about the same concept here essentially, and if so, what are some of the biggest benefits of this approach?

John Berardi: Well, first of all, it’s an honor to speak with you and to do this interview! I’m a huge fan of your work too!

Secondly, you’re right on track with the exercise more/eat more thing. In fact, that’s exactly what G-Flux is all about.

(Of course, we’re assuming here that the additional exercise is done properly and the additional food comes from the right sources and at the right times of the day.)

The amazing thing is that by increasing G-Flux, even in energy balance (where calories in theoretically equal calories out), people see increases in sympathetic nervous system activity and metabolic rate. And these increases lead to increased lean mass and decreased fat mass. Again, even in energy balance.

Now, this can get confusing so here’s an example.

Take an individual eating 2000kcal a day and burning 2000kcal a day. That person wouldn’t likely lose or gain any weight. They’re in energy balance and that means they’d be weight stable.

Yet if we use the principles of G-Flux to boost this person’s food intake to 3000kcal a day and boost their calorie burning to 3000kcal a day, most would assume that the person wouldn’t change. They’d assume that the increased intake and expenditure would cancel each other out, right.

But researchers have shown that in such a situation there are increases in metabolic rate, losses of fat, and increases in lean mass! The weight might not always change but body comp certainly does. And that’s the power of G-Flux! Eat more, exercise more, build a better body.

Tom Venuto: We’re not talking about simply eating larger and larger amounts of food at the same activity level and expecting our metabolism to continue increasing to match that, are we? I remember some gurus in the body building world who recommended that bodybuilders should eat outrageously large amount of calories based on this premise. One in particular back in the early 1990’s was suggesting up to 4,000 calories a day for women and upwards of 8,000 calories per day for men. That sounds like a prescription for fat gain to me.

With your model of G-flux, aren’t you referring to eating more at a higher, but manageable level, while also exercising more at the same time? This way, for fat loss we can still have a deficit, and for muscle gain we can still have a small surplus, but in both cases it would be at a higher level of energy expenditure?

John Berardi: You’re right, G-Flux is not about simply “eating more to boost metabolism”. Flux means flow and we’re talking about energy flow into and out of the body. So G-Flux covers both the intake and expenditure sides of the equation.

In essence, G-Flux is about exercising more so that you can eat more and all the while improve metabolism, lean mass and body fat %.
At this point, let’s get real practical. There are essentially 2 steps to increasing G-Flux:

Step 1 – Increase calorie expenditure through specific exercise strategies that include a mix of strength training, interval exercise, and low intensity exercise/cardio.

Step 2 – Increase calorie intake to

a) Match this energy expenditure if you want to maintain your weight yet improve your body comp


b) Fall just below energy expenditure if you want to lose weight while improving metabolism and lean mass


c) To exceed energy expenditure if you want to gain weight while improving body comp

G-Flux is pretty much that simple!

Tom Venuto: For fat loss, we know we need a calorie deficit, but you can have a deficit at a high energy intake or a deficit at a low energy intake. For example, you could have a 750 calorie deficit by consuming 1500 calories a day at an energy expenditure of 2250 calories per day. Or you could have a 750 calorie a day deficit at an intake of 3000 calories per day with an energy expenditure of 3750 calories per day. That’s a pretty big difference in activity and double the food intake. Will there be a difference in body composition results between these two regimens? And if so, how do you explain that two 750 calorie deficits have different effects in light of the laws of thermodynamics?

John Berardi: The whole goal of increasing G-Flux is boost total metabolic rate and, if fat loss is required, to allow you to eat more while still being in a negative energy balance.

Simply put, it allows you to diet at 3000kcal a day vs. 1500kcal a day (as per your example above). And personally, I MUCH prefer this!

You see, by allowing you to eat more while still being in a negative energy balance, the principles of G-Flux lead to the following benefits:

1) Increased total food intake when dieting, a powerful psychological benefit

2) Increased micronutrient and phytochemical intake, leading to better function and better health

3) Increased sympathetic nervous system activity, leading to a faster metabolism

4) Increased nutrient partitioning, leading to less fat and more muscle

Tom Venuto: G flux sounds to me like the antithesis of CRON or calorie restricted optimal nutrition, which some people practice believing it will extend lifespan. In your discussions of G-flux, does this subject of life extension through calorie restriction ever come up from your readers or audiences and what is your response or criticism?

John Berardi: Oh yeah, I hear this ALL THE TIME.

Some believe that calorie restriction is the only way to enhance lifespan in humans. And to them it seems that the opposite – high levels of G-Flux – will shorten lifespan. Sure, this at first sounds logical. Yet as my grad school buddies always said, just because it’s logical doesn’t make it physiological.

Yes, many animal models have demonstrated that reducing calorie intake by 30-50% can dramatically increase lifespan. But before dropping your calorie intake by 30-50%, consider the following.

First, there are a lot of questions left unanswered. Just a few, for example, are:

Do all these animal studies translate to humans?

Are there other ways to live longer vs. eating 30-50% less?

How exactly does calorie restriction work and can we mimic that other ways?

Are there any risks associated with eating this much less?

These are big questions that shouldn’t be dismissed!

Second, the current comparisons between a “typical” diet for animals and a calorie restricted one aren’t fair comparisons. After all, typical rat chow or monkey chow isn’t exactly healthy. It’s not even real food. Rats, for example, are fed chow pellets – in essence, processed, fast food! So they’re not eating all that healthy in the first place.

What if they were actually fed a healthy higher calorie diet vs. a healthy lower calorie diet? What if they ate the equivalent of 5-10 servings of fruits and veggies a day? What if they exercised regularly? What if they supplemented with fish oil? What if they maintained low body fat? And so on…

I speculate that if these animals were given the chance to follow a healthy diet and a high level of G-Flux, the effects of calorie restriction wouldn’t seem all that impressive.

Translated to humans, here’s what I think. If you’re going to keep up your typical North American, low quality, high sugar, processed diet while refusing to exercise, then yes, calorie restriction might help you live longer. But that’s a choice that no one has to make.

In the end, eating well, supplementing intelligently, and subscribing to a life-long exercise program may prove to be more powerful than calorie restriction. And you won’t have to suffer the psychological perils (restriction, deprivation) or physical perils (below) associated with this approach. That’s right; there are some health problems associated with calorie restriction.

Mike Linksvayer, the example of a calorie restriction proponent detailed in a recent New York Times article, stands 6ft tall and 135 lbs. Mike is severly underweight. Now, that might be better than being overweight. Yet this low body weight presents its own risks as he ages.

Studies show that those with low body weight and low muscle mass are at a higher risk for a loss of independence into their elder years. This is due to the natural losses in bone and muscle that occur with age. So Mike may be healthier than his friends now, but watch out Mike as you age!

And here’s another interesting piece of data…studies are showing that the nutritional supplement resveratrol may work through the same pathways as calorie restriction to enhance longetivty. No calorie restriction required.

So, in the end, don’t stop eating just yet. Although calorie restriction works in animals, it’s not yet proven in humans. And if it does turn out to work, who cares? Calorie restriction is so difficult and carries its own risks including exchanging quality of life for longevity.

Why not learn the good lifestyle habits associated with smart eating, proper supplementation, and lifelong exercise? That way you can eat, exercise, and be merry while living long and living well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 continued below...
(either log-in or sign up for a free account)

[John M Berardi]

Continued from part 1...

------------------------------------------------------------------

The G-Flux Interview with Tom Venuto
Highlights From Part 2

Tom Venuto: If somebody decides to just eat less and not exercise, which is the case for many popular diet programs, what is the impact on performance, metabolism and body composition short term and also long term?

John Berardi: Well, for starters, choosing not to exercise is a huge mistake for anyone, regardless of their goals. The human body was built for exercise and, over time, has developed with exercise as a survival necessity.

Yet nowadays exercise has become unnecessary for survival and, on the whole, our society has become sedentary. This has lead to huge health and body composition problems.

Plain and simple, it’s a fool’s choice not to exercise.

Yet let’s say someone simply won’t exercise. In that case, eating less (while still eating well) is certainly better than eating whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like it - which will usually lead to overfeeding and under nourishing.

However, assuming the no exercise, low calorie scenario, problems can still develop. For starters, muscle and bone mass will likely be lost. This means long-term problems like osteoporosis and sarcopenia. In other words, get ready for the nursing home.

Also, metabolic power diminishes. Eating less while not exercising is like rapidly downshifting the metabolism. And this means that when the “diet” ends, it’s quite easy to gain fat.

In the end, the body finds it very hard to balance energy intake and output when sedentary. So even if you try to undereat your energy expenditure, if you’re not exercising, you’re likely losing muscle and losing metabolism throughout your diet. So you’d have to continually drop calories in a never-ending downward spiral of muscle loss, metabolic loss, and calorie deprivation. This is a battle most can’t win!

The beauty of high levels of G-Flux is that when the body is very physically active, it tends to find new energy balance points without rigorously counting calories, etc. Therefore it’s easier to be in great shape when G-Flux is high. In my seminars I devote an entire section to this idea – improving body composition without counting calories.

Tom Venuto: If you’re eating more and training more, obviously this allows you a higher intake of amino acids, essential fatty acids, fiber, vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. Is this an important benefit of the higher G-flux approach or can nutritional supplements make up for lower intakes of these nutrients at low energy intakes? And on the flip side, if you’re taking in copious amounts and a wide variety of whole foods, which high energy intake allows you to do, are many supplements really necessary?
John Berardi: You got it, Tom. I believe that the high intake of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, fiber, etc. is one of the greatest and most overlooked advantages of the G-Flux approach. Higher intakes of these nutrients (when accompanied by a high G-Flux) can lead to better health, better nutrient partitioning, lower disease risk and more. So you end up with more exercise (which leads to a better health profile and less body fat) and more high quality nutrition (which also leads to a better health profile and better body composition). You can’t go wrong there.

Specific to your question, assuming one decides to follow a low-flux lifestyle; nutritional supplements do become very important. Low exercise volume means less food eaten (assuming you want to stay lean and healthy). And less food eaten means fewer nutrients. With the vitamin and mineral contents of our fruits and veggies somewhat lower than they have been in the past, each serving of fruit and veggie contains less of the important, health-promoting nutrients.

Therefore we either have to eat more of them or we have to supplement with multi-vitamin/multi-mineral formulas and greens food products (for our phytochemicals). In fact, both the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal have recommended daily multi-vitamin supplements for this reason.

Often times, competitive bodybuilders have to move toward a lower flux lifestyle in an attempt to get very lean for the competitive stage. While their exercise volume remains quite high, their calorie intake can go quite low. This is because they need to achieve extreme levels of muscularity and low body fat. As a result, in each of these athletes I’m very conscious of supplementing with a multi-vitamin and mineral as well as a green food product. I’m also sure to recommend fish oil supplements. This helps these athletes get their essential nutrients while keeping their calories very low for short periods of time.

However, on the flip side, if an athlete of mine is exercising with fairly high volumes and eating their recommended 10-15 servings of fruits and veggies each day, their need for multi-vitamin/multimineral supplements is reduced. In fact, a number of my more disciplined Olympic and Pro athletes take no additional vitamins/minerals beyond what they get in their whole foods. And I prefer it this way as the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients present in whole foods are often better than commercially available supplements.

Tom Venuto: So if we’re going to increase energy flux that means more training, but what about overtraining? Is overtraining as much of a problem as the fitness and bodybuilding media make it out to be? Someone once said that there is no such thing as overtraining, only under nutrition. Is there any truth there or is that statement going too far?

John Berardi: Overtraining is a very real phenomenon although I guarantee that most people reading this have never been over trained. Heck, I bet they’ve never even met someone who’s been legitimately over trained. The only athletes I’ve ever seen over trained have been high level Olympians who train in excess of 20 hours per week for years at a time.

You see, overtraining is a real syndrome characterized by a host of psychological and physiological symptoms. And this syndrome is one that takes months of high volume training to develop. Further, once legitimately over trained, it can take 8-12 months to recover from.
Now that this is cleared up, we can discuss what most people think of as over training – central nervous system fatigue. CNS fatigue manifests in some of the same ways as over training although it can be developed over a much shorter period of time and is fairly easy to recover from with a planned break.

To this end, CNS fatigue can very well become an issue with high levels of G-Flux if someone isn’t careful to diversify their exercise profile. Trying to accomplish a high level of G-Flux with all high-intensity exercise is a recipe for CNS fatigue.

However, when some low intensity work is thrown into the mix, CNS recovery is much improved. This is because high intensity work stimulates the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight) while low intensity work stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system (rest and digest). The balance between these two types of exercise is important, as originally proposed by Hans Selye in the 50s. It’s sort of a yin and yang thing.

So, although overtraining isn’t likely for the recreationally active, CNS fatigue can manifest if a proper balance of high and low intensity exercise isn’t achieved.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3 continued below...

[John M Berardi]

Continued from part 2...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The G-Flux Interview with Tom Venuto
Highlights From Part 3

Tom Venuto: On the energy expenditure side of the equation, we typically think of strength training and cardio training, but you’ve also talked about the importance of training “multiple muscle qualities” and “loading parameters” and using GPP, high intensity interval training and traditional aerobic training. Sounds complicated. How does the average person balance all of this training? Or is this just your way of saying, “don’t spend hours on a treadmill… “cross train” and “get some variety in your workouts.”

John Berardi: As discussed above, it’s fairly simple. The message is this: make sure you’re doing some resistance training, some interval exercise (very high intensity reps interspersed with very low intensity reps), and some low intensity cardio. Here’s what that might look like in practice:

Day 1 – Strength Exercise (60 minutes)
Day 2 – Interval Exercise (30 minutes) + Low Intensity Exercise (15 minutes)
Day 3 – Strength Exercise (60 minutes)
Day 4 – Interval Exercise (30 minutes) + Low Intensity Exercise (15 minutes)
Day 5 – Strength Exercise (60 minutes)
Day 6 – Interval Exercise (30 minutes) + Low Intensity Exercise (15 minutes)
Day 7 – Low Intensity Exercise (60 minutes)

Of course, based on your goals, your program might vary. The schedule above would be ideal for general body composition improvement as it involves some exercise every day and a healthy mix of high and low intensity work totaling 6 and ¼ hours of exercise per week.

Yet remember that not all of this exercise has to be done in the gym. Much of the interval work can be done outdoors and much of the lower intensity work can be done through play activities such as tennis, basketball, or going for a fast walk with your spouse, your kids, or your dog.

Tom Venuto. John, on one hand we have competitive athletes and bodybuilders, who are highly motivated and wouldn’t bat an eyelash at training 1 to 2 hours a day. In this group, I see the “whatever it takes” attitude, along with the physiques and performances that match it, I might add. But for the mainstream dieter, I have a feeling that “eat more, exercise more” is never going to be a popular approach and that only highly motivated individuals are going to embrace this concept. What are your thoughts?

John Berardi: As I mentioned in part one of this interview, we’re a sedentary society and there’s no getting around that. And, as I also mentioned, we’re built to move around a lot. Therefore we’re not doing what we were designed to do. And we’re paying the price.
So I don’t really have much of a message of hope for those who want short cuts or the easy way out. The best bodies are built on high levels of physical activity. That’s just the way it is.

Tom Venuto: It’s pretty obvious that our society has a quick fix mentality. I’ve noticed now more than ever that the fitness industry seems to be pandering to this attitude by trying to come up with programs that get more done in less time. In one regard, I think this is great - up to a point - because it helps people avoid all or none thinking and it helps people like executives and busy moms stay fit.

Unfortunately, I see this “less time - more results” attitude getting taken to ridiculous extremes with a never ending stream of “revolutionary” new workout programs based on “just minutes a day” and just a few days a week. What are your thoughts on the marketing of these super brief exercise programs and realistically, what can the average Joe expect from a minimal time commitment?

John Berardi: I’ll always laugh when I see these short programs (I think I saw a 4 minute and a 7 minute program recently) because they remind me of the 6 minute abs skit from the movie Something About Mary. Of course, I’m also laughing because I know they don’t work.

Sure, if the average Joe is a beginner, something is better than nothing. And this individual may see some small changes if they’re going from sedentary to 7 minutes. However, minimal time commitment eventually translates into minimal results.

Now, don’t get me wrong - I can respect someone who says: “I’m not willing to commit to more time so I’m OK with very small changes.” However, what drives me nuts is when folks expect huge returns on small investments. This is self-deception at its worst. Remember the 5 hour rule above. That’s the starting point for long-term health, body comp, and performance results.

Tom Venuto: Well, John, this has been very enlightening, thank you.

John Berardi: Thank you, Tom. It’s been great!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The full-length G-Flux Interview with Dr John Berardi and Tom Venuto is now available to Precision Nutrition Customers in the Online Resource Section of the Precision Nutrition Forums, specifically in the E-Book Section.

If you're not a Precision Nutrition Customer, click here to become one.

[Michael Stephens]

Great to see my 2 favourite fitness guru,s talking together. If people dont take note of this then leave them be, as you rightly point out in business as in life small investments only lead to small returns.
I think you gave short change to the emotional aspects of eating more. Most people would love to eat more compared to eating less and if the trade off is slightly more exercise (targeted) then so be it. I have never come across anyone when loosing weight or maintaining body weight who is sick of eating more. Dieting is such a depressing word, eating is not.
Thanks for a great article

Mike
fitkidfinder.com

[mikeo1313]

where is the "The entire full length interview" located?

[John M Berardi]

The full-length G-Flux Interview with Dr John Berardi and Tom Venuto is now available to Precision Nutrition Customers in the Online Resource Section of the Precision Nutrition Forums, specifically in the E-Book Section.

If you're not a Precision Nutrition Customer, click here to become one.

[Hook 'em]

Wow, you were right about this being the most in-depth interview ever, especially if this isn't the entire interview!

[aluschka]

Fantastic Whole interview is primo,but what jumped out for me was how JB nailed it here: "So I don’t really have much of a message of hope for those who want short cuts or the easy way out. The best bodies are built on high levels of physical activity. That’s just the way it is."

Last week I clocked 14 hours of physical activity.

Ciao

[rshea67]

Where can I get information on attending the May 19th and 20th seminar in Denver as mentioned in the G-Glux article?

[Jesus_Freak]

Hey John.
Thanks for that interview! Tom was the first person I read after I had been working out for 4 months with little progress. It was after reading him that I really started changing my physique. Anyway, it was good to remember those early days...

Jamey