Chapter 10

Nutrition And Weight Control

Discussions of nutrition in sport are generally full of facts and fallacies. Debates regarding the merits of various nutritional theories and ergogenic aids abound. Research in nutrition is advancing at a rapid pace and some of its findings have been able to resolve many of the controversies that have existed for years. Nevertheless, there are still many “gray” areas in the subject of nutrition, areas in which the facts are not fully understood. In this chapter, we will try to present some important nutrition facts, explode some fallacies and delineate some of the gray areas.

As is so often the case whenever approaches to performance enhancement are debated, there are at least two different schools of thought regarding nutrition. There are those who believe that most people, and even hard training athletes, receive perfectly adequate nutrition on virtually any diet. Their position is that “too much fuss is made about diet, almost any diet will do.” Many outstanding athletes subscribe to this view. Indeed, I have known world class athletes who have performed at astonishing levels on diets consisting of little more than beer and fatty processed meats. Other athletes make incredible claims regarding the importance of diet, estimating that diet is responsible for as much as 80% of athletic success. Not surprisingly, many such athletes have an interest in selling a particular kind of food supplement that they argue is “essential” for success.

The reasonable approach for most athletes lies somewhere between the extremes. Athletes who have truly poor dietary habits are probably undermining the strenuous training that they do. Athletes who take every supplement known to readers of “muscle magazine” ads are probably doing little more than making supplement manufacturers successful.

There are a number of important and basic nutrition rules that apply universally and should be followed by all serious athletes. However, as has been stressed throughout this book, there are individual differences among athletes. We vary in terms of our genetic make-up, in the environmental influences to which we are and have been exposed and in the way in which we respond to what we experience. These individual differences influence the nutritional needs of athletes as much as other needs.

Some athletes appear to have very limited nutritional needs. They can prosper on intakes of certain nutrients that could lead to a deficiency in others. It is possible that their digestive systems are especially effective at extracting needed nutrients from the foods they consume. Perhaps their bodies adjust very easily to large swings in the availability of certain nutrients. Perhaps these athletes train at levels that are easily handled by their bodies, and, therefore, their nutritional needs are modest. Perhaps stresses that can increase nutritional needs (e.g., smoking and emotional stress) are not significant in the lives of these athletes, again minimizing their nutritional needs. Whatever, the reasons, these athletes might not benefit significantly from improvements in their dietary regimes (though a better diet surely would not hurt their performance and might well improve their overall health).

Other athletes may fall on the opposite side of the spectrum. They may not assimilate certain nutrients very well, their ability to adjust to variations in nutrient levels may not be strong, their training may stimulate substantial changes in their bodies and they may be affected by various stressors that increase their need for certain nutrients. These athletes will certainly benefit from special attention to their diets. Indeed, an improvement in diet may make the difference between achieving their athletic goals and not doing so.

Still other athletes have allergies or manifest other forms of intolerance to certain foods. Symptoms such as skin rashes, indigestion, diarrhea, asthma, nasal congestion or rhinorrhea (runny nose) and even joint pain can result when some athletes ingest certain foods. Even some nutritionally outstanding foods are not well handled by some people; when this occurs, athletes should adjust their diets accordingly. In some cases, this will mean changing the way in which a food is prepared (e.g., a raw version of a food may cause intolerance problems while the cooked version is well assimilated). In other cases it will mean that a certain additive or supplement is needed to aid digestion. (For example, people with lactose—milk sugar— intolerance generally lack a digestive enzyme called lactase; when lactase is added to their milk, they have no difficulty in digesting it.) Finally, some athletes must avoid certain foods altogether.

Over time an athlete who experiments carefully with his or her body will come to know his or her needs, including ( to a certain extent) dietary . But while an athlete is learning, , a reasonable approach would be to provide the nutrients that the body needs and to err on the side of a little too much rather than too little.

At the very least, this means consuming a well balanced diet, perhaps taking a modest vitamin and mineral supplement and carefully balancing the intake of so called “macronutrients,” such as proteins and carbohydrates. For certain athletes (e.g., for those who must increase their lean body mass), it also means selective manipulation of dietary variables.

For athletes who want every potential edge that nutrition may provide, there are many nutritional supplements that cam be helpful, at least to some athletes. In the balance of this chapter, we will attempt to address nutrition from the standpoint of athletes who are conservative with respect to nutrition as well as those who wish to be more aggressive.

Even those athletes who tend to ignore nutrition because they feel fine consuming whatever they now eat should realize that sound nutritional habits set the stage for lifelong health and therefore should be a primary concern of every athlete. With any luck, an athlete’s career will span more than a decade and perhaps more than two (for athletes who compete as “masters,” that career might span half a century or more). Sound nutrition cannot help but maximize the length of both career and life.

As with maintenance of personal equipment and mental preparation, the primary responsibility for proper nutrition rests with the athlete. The coach can help to build technique, strength and flexibility but he or she cannot supervise an athlete’s diet. Only the athlete knows what he or she is consuming and what his or her true body weight is. Therefore, it is the athlete’s responsibility to monitor progress in these areas.

Our discussion will begin with an examination of the basic facts and principles of sound nutrition. Later in the chapter we will focus on some aspects of nutrition that help weightlifters reach ideal body weight and minimize body fat and discuss the use of nutritional supplements to facilitate lifting performances.

The Essential Nutrients

It is important to understand the nature of the nutrients that are available to the body. There are more than fifty substances that are required by the human body. These essential nutrients can be grouped into six major groups: carbohydrates, fats, protein, vitamins, minerals and water. Although we will be examining many of the nutrients in these categories individually, it is important to bear in mind that nutrients work synergistically. This means that they act on a combined basis in the body and that they can interact with one another to have effects which are greater than any one nutrient could achieve on its own. Similarly, the lack of one important nutrient in the diet can limit the effectiveness of others that are present.

Carbohydrates

Carbohydrates are perhaps the most important nutrient for the production of energy. There are four basic carbohydrate categories: monosaccharides, which include glucose (the main carbohydrate in the body), galactose and fructose (fruit sugar); disaccharides such as sucrose (table sugar) and lactose (the most common carbohydrate in milk); polysaccharides, which consist primarily of starch (potatoes, beans, corn, bread, spaghetti and rice) and fiber; and fiber (which is found in most fruits, vegetables and whole grains).Carbohydrates in the first three categories are important sources of energy for the human body, particularly for the bodies of athletes. Carbohydrates in the fourth category, fiber, are the only ones that humans cannot digest to yield energy,) yet they appear to have an important role in the human diet. Dietary fiber deserves some special attention because it is so often absent or limited in American diets. There are two kinds of fiber: water soluble and insoluble. Insoluble fiber acts primarily in the large intestine, where it absorbs water and produces soft stools. Insoluble fiber is believed to play a role in preventing irritable bowel syndrome and diverticular disease. (Whole grains, particularly the bran portion of those fibers, are good sources of insoluble fiber.) Soluble fiber is found in such foods as apples and citrus fruits. (This kind of fiber has been associated with reductions in serum cholesterol and protection against colon cancer.) Nutritionists recommend that twenty-five to fifty grams of fiber be consumed every day. It is estimated that the average American consumes only 40% of that target level. Carbohydrates which can be used for fuel differ in their effects on the body. Some release their energy more easily and directly than others. Some have a more profound effect on blood sugar levels.

The most common means for categorizing carbohydrates is to place them in one of two classes: simple or complex. Simple carbohydrates fall into the first two of the carbohydrate categories mentioned above. Complex carbohydrates include carbohydrates in the third and fourth categories. Nutritionists have long used the classifications of simple and complex carbohydrates to explain at least certain aspects of the behavior of different carbohydrates in the body (e.g., simple carbohydrates are digested more rapidly than complex ones).

Another system of classifying carbohydrates, the “glycemic index.” has emerged in recent years. The glycemic index is an indicator of how much a specific quantity of a particular food raises the blood sugar level in relation to some “reference” food (generally white bread or glucose). While glycemic indices are regarded as fairly accurate, variations occur within certain foods (e.g., the degree of ripeness of a banana can affect its glycemic index). Diabetics find the glycemic index of great value because they can use it to anticipate how particular meals are likely to change their blood sugar levels. The table below provides a list the glycemic indices of some common foods.

Food	Glycemic Index
Whole Meal Rye Bread	89
Whole Grain Pumpernickel Bread	68
Macaroni	64
Rice (instant, boiled 1 minute)	65
Brown Rice	81
Corn Flakes	121
Porridge Oats	89
Oatmeal Cookies	78
Water Biscuits	100
Baked Russet Potato	116
Yam	74
Baked Beans (canned)	70
Chick Peas (dried)	47
Chick Peas (canned)	60
Soy Beans (canned)	22
Apples	52
Bananas	84
Fructose	26
Sucrose (table sugar)	83
Honey	126
Milk	44
Potato Chips	77

Lipids

Lipids are a group of fat or fat like substances that are insoluble in water. There are three basic kinds of lipids that are of significance in the diet: triglycerides, phospholipids and cholesterol. Triglycerides make up more than 90% of lipids ingested and are the primary non-carbohydrate source of energy in the diet. They generally yield energy more slowly than carbohydrates and are therefore considered to be a “slow burning” source of energy. Phospholipids generally make up a very small portion of the lipids ingested (approximately 2%). Nevertheless, they serve an essential role in the emulsification of triglycerides (which aids in their absorption by the body) and in facilitating the interaction of water soluble and non-water-soluble substances in the body. Cholesterol serves a vital role as a precursor of a number of important hormones, as part of nerve tissue and in the creation of the bile salts, which play a vital role in digestion. (Cholesterol can have negative effects on the body as well, some of which will be discussed shortly.) The body typically manufactures significantly greater amounts of both phospholipids and cholesterol than are ingested in the diet, but the composition of a person’s diet can affect the amount of these lipids that the body manufactures (this is particularly true of cholesterol).

Triglycerides can categorized in at least two ways: by the length of the carbon chains that make up various fatty acids or by the categories of saturated and unsaturated fats. The length of the carbon chain that makes up a fatty acid is inversely related to its melting point and solubility. True short fatty acids are not part of a normal diet, but medium-chain fatty acids are found in such foods as milk, coconut oil and palm oil. Medium-chain fatty acids are absorbed by the body more quickly than long-chain fatty acids. Some research has suggested that medium-chain fatty acids are not easily converted by the body into body fat and that a diet unhealthfully high in medium-chain fatty acids may aid in fat loss.

Saturated fats are solid at room temperature and are derived primarily from animal sources (although vegetable sources of saturated fat include coconut oil and cocoa butter). Saturated fats tend to raise serum cholesterol levels (and the risk of heart disease) and appear to be risk factors in certain forms of cancer.

Unsaturated fats exist in a liquid form at room temperature. At least two fatty acids (linoleic and linolenic acids) are known to be essential to human nutrition and must be consumed regularly. These fats appear to pose less of a health risk than saturated fats, although some health experts believe that a high intake of unsaturated fats increases the risk of some kinds of cancer and certain other diseases.

The consumption of fat (especially in saturated forms) in the American diet is believed to be excessive. It is widely recommended that calories from fats comprise no more than 30% of the diet, and many nutritionists recommend an even lower level. It is generally recommended that one-third of this 30% be from saturated fats. Another third should come from polyunsaturated fats (sunflower, safflower and corn oil are good sources), and the remaining third should come from monounsaturated fats (olive, almond and canola oils are all good sources of these fats). If any of these unsaturated fats have been hydrogenated (e.g., converted into margarine), most of their value as unsaturated fats has been lost, and they behave much like saturated fats in the body.

Before leaving the subject of dietary lipids, a brief discussion of a related topic, serum cholesterol, is in order. Cholesterol has become a household word, one that most people fear. People often use the word cholesterol in discussing both dietary and serum (blood) levels of cholesterol, but there is a distinction. Dietary cholesterol typically accounts for only a third of the serum cholesterol levels of the body (the rest is manufactured by the body). Therefore, the mere control of cholesterol intake will not control cholesterol levels. Moreover, the association between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol appears to be weaker than was originally surmised. Instead, the serum cholesterol level and the level of triglycerides in the blood appear to be far more closely associated with the dietary level of saturated fats than with the dietary intake of cholesterol.

The interest in cholesterol initially arose when an association between total serum cholesterol and heart disease was discovered. It is now understood that the relationship between high density lipoproteins (HDLs) and low density lipoproteins (LDLs), or total cholesterol, is more important in predicting heart disease than total cholesterol levels. The higher the ratio of HDLs to either the LDL or total cholesterol, the better (a ratio of four or greater is considered to be a cause for concern, while ratios of three or below is considered good).

A number of studies have linked exercise to reductions in serum cholesterol and lipids, but the results in this area have not been universal. A more consistent result of exercise is in increase in HDL relative to LDL (considered to be a highly favorable response). While most studies conducted in this area have looked at aerobic exercise, evidence is mounting that weight training has the same effect.

Proteins

Proteins serve a fundamentally different purpose in the body than carbohydrates and fats. Although they can be an energy source, proteins contribute to the growth, rebuilding and repair of the tissues of the body. Consequently, proteins are often referred to as the “building blocks” of the body. These building blocks are of particular interest to those who are engaged in a training process (especially one that stimulates muscle hypertrophy), because proteins furnish the raw material that is used in the adaptation process.

Proteins are comprised of compounds called amino acids. More than twenty amino acids are used by the body for protein synthesis within the body. At least eight of these amino acids (isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan and valine) are considered “essential” or “indispensable” for adult humans. At least three other amino acids may be essential for optimal functioning; we know that infants require histidine, and adults may require it in small amounts, while there is some evidence that arginine and taurine may be needed under certain circumstances. The body appears to be incapable of manufacturing the essential amino acids, at least in significant amounts. The body is clearly capable of creating the non-essential amino acids needed by the body out of the essential ones.

Many foods contain proteins, but not all foods are good sources of dietary protein. The percentage of protein contained in some foods is far lower than in others. (For example, a cake may contain egg whites— a very good source of protein— but the egg white may represent such a small percentage of the total calories that the cake would have to be considered a poor overall source of protein.) Another factor affecting the protein value of foods is the presence of all of the essential amino acids. Some foods, such as unsweetened gelatin, contain a high percentage of protein but lack one or more of the essential amino acids. Such proteins cannot be fully used by the body for one of their most essential functions, building and restoring tissue. Foods which contain all of the essential amino acids are said to contain “complete” proteins.

While the presence of all of the essential amino acids in foods may technically make a protein “complete,” the body’s ability to effectively utilize the protein in those foods depends on the amino acid balance (the ratios of the essential amino acids to one another) found in those foods. In order for the body to fully utilize all of the amino acids present in a food, these amino acids must exist in a very specific relationship to one another. The closer the amino acid balance in a given food approximates that perfect relationship, the higher the “quality” of the protein.

In severe cases of amino acid imbalance, the presence of one amino acid in excess of others can actually depress the growth rate or even lead to protein toxicity. (Methionine and tyrosine are the most toxic of the amino acids, and threonine is the least toxic in this context.) In these cases, the addition of another amino acid can significantly improve overall protein utilization. Finally, actual protein toxicity can occur when an excess amount of one or more amino acids exists.

Another factor influencing the body’s ability to utilize ingested protein is their “bioavailability” (the degree to which the body is able to utilize them). A food may contain a certain amount of protein with amino acids in a certain relationship, but the body may not be able to absorb all of the proteins present. This may be because a given food contains chemicals which inhibit digestion of certain proteins. Food processing procedures (such as cooking) can also influence the degree to which proteins can be used by the body. For instance, heating proteins in the presence of certain sugars (like the heating of milk protein with milk sugar) can make lysine (one of the amino acids in milk) “unavailable” during the digestive process. Similarly, severe heating of any protein or severe treatment with an alkali can make lysine and cysteine unavailable. Finally, processes that can take place in stored foods can influence the availability of some proteins. For instance, certain kinds of oxidation can cause a loss of methionine.

Measuring the Quality of Proteins

Several indices have been developed to measure the overall biological values of proteins. Perhaps the oldest index involves measuring the constituent amino acids in a given food and grading the protein on the basis of the essential amino acid found in the smallest concentration in relation to animal or human needs. The problem with such an index is that it does not recognize that even foods completely lacking in one essential amino acid can promote slow growth and that foods vary in terms of their bioavailability.

In order to overcome these limitations, scientists have developed methods of evaluating the actual biologic effects of proteins on animals. Perhaps the oldest approach of this is the “protein efficiency ratio” or PER. The PER is derived from feeding proteins of various kinds (but equal in terms of the percentage of total dietary intake from protein) to young and growing animals. The scientists then observe the reactions of the animals in terms of weight gain per gram of protein eaten. A gain of 3 grams in body weight for each gram of protein eaten would yield a PER of 3.0, while a gain of .5 gram would yield a PER of .5. The main problem with the PER measure is that it tends to understate the value of lower value proteins. For example, in one study, casein had a PER of 2.8, while wheat gluten had a PER of .4. This suggests that casein is 7 times better than gluten in terms of protein quality. In reality, without any protein at all, the animal would actually lose body weight. Therefore, even a relatively low quality protein like gluten has a very positive effect in terms of arresting weight loss, and it actually contributes to a weight gain. Consequently, the true biological value of gluten relative to no protein at all makes it closer to casein in terms of its value to the body than using the PER measure would suggest.

An index called “biologic value” is currently the most widely accepted measure of protein quality. It measures the nitrogen (N) intake of proteins ingested and the output of N in the urine and feces and compares them with the same outputs on a zero protein diet. Any difference in the values of the N excreted in the zero protein diet and the amount excreted in the diet with a particular protein is presumed to be the amount that is not absorbed by the body. If equal amounts of two proteins (A and B) are ingested, and protein A does not increase the N excreted but protein B does, then protein A is considered to be superior to protein B.

Still another way to measure the quality of proteins is to compare the protein in the bodies of a group of animals after being fed a certain protein with the protein present in the bodies of a group of animals fed no protein. The protein gain in the bodies of the group fed the protein is compared to the amount of protein that they ingested, and the resulting proportion is called the net protein utilization (NPU). This gross measure has the advantage of reflecting the digestibility factor of proteins in that if two proteins are of equal value, and one is digested more effectively than the other, the better digested protein will have a higher NPU. Naturally, this also means that it will impossible to separate the influences of digestibility and inherent quality from one another if this measure is used exclusively.

Source	NPU
Eggs	94
Maize	51
Milk (human)	87
Milk (cow)	82
Millet	44
Rice	59
Soy	65
Wheat	48

The above table lists the NPUs  of some fairly common protein sources. Meat, fish and poultry have NPUs that are higher than any of the common vegetable sources of protein, but they are not as high as the values of eggs or human milk, which makes the NPU rankings similar to the PER’s.

The FDA has reportedly adopted a standard of protein quality called the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAs) for rating the quality of proteins. As its name suggests, this standard considers the amino acid profiles of various proteins and their bioavailability. The problem with the FDA’s application of PDCAAs is that the highest permissible value will reportedly be , and that value will be the equivalent of soy protein. Therefore, even if egg, milk or some other form of protein is of superior biological value, it will not merit a higher rating.

It is not uncommon for manufacturers of protein supplements to select the protein quality measure on which their supplement performs best and then to claim the superiority of their supplement on the basis of that score. Buyers of such supplements should judge their value with this in mind.

It must be remembered that, regardless of the protein quality measure that is used, the profile of a diet that is optimal in terms of protein has significant individual variations. For example, there is evidence to suggest that growing children require more well balanced essential amino acids than adults. Overall protein needs are believed to decline with age, but the decline in the need for essential amino acids is more pronounced. Individuals of the same age and sex differ with regard to their overall protein requirements and their requirements for individual essential amino acids; these requirements may vary significantly within the same individual under different conditions.

Vitamins

Vitamins are one of the six categories of nutrients that contain no calories and are therefore not direct sources of energy. Vitamins are substances which the body needs to carry on its metabolic processes effectively. Inadequate amounts of specific vitamins lead to deficiency diseases, and excessive amounts of specific vitamins can have toxic effects (some vitamins, such as vitamins A and D, are far more likely to have such effects than others).

There are thirteen nutrients which are conventionally categorized as vitamins (various writers have argued for the inclusion of additional substances in this category). The thirteen accepted vitamins are: A, D, E and K (the fat soluble vitamins which can be stored in the fat deposits of the body), thiamin (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), panthotenic acid (B5), pyridoxine (B6), biotin, folic acid, cyanocobalamin (B12) and C. The B vitamins and vitamin C cannot be stored by the body and therefore need to be consumed on a daily basis.

Minerals

Minerals are a second category of nutrients that contain no calories and are therefore not direct sources of energy. Minerals fall into two categories: macro and micro. The former are needed in large quantities on a regular basis. The macro-minerals are: calcium, chloride, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, sodium and sulfur. Micro-minerals include: chromium, copper, fluoride, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium and zinc. This latter category of nutrients are needed in only very small amounts. (There is evidence that the minerals arsenic, boron, bromine, fluorine, germanium, lead, nickel, silicon, tin and vanadium are required in extremely small amounts as well.) It is believed that an adequate supply of most of the micro and macro minerals is obtained from diets that might be considered relatively poor from the standpoint of the presence of other nutrients. The only minerals which generally raise concerns with respect to the potential for deficiencies are calcium, iron (especially in female athletes), iodine, zinc and magnesium.

Nutritionists generally agree that one macro-mineral is consumed in excess in the typical American diet: sodium (commonly referred to as salt). Many foods contain substantial amounts of salt, and many people add salt to their foods as well. It is recommended that salt intake be no more than 1 gram per 1000 calories of food consumed (assuming a reasonable caloric intake). Nutritionists have established standards for the amount of various vitamins and minerals that should be consumed daily for optimal health, referred to in the US as the RDA. The table below shows the RDAs of key vitamins and minerals, along with a possible “athlete dose” for those engaged in strenuous training.

Water and the Importance of Maintaining Proper Hydration

Although it is perhaps the single most important nutrient in the human diet, the importance of water is often overlooked by athletes. Nutritionists often recommend a dietary intake of six to eight glasses of water a day. (Virtually any fluid counts as “water” as far as the body’s requirements for hydration, but substances other than water have different effects on the body.) However, the temperature and humidity of the air the athlete is training in, the mass of the athlete and the strenuousness of the activity can all affect an athlete’s need for fluids. A hard training athlete can easily lose two gallons of water in a day through his or her lungs, skin and urine.

Maintaining the proper level of hydration is important for all athletes, but it is typically less of an issue for weightlifters than many other kinds of athletes. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, weightlifting training, particularly low repetitions with significant rest between sets, does not raise body temperature and metabolism as much as aerobic activities. Another factor is that weightlifting is an indoor sport. Because workouts often take place under temperature controlled conditions, the dehydration that can arise in extremely hot temperatures is generally not a problem faced by weightlifters. Finally, water is normally available at the workout site, and rests between sets provide ample opportunity for fluid replacement. Therefore, weightlifters generally find maintaining hydration to be relatively convenient.

Naturally, when a weightlifter faces the prospect of training in high temperature and humidity (particularly when temperature and humidity are both in excess of 70^o Fahrenheit and 70%, respectively), in areas where no fluids are readily available, or after dehydration has already occurred as a result of weight loss, special care must be taken to avoid dehydration.

Some research has suggested that dehydration of as little as 2% of body weight is enough to negatively impact the cardiovascular and thermoregulatory systems and may have a negative effect on endurance. (It appears that larger reductions are required in order to affect strength, but reactions to dehydration vary with the individual, and some athletes may react negatively to small fluid losses while others continue to perform well after substantial losses.) Regular consumption of fluids (particularly water) during the entire workout, well before the sensation of thirst is experienced, is the key to avoiding dehydration.

 After an athlete has intentionally dehydrated (e.g., when making weight), special efforts must be made to rehydrate through a conscious effort to consume fluids. Fluids with carbohydrate concentrations of 80 g to 100 g per liter of fluid are emptied from the stomach faster than plain water and so facilitate rapid rehydration, but if fluid replacement is more important than energy replacement and extensive amounts of fluids are needed in order to maintain or restore proper hydration, more diluted solutions are preferable in order to avoid excessive carbohydrate consumption. Guzzling water is not a sound approach to rehydration because it can lead to significant gastric discomfort (though consumption of up to 600 ml of fluid at one time may speed gastric emptying). Persistently sipping water at the rate of approximately 100 ml to 200 ml every ten to fifteen minutes is generally the most appropriate way to rehydrate.

Meeting Nutritional Requirements

Now that we have discussed the essential nutrients, we will look at how much of each is desirable (other than water, which we have already dealt with) and how to assure that you are meeting your requirements. For this purpose, nutrients can be divided into two broad and not necessarily mutually exclusive categories: nutrients which are the building blocks of the body’s various tissues and/or help it to carry on its chemical activities (vitamins, minerals and proteins) and those which supply the body with energy (carbohydrates, fats and proteins). Proteins serve as both a building block and an energy source for the body but are typically more important as the raw material for growth and repair. We will begin by looking at recommended dietary intakes of vitamins and minerals.

RDAs, U.S. RDAs And The Vitamin and Mineral Requirements Of Athletes

Nutritional scientists have worked for many years to establish recommendations with regard to the daily intake of nutrients. Organizations concerned with public health in a number of countries (including the United States) have developed “recommended dietary intakes” for their populations. The World Health Organization of the United Nations has done this as well.

In the United States. the Food and Nutrition Board, a committee of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, has developed Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). These RDAs have been designed with the objective of meeting the needs of the vast majority of the population. This was done by first estimating the needs of the average population. Variability in the need for each nutrient was then considered and statistical techniques were employed to project levels of each nutrient that would satisfy the needs of 90% of the population. A further increase was then made in the recommended nutrient levels to allow for individual inefficiencies in the absorption of nutrients. The net result of these steps was to reach a level of nutrient intake sufficient to meet the needs of 98% of the population (with a significant margin of error for the majority of the population). In order to make RDAs more accurate, specific RDAs have been developed for more than a dozen different populations, based on considerations of age and sex (e.g., infants under the age of six months, adult males aged nineteen to twenty-four).

RDAs should not be confused with U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowances (U.S. RDAs), which are derived from, but not identical to, the RDAs. U.S. RDAs have been used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in nutritional labeling.

While RDAs have been established for many nutrients, information regarding others was regarded as insufficient to establish specific RDAs. For many such nutrients, ranges of intake that are considered safe and adequate have been established. All RDA recommendations are expressed in terms of daily intakes, but it is not considered essential for the intake of each nutrient to meet such a standard each day, as long as the average daily intake of these nutrients does meet these standards over time.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding regarding RDAs. While they have been designed to meet the needs of the majority of the population, even the staunchest advocates of RDAs admit that they are not meant to be used as individual recommendations. They are public health tools which in reality say that if the overall population receives these levels of nutrients, then the overall population will not suffer from nutritional deficiencies. So concerned were scientists about the misinterpretations of recommended dietary intakes that the concept of RDAs replaced a previous concept that was regarded as less clear.

Prior to the advent of RDAs, nutritional standards called Minimum Daily Requirements (MDRs) were employed in the United States. The use of the term MDR was regarded as inappropriate because the levels of nutrients described were not guaranteed to meet the minimum needs of each person in any population. The more flexible concept of RDA merely says that the RDA of each nutrient is expected to meet the needs of most of the population.

There are a number of known conditions which affect nutritional needs. For instance, pregnancy and lactation increase the need for calcium, protein, iron, vitamin D and other nutrients, and post-menopausal women may have a greater need for calcium than younger women. A high protein diet leads to the excretion of more calcium than usual, so there may be a need for additional calcium in the diets of those with high protein intakes. In short, there are many factors which can affect the need for various nutrients.

This distinction should not be lost on athletes. First, high level athletes, particularly hard training weightlifters, may not fit the category of the general population from a nutritional standpoint. They are subjecting their bodies to unusual levels and kinds of stress. Such populations are not addressed by the RDAs. Second, individuals, hard training or not, may have needs that are very different from those addressed by the RDAs. Studies performed on athletes do not suggest that doses of vitamins well in excess of the RDAs help performance, but individual differences may still make intakes in excess of RDAs useful for particular athletes. Of the nutrients studied, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin C, vitamin E and iron (for female athletes) appear to be the nutrients that are the most likely to be needed in increased amounts as a consequence of training. As a reference, Table 3 displays the 1989 versions of the RDAs for males aged 19 to 24. This population segment has been selected because its values are the highest, overall, in the RDA tables, at least among the RDA categories that are most likely to apply to athletes (some of the RDA’s for pregnant women are higher, but most pregnant women will not be competing in weightlifting.) The 1989 RDAs were the most current at the time this was written.

A number of writers and researchers in the area of athletic nutrition recommend that athletes (and even non-athletes) take much higher dosages of vitamins and minerals than those recommended by the RDA. Their logic is that the special stress of training creates special energy, rebuilding and growth needs. The ranges presented attempt to summarize the recommendations that have been made by some of the most popular of these authors.

Where “none” appears in a Table 3  column it means that the writers feel that no specific supplementation is required in this area because even a poor diet provides adequate amounts of this nutrient. See the Bibliography for some suggested reading in the area of vitamin and mineral megadosing.

When the evidence is considered insufficient by the creators of the RDA to formulate a specific RDA but they believe that a specific nutrient is required in some significant quantity, a Recommended Safe And Adequate Daily Dietary Intake (RDI) is often constructed; the recommendation is presented in a range instead of a specific number.

The issue of bioavailability (a measure of the amount of a given nutrient that can be absorbed from a specific food) was discussed earlier in this chapter in the section on proteins. The concept of bioavailability also applies to vitamins and minerals. Two foods may contain equal amounts of the same nutrient, but one may yield much more to the body during the digestive process. For example, only about 10% of the iron consumed is absorbed, with iron from animal sources being absorbed at a far higher rate than that from vegetable sources. The variations in the bioavailability of nutrients explain why erring on the side of extra nutrient intake appears to be a sensible practice, up to a point.

Nutrient Toxicity

Just as there are minimum requirements for optimum functioning, there are levels of nutrient intake that can impair functioning. It may be sound advice for an athlete to err on the side of extra nutrients, but that error too great, the risk of reaching a level of actual toxicity can become very real. In nutrition, as in almost everything else, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Fat soluble vitamins are the nutrients most likely to cause toxicity, and among them doses of at least ten times the RDA are needed to cause toxicity.

Energy Supplied by Proteins, Fats and Carbohydrates

Proteins, carbohydrates and fats are the only nutrients that supply the body with energy. The amount of that energy is almost universally measured by the kilocalorie, which is generally referred to as a calorie. A kilocalorie is the amount of fuel raise the temperature of a liter of water by 1^o Centigrade.

The average person burns approximately 1700 to 2200 calories a day, but every person has their own rate of energy expenditure (metabolic rate). A number of factors affect the metabolic rate. Total body mass, activity level and lean body mass all affect the metabolic rate (the higher the body mass, lean body mass and activity level, the higher the metabolic rate). Lean body mass is more directly related to caloric expenditure than total body mass, so one strategy for losing body fat is to increase your metabolism by increasing muscle mass. Since increased muscle mass is generally desirable for weightlifters, this is a doubly desirable result.

Activity level also has an important influence on metabolic rate. Increasing activity level causes the body to burn more calories during training, and the level of caloric expenditure can remain higher for a number of hours following activity, burning still more calories. In addition, vigorous exercise speeds the movement of food through the digestive tract, and this speed of movement may decrease the absorption of certain nutrients, which may further contribute to weight loss.

Proteins, carbohydrates and fats are not equal in terms of the amount of energy they yield. Protein and carbohydrates each supply approximately four kilocalories of energy per gram. Fats supply nine kilocalories per gram, more than twice the energy yield of carbohydrates and proteins. This is one of the reasons that low fat diets are often recommended as a means of losing weight.

The Special Protein Needs of Athletes

For many years athletes believed that you ate muscle to build muscle. Strength athletes almost universally accepted the notion that meat (which generally consists of the muscle of animals), and plenty of it, was needed to enhance performance. There was much myth and some sense in this view.

Clearly, a pre-game steak (a meal that is relatively high in fat and protein) is not beneficial to athletes, particularly those who are involved in endurance sports. There are a number of reasons for this. Fat requires more oxygen than carbohydrates in order to be metabolized. Digestion of protein generates certain byproducts that are believed to hinder performance. Neither proteins nor fat are converted to energy as efficiently as carbohydrates.

For years modern nutritionists maintained that athletes required no more protein in their diets than the average person (the RDA for males aged nineteen to twenty-four is 58 grams per day) and that their only legitimate need was for increased calories, which were best provided by carbohydrates. Today research appears to support what many athletes have believed for years: that extra protein does seem to be of value for athletes, particularly those who are interested in building strength and muscle size. Nutritionists are slowly accepting the notion that extra protein may be beneficial to athletes in special situations (i.e., when muscle tissue is being broken down and built up as a result of intense training).

How much protein does an athlete need? Typically, prescriptions are related to body weight. Standard nutritional recommendations for the general public typically range of from .75 gram to .90 gram per kilo of body weight. This recommendation assumes that the average person uses a little less than .5 gram of protein per kilo of body weight per day. The recommended dietary allowances are in the .75 to .90 range because it is assumed that the quality of protein ingested will not be perfect (in terms of its composition and bioavailability) and that there is a need to provide for individual differences with regard to protein needs.

Recent research suggests that hard training athletes may want to establish target levels of 1.5 to 2.0 grams per kilo of body weight (perhaps even more for the athlete who is training very hard and seeking to facilitate hypertrophy). This level of protein intake appears to have little chance of doing any harm (unless an athlete resorts to a diet that is high in fat as well as protein). For athletes who are already at the limits of their weight classes in terms of muscular body weight, the 1.5 to 2.0 range indicated above, or even less, may be perfectly adequate. Not surprisingly, individual differences need to be recognized. Some athletes who consume as much protein as was suggested will neither feel well nor perform well. Athletes who are growing very fast may find that even more protein is needed. Each athlete needs to monitor his or her own reaction to protein in order to devise a dietary plan that will work. In addition, the same athletes may have different needs during different periods in their athletic lives. When the athlete is moving up a weight class and training to encourage muscle growth, more protein may be needed. When the athlete is training less rigorously or is maintaining his or her body weight, protein needs will tend to decline.

In most cases, the hard training athlete will be able to achieve needed protein levels without altering the percentage of protein in the diet (12% to 15% of calories is generally considered to be a good target range). This is because the athlete who is training very hard is typically ingesting more calories than one who is not. Consequently, the protein intake per kilo of body weight is automatically higher than it is for an athlete with a lower caloric intake. The exception to this rule may be the weightlifter who is training very intensely but with a relatively low volume of exercise. In this case, the caloric requirements of the athlete may not be very much higher than the caloric requirements of a relatively sedentary person. This weightlifter may need a higher than normal percentage of protein in his or her diet in order to achieve adequate levels of protein intake.

Dietary Assessment

There are several ways an athlete can assure that his or her diet is adequate. The most sophisticated is to plan a specific diet from scratch by analyzing the nutritional content of various foods and then combining them to assure adequate intake of each nutrient. There are a number of guides available today that provide information on the vitamin, mineral, protein, fat and carbohydrate content of various foods (see the Bibliography for further information in this area).

Another approach is to monitor your intake of food over a period of time to determine what you are already obtaining through your diet and then to make adjustments to the diet as appropriate. It is normally recommended that you monitor the diet for one week, or at least two weekdays and one weekend day.

In order to properly monitor your diet, it is necessary to determine the quantity of each food that is being consumed. This can be done by measuring the quantity of the food ingested, by reading the food labels or by closely estimating the quantity.

ADA Dietary Exchange Lists

While the ideal means for monitoring diet is to know the nutritional content of every food that is eaten regularly, a shorthand way to gain an approximate idea of dietary content is to make use of “Dietary Exchange Lists.” These lists have been created by the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association. In an effort to enable those who must manage their diets carefully (particularly diabetics) to make simple substitutions among foods, a series of rough food equivalencies have been developed. Foods with similar protein, fat, carbohydrate and caloric contents are grouped together. If a dieter knows the identity of a reference food and the other foods that can be considered “equivalents,” it is easy to achieve a target dietary content with a wide variety of foods. There are six exchange categories: milk, vegetables, fruit, bread (starch), meat and fat.

The list that follows provides some common dietary exchange items in the category of “milk.” Full dietary exchange lists are available from the organizations mentioned above and in many books on nutrition. (See the Bibliography for further information.)

A Partial List of Milk Exchanges

Skim & Very Low Fat Milk: 1 cup of skim milk, 1 cup of non fat yogurt, 1 cup of low fat buttermilk

Low Fat Milk: 1 cup of 2% milk, 1 cup of low fat yogurt (these constitute one milk and one fat exchange)

Whole Milk: 1 cup of whole milk, 1 cup of whole-milk yogurt, 1/2 cup of evaporated milk (counts as one milk and two fat exchanges).

Four Basic Food Groups

Nutritionists generally recommend that a wide variety of foods be eaten. One way to get a proper balance of foods in their lives is to eat foods from each of the four food groups every day. The four groups are: 1) meat, fish and poultry; 2) milk and milk products; 3) bread and cereal; and 4) fruits and vegetables. Two daily portions of the foods in the meat and milk categories are suggested, while four daily portions of foods in the cereal and vegetable categories are recommended.

The concept of food groups is rather shallow because a person could eat a very poor diet while obeying the guidelines. (For example, you could eat four servings of high fat ice cream, two servings of french fries and two avocados and theoretically meet the guidelines despite having a very high level of dietary fat.) It is wise to t eat low fat varieties of the foods in these groups (particularly in the meat and dairy areas). Whole grains are preferable to processed grains because they generally contain more vitamins, minerals and fiber. You should avoid all foods prepared in ways that add calories from fat (e.g., by frying). At least one dark green vegetable and one fruit high in vitamin C should be eaten each day.

Nutritional Density

Nutritional density is a concept that has been introduced to make people aware that the same apparent volume of different foods (e.g., 100 grams) can have very different amounts of important nutrients. In some respects, foods which deliver large amounts of essential proteins, vitamins and minerals per 100 grams can be considered desirable because the person who consumes them gets a great deal of nutrition for the caloric value. (Densities also consider the fat content of foods, the single biggest factor in determining their caloric content.)

Some diets use the concept of density differently. They argue that the lower the density of a food (at least in terms of the caloric and fat density), the better. If a person consumes a similar volume of apple cake and fresh apples, that person will receive fewer calories from the apples, yet may feel as full. Consequently, a person who is seeking to lose weight may find it easier to do so if he or she focuses on foods with a large volume and a relatively small caloric value. In contrast, the hard training athlete who requires a large caloric intake may wish to ingest high density (though not necessarily high fat) foods.

Special Topics In Diet And Nutrition

The Ergogenic Application of Ordinary Foods and Nutrients and Special Ergogenic Substances

As has been noted in the earlier discussions of meeting nutritional needs, many people believe that athletes have special nutritional requirements because of their training. It should be reiterated that training should be distinguished from exercise. A person who engages in a routine form of exercise for the pleasure or benefits of that activity but does not attempt to increase the volume or loading of that exercise is not training in the sense in which most athletes and coaches use that term. Athletes are generally trying to improve their ability to function by stressing their bodies at progressively higher levels in order to force the body to make adaptations. In the case of weightlifters, most are trying to build functional muscle tissue (contractile proteins). Therefore, their form of activity is special. It may well be that this special form of exercise generates special needs for some or all nutrients. Research has not fully answered this question. While the jury is out, many athletes feel that it is a good idea to assure that they are getting extra amounts of the nutrients that their bodies require in order to assure the best possible growth from their training: hence the popularity among athletes of taking high doses of certain vitamins, minerals and proteins.

As long as these athletes stay well below the toxicity levels of the nutrients they consume, this extra nutrition should pose no problem. However, athletes should be aware that individuality works both ways. An athlete may have an individual requirement for certain nutrients, but he or she may also have a lower threshold for the toxicity of certain nutrients. Therefore, megadoses of nutrients are probably not a good idea. A sensible approach is to take some extra amounts of nutrients that are likely to have a positive effect and to monitor your response. If there is no response, the nutrient was probably in sufficient supply before the dosage was increased. If there is a positive response, the dosage can be maintained or raised to see if more is indeed better in this circumstance.

Scientific research in recent years has confirmed that intense exercise leads to the creation of substances called “free radicals” in the body. Free radicals are molecular fragments that damage the tissues with which they make contact. Certain nutrients help to minimize free radical damage. They include vitamins A (and Beta Carotene, a substance from which the body makes vitamin A at the rate of one unit of vitamin A for every six units of Beta Carotene), C, E, ubiquinone (also called. Coenzyme Q10), the mineral selenium and the amino acids L-glutathione and cysteine. The amounts of the vitamins A, C and E and selenium that were presented in the “athlete’s dose” of nutrients earlier free radical damage. Coenzyme Q10 dosages between 30 mg and 60 mg are often recommended, and amounts of 1 g and 2 g of glutathione and cysteine, respectively, have been recommended by some writers. While the antioxidant or anti-free-radical advocates were considered crackpots for a number of years, a growing number of people in the medical profession are beginning to embrace the importance of nutrition in this area, so athletes would be well advised to pay attention to what is going on with respect to antioxidant nutrition.

Although the importance of consuming proteins with a balanced amino acid content has already been explained, there are some nutritionists who recommend taking one or a group of amino acids to accomplish specific ends. For example, some writers have suggested that ingesting a dose of the branch chain amino acids (BCAAs) before and after the workout can be beneficial. (The branch chain amino acids are leucine, isoleucine and valine.) BCCAs make up a disproportional share of the proteins in muscle tissue and are depleted during exercise to a greater extent than other amino acids. The logic of pre-workout ingestion of BCCAs is that these amino acids may spare the BCCAs found in the muscle tissue. (Some studies have shown improvements in performance with pre-workout ingestion of BCAAs; thirty minutes to two hours before training is generally recommended.) Ingesting BCCAs shortly after training helps replace BCCAs lost from the muscle during exercise.

Amino acids such as arginine, glycine and ornithine have all been shown to increase the body’s production of growth hormone (sought after by strength athletes because of its anabolic effects). Unfortunately, injections of these substances have a more potent influence on growth hormone than oral dosage. In addition, the health risks of ingesting large amounts of these amino acids are not known.

Lactic acid builds up in muscles that are being exercised, and when it reaches a certain threshold, it inhibits muscular contractions. The ingestion of certain substances (e.g., sodium bicarbonate and sodium phosphate) to combat the build-up of acid has been shown to increase endurance, even in some short and high intensity events. Unfortunately, sodium bicarbonate in high doses causes diarrhea in many athletes, and both sodium bicarbonate and sodium phosphate contain sodium, large doses of which cannot be recommended.

Some athletes use a substance called carnitine in hopes that it will build their endurance, but it can have little effect on weightlifters. Ginseng (and a similar compound, eleutherococcus) and caffeine are believed by some to improve performance, but the former is illegal under USOC rules, and excessive doses of caffeine are also illegal, as is ephedrine (and herbs that have it, such as Ma Huang). Moreover, these substances could be expected to help endurance athletes more than weightlifters.

Trimethylglycine (TMG) and Dimethylglycine (DMG) have been identified by some writers as substances that enhance the delivery of oxygen to the muscles. The results of studies in these areas have been uneven. Inosine and creatine phosphate have both been cited as substances which can improve an athlete’s endurance. A number of athletes that I know believe that these substances have helped them, but research has yet to confirm any positive effects.

Boron is a mineral that has been virtually ignored by nutritionists until recent years. It is believed that it serves an important role in the formation of certain hormones. Most people’s diets probably contain adequate amounts of boron. But some sports nutritionists recommend supplementation in the range of 3 mg to 6 mg a day. Some claims have been made for the anabolic effects of larger dosages of boron, but they have yet to be supported by serious research.

GLA or gamma linolenic acid is a substance that the body needs in order to utilize the essential fatty acid called linoleic acid. Normally, gamma linolenic acid is created by the body from linoleic acid. However, older people suffer a decline in their ability to produce gamma linolenic acid, so some nutritionists recommend that older athletes supplement their diets with GLA.

D.L.Phenylalanine (DLPA) is believed to facilitate the release of endorphins by the body. Endorphins are the body’s natural pain killers, producers of a natural high. Supplementation with DLPA may make an athlete with chronic pain more comfortable during training, but the question is whether DLPA masks the pain so that the athlete does more than he or she should.

There is some evidence that certain forms of fats have beneficial effects on health, though not necessarily on athletic performance. In particular, the fish oils, eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docosahexinoic acid, have been cited as doing everything from preventing inappropriate blood clotting to easing the pain of arthritis. There do appear to be positive health effects that are worth investigating. Monounsaturated fats, such as those that are found in olive oil, are also believed to have positive effects on health, including controlling serum cholesterol levels.

Anabolic Steroids and Their Risks

There is little doubt that anabolic steroids can improve short term muscle size and strength. On both a scientific and empirical basis, the demonstrations of steroid effectiveness when used in conjunction with proper diet and exercise have been substantial. Despite their effectiveness in enhancing short term strength gains, the serious American athlete does not even consider using them for several reasons.

First, they are illegal in weightlifting competition. Athletes who are found guilty of steroid use face a four-year penalty from the USAW for a first offense and lifetime suspension for the second. Testing now takes place at all major competitions in the United States before any American team leaves on a trip to an international competition and (for our top athletes) randomly throughout the year, upon forty-eight hours’ notice. It is not practical for an athlete to attempt steroid usage, even if he or she is unconcerned about the health risks, his or her long term career in weightlifting or the moral issues of using steroids when other athletes are not.

Second, there are significant health risks associated with steroid use. While wild claims about steroid “causing” brain tumors and virtually every other ill known to mankind are unsupported by any scientific research, significant health risks have been identified. Use of anabolic steroids has been associated with elevated cholesterol levels, hypertension, serious degenerative changes in the liver and a number of other health problems. Some data also suggests that the long term use of anabolic steroids may increase risk of certain cancers and may make the tendons more subject to career threatening injuries.

For women, the negatives are even greater. Such side effects as a lowering of the voice, growth of new and coarser facial hair and other “masculinizing” effects of steroids are irreversible. (The extent of these effects is greater when an athlete uses testosterone as opposed to an anabolic steroid.) For most women, such physical changes are highly unwelcome.

Third, the use of steroids (other than under a physician’s care for specific medical conditions) is a felony. An athlete who would not dream of using illegal recreational drugs could acquire a criminal record through mere possession of steroids.

Fourth, there are moral implications. Because most athletes, at least in the United States, are clean, the athlete who uses steroids maintains an unfair advantage over his or her opponents.

Finally, on a very practical level, it can be argued that the use of anabolic steroids actually impedes rather than supports long term progress. There are several reasons for this. Steroid use cannot be continued indefinitely. Whether because a test is imminent or for health reasons, use must stop at some point. When it does, a large share of the improvements that are sustained through steroid use are lost. This has obvious physical consequences, but the psychological consequences can be far worse. An athlete who uses an external aid for his or her strength necessarily becomes dependent on that aid. When it is not available, the athlete faces a major problem. If he or she believes that the drug is responsible for his or her success, the athlete’s confidence will be greatly eroded when the drug is withdrawn. Many athletes whom I knew during the boom years of steroid use found it virtually impossible to be serious about training when they were not using drugs. In my view, this greatly undermined the effectiveness of their training when they were not taking steroids.

The opposite problem arises when the athlete ignores the effect that steroids may have had on performance. Such an athlete often attempts to maintain the very same volume and intensity of training as when he or she was using the drug. This results in overtraining and often in overuse injuries as well. The steady progress that an athlete can make year round, when steroids are not used, can make up for the larger, shorter term gains that a steroid user can enjoy.

The Time Factor in Nutrition

Just as training takes time to generate performance changes, so changes in diet often do not manifest themselves immediately. A dehydrated athlete may notice an improvement in performance within hours after rehydration has begun. Positive changes from other areas of dietary improvements may take weeks or months to manifest themselves. For instance, in the case of a sustained increase in the protein intake of an athlete whose body was deficient in protein, it will be some hours before the body begins to utilize it, several weeks before the increase is reflected in physical appearance and performance and several months before the full effects are manifested. This is because while the body is destroying and synthesizing protein constantly, the body requires several months to replace the majority of its proteins.

Therefore, an athlete who make appropriate dietary changes must give them a fair trial period before drawing a conclusion about their effects. While modifications in nutritional regimen need to be given time to work, the benefits of such changes certainly need not be accepted “on faith” forever. True improvements in nutrition (as opposed to mere changes in diet) should show results.

Eating Disorders

The primary reason for eating is the necessity to ingest certain nutrients on a regular basis. Two other important reasons for eating are that people enjoy eating and eating can be a positive social experience. As long as the amount and type of food consumed are appropriate, there is certainly no reason not to enjoy what we eat. Unfortunately, some people use food in an unhealthy way (apart from eating foods that are in themselves bad for the body). These people either chronically overeat or undereat; both of these behaviors can be deleterious to health and even life threatening.

Obesity

Chronic overeating leads to obesity. Obesity has a number of definitions, but perhaps the most widely accepted one in the United States is a body-fat level of 25% or more in males and 32% or more in females. (Body fat is now used instead of height and weight as the primary means for identifying obesity, because it has been recognized that extra weight can be attributed to additional muscle as well as additional fat.) Obesity has been linked to a number of serious health risks, such as hypertension, blood lipid levels and glucose tolerance, as well as to a number of health conditions, such as heart disease, arthritis and certain cancers.

A number of reasons have been cited for obesity, including low activity levels, lack of knowledge or concern over caloric intake, early feeding patterns, hormonal problems (which are probably quite rare), variations in the way the body adapts to reduced caloric intake and other hereditary factors. However, no case of obesity can resist dietary treatment if that treatment persists for a long enough period of time, and an appropriate diet is maintained thereafter.

Body-fat levels can increase through an increase in the number of fat cells a person has or an increase in the size of those cells. The number of cells is not believed to increase in mature persons, so any gains in their body fat are attributable to a hypertrophy of their fat cells (the fat cells of obese people may be two to three times the normal size). Studies suggest that the periods during which a person is most susceptible to an increase in the number of fat cells are during the last trimester of pregnancy, during the first year of life and during the adolescent growth spurt. Exercise during the growth years appears to depress the growth of new fat cells.

Weight loss is attributable solely to a reduction in the size of fat cells. The number of cells cannot be reduced by dieting. Therefore, controlling the number of fat cells that a child develops appears to be important in avoiding obesity. Obese people can have five to six times the normal number of fat cells (which of course predisposes them to obesity).

In a sport like weightlifting, obesity presents an insurmountable obstacle to success in all weight classes other than the unlimited body weight classes, because an obese athlete would be giving up too much in terms of lean body mass to other athletes of the same body weight. Some successful weightlifters in these unlimited classes have been obese or nearly so, but they are the exception rather than the rule. A number of athletes have used a combination of diet and weightlifting training to overcome obesity, and a number of athletes have reported that the practice of weightlifting has led to a far more dramatic decrease in body weight than the caloric expenditures that have been traced to weightlifting training would suggest.

Anorexia and Bulimia

Anorexia and bulimia are two eating disorders which are believed to be on the rise in the United States. They are particularly prevalent in young athletes who are in sports that can involve or benefit from a restriction in body weight. Since weightlifting is one such sport, these disorders can be a problem for weightlifters. Fortunately for weightlifting, most athletes and coaches recognize that in increase in lean body mass is generally desirable in terms of the long term performance of an athlete and therefore do not artificially restrict solid bodyweight growth. Nevertheless, weight restrictions do exist, so coaches and athletes should be aware of anorexia and bulimia.

Anorexia is an obsessive focus on body weight which manifests itself in extreme attempts to reduce caloric intake and/or to expend energy (e.g., through exercise or pharmaceutical intervention). It is believed that the vast majority (approximately 90%) of anorexics are women. The incidence of anorexia in the overall population is believed to be extremely small (perhaps 1 in 10,000 to 100,000), but in selected groups the rate of occurrence can be quite high (e.g., 1 in 100 in middle class adolescent girls and as high as 5 to 20 per 100 among ballerinas).

Bulimia is also an obsessive focus on body weight, but, in contrast with anorexia, bulimia manifests itself through binge eating followed by a variety of techniques to offset the binge (e.g., vomiting, fasting, the use of laxatives and diuretics). These behaviors can have extremely negative effects on health. Burning of the esophagus and other areas of the upper digestive tract with stomach acid is a common result of vomiting. Mineral depletion and severe electrolyte imbalances can result from the use of diuretics and laxatives, particularly when they are used for a long time.

The incidence of bulimia is believed to be much greater than anorexia. Bulimics tend to be somewhat older than anorexics, and a higher percentage of men suffer from this disorder than from anorexia. Some studies have shown that as many as 30% of female and 15% of male athletes who are in sports in which weight control is important are bulimic. One study reported that as many as 75% of female gymnasts who were told that their body weights were restricting their performance resorted to techniques of weight control that are associated with bulimia. Because weightlifting is a sport in which weight control is important, bulimia is a potential problem. Coaches should be aware of this and should counsel athletes regarding the risks of bulimic behaviors.

Fasting and Short Term Reductions in Food Consumption

Many old time strongmen believed in the value of fasting occasionally (often one day a week). They believed this practice permitted the digestive system to rest and cleanse itself. More modern athletes, particularly in Eastern Europe, have also experimented with fasting or temporarily reducing food intake. The theory behind this practice is that a sudden and temporary reduction in caloric intake will cause the body to absorb nutrients more effectively after the fast.

Determining Your Ideal Body Weight

One key to weightlifting success is increasing your functional lean body mass or muscle mass. (“Functional” in this context applies to the ability of this increased mass to enable the athlete to generate greater strength and power.) Increasing muscle mass is one of the most important ways to foster strength and power development. However, muscle mass, as it is currently defined, is not necessarily directly related to strength, because the ultrastructure of muscle (and the performance related factors therein) is affected by the kind of training that developed the muscle mass, not merely the mass itself.

The ratios of various components in the overall muscle tissue of bodybuilders and weightlifters tend to be different in a number of respects, primarily because of differences in training methods. As a result, a mere increase in the external diameter of an entire muscle does not have a strict correlation with an improvement in strength. In fact, the correlation may be surprisingly low. However, when the nature of the training that leads to an increase in muscle mass is appropriate (i.e., it leads to an improvement in the functioning of the contractile elements of the muscle), such an increase will generally lead to an increased potential for performance. Therefore, weightlifters will benefit from an increase in muscle mass that was “honestly” attained through strength training. But how much of an increase in muscle mass (and body weight) is appropriate?

There has long been a search for the “ideal” height/weight for weightlifters. In fact, many coaches will look at an athlete and say something like “he will be a 91 kg. lifter some day,” judging by the lifter’s height and approximate level of maturation. A number of studies in Eastern Europe over the years to have tried to determine the relationship of height to weight in various weight categories. Such studies usually looked at elite athletes, calculated the average height of athletes in each weight class, presented a range which encompasses most athletes and then suggested that this was the ideal range. There is some value in such information in that it can give the athlete and coach guidance in terms of which direction (a bodyweight increase or decrease) is likely to yield the best results for that athlete. But these are only guidelines. Individual athletes may lift better if they are outside the normal range of height for a given weight class. In fact, some of the best weightlifters have competed in weight classes that would generally be regarded as outside the normal range for athletes of their height.

Yuri Vardanian, one of the all time great lifters from the former Soviet Union, was taller than most of his competitors in the old 75 kg. and 82.5 kg. weight classes. Many would have thought that he was too tall for either class. When Yuri increased his body weight toward 90 kg., he continued to be outstanding, but not as much as at 82.5 kg.. Similarly, Naim Suleymanoglu, arguably the outstanding lifter of the 1980s and certainly one of the greatest lifters of all time, is shorter than most of his competitors. Although he was outstanding in the old 52 kg., 56 kg. and 60 kg. weight categories, Naim was at his best in the latter class, in spite of the fact that at approximately 5’ in height, he was shorter than many competitors in the lowest of these classes (52 kg.) and much shorter than his competitors in the class in which he was most outstanding (60 kg.).

How does an athlete find his or her ideal weight class? First, the athlete should realize that while most athletes find a “perfect” weight class for them, other athletes may be competitive in either of two weight classes or, on rare occasions, in more than two. Therefore, for many athletes, the ideal body weight is really a range, a range that may change somewhat over time. However, the importance of an athlete finding his or her best Bodyweight range must be emphasized. Many athletes spend considerable time (even a whole career) at the wrong body weight, with quite negative effects on their results.

In order to estimate his or her ideal range, the athlete must take into account present conditions and undertake careful experimentation. Important present conditions include the athlete’s current age, height, gender, body-fat levels, total training time (how long he or she has been training seriously), total time at their current body weight, recent rate of progress, dietary habits and current lifting strengths and weaknesses. Because these considerations can affect the appropriate body weight for a particular athlete, let us examine each one.

Height: Although height is not a perfect predictor of ultimate Bodyweight category, it does form a basis for a target range. Clearly, the athlete who is 5‘ tall should not plan to be in the 99 kg. category and the athlete who is 6’ tall should not expect to compete at 59 kg.. The table below summarizes Roman’s recommendations regarding the relationship of body weight and height. (It is based on research regarding the heights and weights of elite level Soviet weightlifters in the old ( pre-1993) body weight classes):

Table 4

Bdwt. Category	Ht. Range (cm)	Ht. Range (inches)
52	142-148	55.9-58.3
56	146-152	57.5-59.8
60	152.5-157.5	60-62
67.5	158-162	62.2-63.8
75	162-166	63.8-65.4
82.5	166-170	65.4-66.9
90	169-173	66.5-68.1
100	172.5-176.5	67.9-69.5
110	175.5-179.5	69.1-70.7
110+	180-192	70.9-75.6

The information in this chart should only be used as a guide. All along the way, whether increasing or reducing body weight toward the estimated category, the athlete should be monitoring the situation carefully in order to determine whether the expected optimization in performance is occurring. The blind pursuit of a bodyweight goal is senseless. If the direction is correct, performance should reflect this relatively quickly. If the lifter is increasing his or her body weight, a gain of a few solid pounds should manifest itself with some strength gains. If, in contrast, fat is being lost, performance should remain relatively stable (unless too much bodyweight is being lost, or it is lost too quickly).

Age: An athlete must take into account his or her age as well as height when Bodyweight class estimates are being made. One reason is because age has a relationship to ultimate height. The athlete who is thirteen is not going to remain at his or her current height as he or she matures. Therefore, the athlete’s likely adult height must be considered. One of the biggest mistakes that athletes and coaches make with young athletes is to have then remain at too light a body weight for too long because there is little competition for the athlete at that body weight. Young athletes need to grow. Holding their weight back may actually prevent them from reaching their full height, but it will most assuredly prevent them from reaching their full muscle mass and strength potentials. Naturally, if a young athlete is carrying significant adipose tissue (fat), it may be appropriate to avoid a weight gain until the athlete becomes leaner at the same body weight.

In the case of older athletes, the age factor suggests that a lighter weight class may be appropriate as the athlete ages. Since loss of muscle mass becomes evident in many athletes by the time they reach their late forties or early fifties, it makes sense for the athlete to consider reducing his or her body weight at this time. Certainly such a weight loss makes sense for athletes in their sixties or seventies. The athlete who competes at seventy in the same weight class that he or she did at thirty is almost certainly carrying significantly more body fat than at that earlier age.

Gender: Individualization in the process of determining an athlete’s ideal body weight should enable the athlete to adjust to any differences that can be attributed, at least in part, to gender. Nevertheless, it is useful to understand some of the tendencies that are related to gender so that a more accurate “fix” on a target body weight can be made. Women’s physique differs from men’s in ways that can influence the determination of an ideal body weight. First, women tend to have somewhat different relationships between performance and height. One consideration is their height in relation to their weight class. Women tend to be taller that men in the same weight class. This is because while their body fat percentages tend to be higher than men at the same body weight, their muscle mass tends to be smaller at the same body weight. More important, their muscle mass tends to be smaller at the same height. Therefore, they are taller in the same weight class. Another consideration related to gender is that women mature faster than men in most physical ways. For instance, a woman’s mature height is achieved at an earlier age than a man’s. A fourteen-year-old woman may not get much taller as an adult, but a male is likely to. Therefore, projecting the future weight class of a young woman is often easier than projecting the future weight class of a young man of the same age.

Bodyfat Levels: An athlete who carries substantial body fat should consider losing weight. Athletes differ with respect to the level of body fat that enables them to perform well. Some athletes can function very effectively with body-fat percentages as low as 5%. Others will feel weak at such a level and may feel more comfortable carrying 10% or even more. (Athletes in higher weight classes tend to carry higher levels of body fat with greater success, partially because the relationship of body weight and performance falls off after about 100 kg. in men, and at a much lower level of body weight in women. For men the level of lifting is not very much higher at 108 kg. than it is at 91 kg., and the level of lifting at 120 kg. is not very much higher than at 108 kg.. In the higher weight classes it appears that a modest gain in muscular body weight, even if there is a gain in body fat as well, leads to high enough performance to make the gain worthwhile. In lighter weight classes, changes in body weight tend to lead to more profound changes in performance.

Clearly, athletes (other than superheavyweights) who carry excessive levels of body fat are lifting against other athletes with larger lean body masses. They are thereby giving away a significant body weight advantage to those athletes. In addition, they are required to move their own body mass, which consists of a higher amount of non-functional tissue. The solution is to reduce their body fat while maintaining their muscle mass and to compete in a lower Bodyweight class. Alternatively, they can increase their muscle mass while reducing their body fat, so that they can lift in the same weight category but with a higher lean body mass.

Total Training Time in the Sport and Time Spent At Your Current Body Weight: These factors are important because after a time it appears that performance improvements become very difficult at the same body weight. A Soviet study done a number of years ago suggested that after seven to ten years of training, the only athletes who continued to improve significantly in terms of absolute performance were those who gained body weight. (Superheavyweights had the longest improvement curves.) Presumably, most of the neural and muscular training effects that can take place at a given body weight have occurred after a few years. The only way the athlete can make meaningful improvements after that (putting aside technique improvements) is to increase muscle mass and body weight (assuming the athlete was lean to begin with).

It is important to note that this assumes that the athlete’s training has enabled him or her to gain maximum performance out of existing lean body mass. For many athletes this is a somewhat dubious assumption. In many athletes, progress stops because that athlete has reached the maximum performance of which he or she is capable using particular training methods. Different methods might well yield better results. In addition, athletes at any level of achievement often reach a point at which their level of performance meets their needs. Better performance would be valued by such an athlete, but not enough to for that athlete to make any substantial new efforts. Such an athlete may have decided that performing at a certain level is satisfactory and then entered into a training mode that maintains performance but does not focus on improvement. This can occur either because the athlete has no serious competition or because he or she does not believe that performance at a higher level is a reasonable possibility.

In contrast, an athlete who is making an all out effort to progress, who has a low body-fat percentage and who has been at the same body weight for some time may do well to investigate a weight gain as a way to begin progressing again. If no progress has been made after a careful six-month effort to gain solid body weight (and at least several pounds of muscular body weight have been gained), the body weight increase was probably not a good idea.

Recent Rate Of Progress: This is an important factor in Bodyweight decisions because an athlete who is improving steadily at his or her current body weight rarely needs to consider a change in body weight. The old adage of “leaving well enough alone” applies. There is no particular need to explore weight gains if good progress is currently being made. However, as was noted above, if an athlete has been at the same body weight and lifts for an extended period, the possibility of increasing lean body mass should be considered. This is particularly true if a variety of training methods and technique improvement strategies have been exhausted and the athlete has sincerely been putting forth a maximum mental effort.

Dietary Habits: An athlete’s dietary practices should be examined to determine whether an improvement in diet might enhance progress. A sub-optimal intake of protein, carbohydrates, vitamins or minerals could be hindering training and the adaptation that is taking place as a result. An excessive intake of fats, sugars, alcohol, certain drugs and sodium or of overall calories could be supporting an unnecessarily high body weight or undermining progress in some other way. All of these possibilities should be ruled out before other options are considered. In cases where the diet is found to be inappropriate, a change can lead to increases in muscle mass, reductions in body fat, more training energy and better overall health (all of which can occur without any change in gross body weight).

Current Lifting Weaknesses And Strengths: This is another factor which can influence the decision to modify body weight. An athlete who has a serious strength deficiency is likely to find a careful weight gain to be very beneficial. For instance, an athlete who is strong technically but is often unable to stand up from the low position in the clean is a prime candidate for a Bodyweight increase. Increases in body weight generally yield disproportionate gains in squatting strength relative to strength gains made in other areas of the body. Many athletes who have had consistent difficulty standing up from their cleans have remedied the problem through a weight gain.

Mark Cameron, one of America’s greatest lifters in the old 100 kg. and 110 kg. categories (the first and still the only non-superheavyweight American to C&J more than 500 lb.) was a case in point. Mark was a pretty good lifter at 75 kg., but he regularly pulled in weights with which he was unable to stand. By the time Mark reached the 82.5 kg. category, he was an outstanding junior lifter, and the occasions on which he was unable to arise out of a low clean position were diminishing. When Mark grew into the 90 kg. category, he rose to national prominence on the senior level and was rarely, if ever, “pinned” in the full squat position. At 100 kg. and beyond, Mark reached a level of national dominance and medal contention at the World and Olympic competitions, and at this point, he generally stood out of his cleans quite easily.

In a contrasting case, my old training partner, Joe Gennaro, reduced his body weight precipitously to become one of the top lifters in the United States. Joe, pound for pound one of the strongest men I have ever known, began his lifting career as a superheavyweight. He placed second in the 1966 Teenage Nationals, weighing approximately 230 lb. at a height of approximately 5’4”. The following year Joe reduced his body weight to 165 lb.. It was a drastic and rapid weight reduction, and Joe lost a great deal of strength in the process. But through dedicated training he was able to increase his strength to higher levels than he had possessed when he was 65 pounds heavier. He later increased his body weight to 181 lb., at which point he was truly one of the strongest men in the world in his day. Had Joe remained in the superheavyweight class he never would have been competitive as a senior lifter.

In summary, every individual athlete has a body weight range in which he or she is most effective. For some athletes that range is rather large. These athletes become competitive at a certain body weight and then, as their weight increases, increase their performance along with competitive standards. For every athlete, however, there is a point at which added body weight does not yield improved results, and another point at which a reduction in body weight results in disproportionate strength losses. Between these two extremes is the athlete’s optimum body weight range.

Reaching premature conclusions regarding optimal body weight must be avoided. That range may be somewhat flexible. An athlete who has gained weight improperly (e.g., too quickly or with too great a gain in body fat) is likely to conclude that no benefit came from the gain. However, a more careful weight gain probably would have yielded far better results. Similarly, the athlete who has reduced through a crash diet and with limited training may have noted a precipitous fall in strength, a decline which might be counteracted after the athlete trains for some time at the new body weight. Finally, an older athlete may find better relative performance in a lower weight class, because of an age related reduction in muscle mass.

Once an athlete has reached his or her ideal body weight, that weight should be carefully maintained. Binge eating and crash dieting are neither healthy nor performance enhancing.

Minimizing Bodyfat

For most weightlifters (i.e., all but the superheavyweights), minimizing body fat is an important issue. Since there are weight classes in weightlifting competitions, weightlifters strive for maximum functional muscle mass and minimum body fat, so that they do not have to compete with athletes who have the same gross body mass but a greater lean body mass.

Standard height and weight tables that apply to the general public are virtually worthless for the weightlifter, primarily because such charts do not take into account the muscle mass that weightlifters develop through their training. Of course, there are some people who claim the right to ignore standard heighten and weight guidelines because they have so much muscle when in reality their claim to extra muscle is wildly inflated.

Visual inspection of your body can be a useful method for recognizing changes in body fat levels, if these inspections take place under consistent conditions. However, the only precise way to measure body fat is to remove chemically all of the fat from the subject’s body. Unfortunately, this requires that the subject be dead, an obvious drawback. Considering that drawback, several other approaches to assessing lean body mass include a skinfold test, underwater weighing, electronic impedance and some other means of assessing body fat in a direct or indirect manner.

Underwater weighing is considered the most accurate technique, but even it (and other similar methods) has the drawback of relying on statistics that were accumulated from populations that may not closely resemble the weightlifting population. Nevertheless, reasonable estimates can be made using this or the other techniques mentioned. Perhaps the greatest value of these methods is in helping the same person to measure progress over time. For instance, if an athlete loses 10 lb. pounds of body weight and his or her skinfolds remain essentially the same, this is not be considered a favorable sign. In contrast, a similar weight loss with a corresponding decrease in skinfolds suggests that the loss was primarily in body fat and not muscle.

Body fat can be important in certain circumstances; it insulates the body from the cold, protects the internal organs against trauma and supplies energy when food is unavailable. Most of these purposes are not significant in countries in which weightlifting is popular today. Exposure of the internal organs to trauma is not an everyday concern. Energy can be stored in the refrigerator instead of the waistline. A wide range of clothing is available to offer insulation from the cold (not to mention central heating, which precludes the need for insulation altogether).

Excessively low levels of body fat do present at least two other risks. One problem is that extremely low body-fat levels in women have been associated with amenorrhea (the absence or suppression of menstruation). Another problem, one that affects both men and women, is that as the body’s fat stores decrease, the body is more likely to utilize its lean body mass (muscle) for energy and other metabolic purposes. Reducing body weight nearly always results in a loss of some lean body mass; the lower the percentage of an athlete’s body fat, the more likely it is that this will occur.

Diet can have an important effect on both muscle mass and body fat, primarily because of its influence on the balance of caloric intake and expenditure. If an athlete wishes to decrease his or her body fat level, caloric expenditure must exceed intake. This can be accomplished by reducing caloric intake, increasing caloric expenditure or some combination of both. A rule of thumb that is used by nutritionists to explain the relationship of body fat and caloric intake is that one pound of fat equals 3500 calories. If someone wants to lose 1 lb. of fat, they must generate a caloric deficit of 3,500 calories.

It is likely that the distribution of calories among carbohydrates, fats and proteins (as well as overall caloric intake) has an influence on body composition. For instance, a reducing diet that minimized protein could be expected to result in a greater loss of lean body mass than one which maintained a reasonable level of protein intake. Some athletes seem to react favorably to a diet that reduces fat intake more than anything else while others seem to benefit from a low carbohydrate diet.

The average person burns approximately 1700 to 2200 calories a day (a person’s size and activity level materially affect this figure). It is generally recommended that caloric intake not be reduced below 1200 calories a day (which yields a negative caloric intake 500 to 1000 calories a day for the average person). For the athlete, a negative caloric balance of these proportions may be achieved at a much higher level of caloric intake because of the extra calories that an athlete expends during and after exercise (exercises burn extra calories from minutes to hours after activity ceases). There are two primary reasons for not creating a caloric deficit larger than 500 to 1000 calories. One reason is that balances which are much lower are likely to result in significant loss of lean body mass and actually pose a health risk to the dieter. The other reason for not reducing calories precipitously is that doing so can cause a reduction in the body’s basal metabolism rate, which may offset, to a certain extent, the reduction in calories in the diet. (This is less likely to be a problem among hard training athletes than among more sedentary individuals, partly because a large share of the athletes caloric expenditure is not affected by a change in the athlete’s basal metabolism rate.)

Most health authorities agree that the ideal weight loss goal is no more than 2 lb. a week, and a slower rate of weight loss is often recommended.

Diuretics (which are illegal under IOC, USOC and USAW rules), laxatives, rubber suits, saunas, vibrating belts and the like do not produce a permanent or healthy weight loss. Most of these techniques (other than vibrators, which simply make you feel better) merely dehydrate the athlete, which hurts performance, and, in cases of extreme weight loss, can result in serious illness or even death.

For the average, non-training person, merely reducing caloric intake is a relatively poor way to lose weight. It has been estimated that from one-third to one-half of the weight loss achieved solely by dieting consists of a loss of muscle mass. So a person who merely diets will become smaller overall, but the percentage of body fat that they carry may not change very much. Consequently, the person with a “pear” shape simply becomes a pear of smaller circumference, but the basic shape changes little, if at all. This is particularly true of the person over thirty, who is beginning to lose muscle mass as part of the aging process.

Exercising while dieting reduces the loss of lean body mass by as much as one-half or more. If a dieter exercises at a level of intensity sufficient to stimulate muscular hypertrophy, he or she will lose more fat than muscle during the weight loss process and may be able to avoid an overall loss of muscle mass altogether or even experience significant muscle hypertrophy, at least in certain areas of the body. Depending on the nature of the exercise performed and the diet undertaken, the net effect of diet and exercise may be a reduction in fat and an increase in lean body mass (muscle).

Some people fear that an increase in exercise will increase their appetite, offsetting any advantages they may gain from exercising while dieting. Studies have shown that light to moderate exercise over an extended period has no effect on appetite. More severe exercise conducted for a short period of time appears to suppress appetite.

During prolonged exercise, fatty acids extracted from the body’s fat stores are used for energy (through a process called lipolysis), and the utilization of these stores can persist for a significant period after the cessation of an exercise bout. (Therefore, the effect of exercise on the reduction of body fat may go beyond what would be predicted on the basis of the extra caloric expenditure that took place during the exercises.)

In the case of a weightlifter who is training properly, stimulation toward hypertrophy (or at least the maintenance of muscle mass) is occurring continually. Therefore, a weightlifter may safely lose weight merely by decreasing caloric intake. Nevertheless, even for the weightlifter, increasing the energy expenditure through a certain amount of aerobic exercise may be more beneficial than merely cutting calories. However, there are limits to the benefits of aerobic exercise for weightlifters. Our current understanding of muscle physiology, as well as practical experience, tells us that extensive aerobic exercise beyond a moderate level will interfere with hypertrophy and strength improvements. Safe limits appear to be somewhat above the level of aerobic exercise that is required to maintain aerobic fitness (i.e., three weekly sessions which result in the maintenance of a target pulse rate for twenty minutes). On the other hand, training for distance running and similar endeavors appear to be out.

Athletes who lose substantial body weight (more than 10%) often notice the following pattern. During the early stages of weight loss, the rate of loss is rapid, and the effect on strength is small. This is one of the reasons that rapid weight loss prior to competition (primarily due to dehydration and a reduction of the volume of food in the athlete’s digestive tract) often results in little diminution in performance. As the process continues, weight loss becomes slower, and the athlete often begins to notice a reduction in strength as the loss of body weight mounts. This decline in strength can become precipitous for athletes who are losing substantially more than 10% of body weight. Athletes have described this phenomenon as the “bottom falling out.” Fortunately, this is a temporary phenomena for the athlete who persists. After strength bottoms out at approximately the point where weight loss stops (or shortly thereafter), it stabilizes and then begins to move in the direction of previous levels. Although strength may not actually reach those levels (that depends on how much body weight, especially lean muscle mass, was lost), athletes who stick with a sensible training program report a remarkable recovery of strength after some period of time (typically several months). Athletes who become discouraged too early may regain weight too soon or give up training in disgust when a little more persistence would have led to success.

Gaining Muscular Bodyweight

Many young athletes need to gain muscular bodyweight in order to reach their potential in weightlifting. There are four keys to this process: adequate caloric intake, adequate intake of protein, a training stimulus sufficient to stimulate growth and avoidance of activities that tear the body down.

In order  to gain weight the athlete must take in more calories than he or she expends. Calories can be increased by consuming a greater quantity of food and/or increasing its caloric density. Athletes who are trying to gain weight may need to eat in a way that would not be encouraged for the average person. This is not a license to eat candy bars and donuts all day. But most athletes will find that an increase in dietary fat (through increased milk consumption or and increase in fish and vegetable oils) will aid in the weight gaining process.

Protein has already been discussed at length, so we will not repeat that discussion here, but the athlete should be reminded that complete proteins are the building blocks for muscle tissue and particular attention must be paid to getting adequate protein when the weight gaining process is under way.

Exercise must be if sufficient volume and intensity to facilitate weight gains. Exercise creates the demand for muscle tissue and food supplies the needed material. Training hard without adequate nutrients may improve performance but it will not increase muscular bodyweight. Eating more without training hard will simply increase your bodyfat.

Measuring what you eat is at least as important when you are trying to gain weight as it is when you are trying to lose it. If you want to gain weight you may have to eat when you are not hungry simply to raise your caloric and/or protein intake sufficiently. This does not justify pure gluttony—weight must be gained slowly if it is to be truly effective. A gain of one or two pounds should be held for a while (at least a few weeks) in order  to get the most out of the increase. Once a performance improvement has been noted, a little more weight can be added. Bloating up all at once will not yield the desired results. Sudden and dramatic weight gains are possible for bodybuilders who are “pumping” their  muscles with high reps. But they are generally developing the kind of “showy” muscle that will be of limited help to the weightlifter, who needs every pound of bodyweight to be fully functional in  terms of increased strength and power.

Finally, the athlete who is working to gain weight should minimize the stresses of life outside of training and get plenty of rest. In the earlier chapter of this book on mental preparation it was noted that when Paul Anderson was training for maximum improvements he would rather ride than walk, would rather sit down than stand and would rather lie down than sit up. Similarly, it was mentioned that former Mr. Universe, Reg Park, said that he made the greatest gains in muscular bodyweight in his life when he stayed in  bed all day and got up only to train. These are extreme cases but they make the point that the body has only so much energy to support life and adaptation, Frittering that energy away with unnecessary activity, late nights out or mental stress will prevent the athlete from reaching his or her full potential, whether he or she is trying to gain weight or not.

Eating To Perform Well In Training And In Competition

Eating well is important for athletes at all times, but special approaches to eating can improve an athlete’s performance in training and in competition. It appears that the effectiveness of certain nutrients in meeting the body’s needs is determined not only by what you eat, but also by when you eat.

Eating in the Days Before the Event

It is advisable for the athlete to build up his or her energy stores prior to a competitive event. For the weightlifter, consuming a diet relatively high in carbohydrates the day before the event should be more than sufficient (this may not be possible for the athlete who is making weight).

Athletes who participate in endurance sports often engage in a special kind of diet and exercise regime designed to deplete the bodies glycogen stores and then to permit the body to overcompensate before the event. This process is called “carbohydrate loading.” Carbohydrate loading is not believed to be beneficial for weightlifters because weightlifters do not expend a great deal of physical energy during competition. Moreover, carbohydrate loading tends to cause the athlete to retain additional water along with the extra energy stores. This additional weight will tend to slow an athlete down. Decreased speed of movement and increased body weight are both bad developments for weightlifters.

The Pre-Game Meal

It is generally recommended that the pre-game meal for athletic events consist primarily of a mixture of complex and simple carbohydrates but be low in protein and fat. Protein is harder to digest than most carbohydrates and generates more metabolic wastes. Fats are harder to digest than carbohydrates and require oxygen to assist in the digestive process. Fats also slow the rate of gastric emptying, the opposite of what the athlete desires. (Athletes generally want rapid digestion of their pre-game meal so that they do not feel full or bloated during the event.)

The pre-game meal is not as much of an issue in weightlifting as in other sports. This is because the competition itself does not require a great deal of physical energy, because foods and liquids are relatively easy to consume during the event and because weightlifters do not process a great deal of additional oxygen as a result of the competitive lifting process.

As was suggested in Chapter 8, a meal that the athlete feels comfortable with is probably more conducive to high performance than one that has been scientifically created for competition but with which the athlete does not feel comfortable.

When one eats and the amount that is consumed can be as important as what one eats. For example, I cannot eat for at least two (and preferably three or four) hours before a training session or competition. If I do, my stomach is very uncomfortable during the competition or training session. In contrast, I know other lifters who feel ready to lift after finishing a full meal. Each lifter must experiment to determine the best approach for him or her. It is best to work this out well before any competition, so that unpleasant surprises do not arise during the competition itself. When in doubt, it is generally advisable to have an empty stomach rather than one that is too full.

Dehydration is not normally a problem for weightlifters because most competitions are conducted in climate controlled conditions. If conditions of high temperature and humidity do exist, or the athlete has dehydrated to make weight, consistent fluid consumption should begin immediately after the weigh-in. The athlete should not rely on a feeling of thirst to precipitate fluid intake. Rather, fluids should be ingested at the approximate rate of 100 ml to 200 ml of fluid every ten to fifteen minutes, at least until the athlete’s normal body weight has been regained (or the high temperature/humidity conditions cease).

Eating During the Event

Under conditions of forced rehydration, there will be a need to urinate frequently. Therefore, it is important to know the location and availability of restroom facilities and to provide ample time during warm-ups for any necessary visits to those facilities.

During the event it is important to maintain hydration and to occasionally supply the body with some carbohydrates (e.g., 25 g to 50 g every thirty minutes or so). This can be accomplished most easily by ingesting a cup of fluid that has a 6% concentration of carbohydrates every fifteen to twenty minutes. In this way both fluid and energy needs are satisfied at one time and in a form that is easy for the body to assimilate. A solution that is less than 5% carbohydrates will not supply significant energy, and one that is more than 10% carbohydrates can result in cramps, diarrhea and nausea, none of which is welcome at any time, but all of which are problematical during a competition. Solutions that are high in carbohydrates will also slow the process of gastric emptying. (Most fluid is absorbed in the body by the small intestine, so any delay in the process of gastric emptying is undesirable.) Sodium in concentrates of 10 m/Ml to 30 m/Ml speeds the absorption of fluids, and a fluid temperature of 6^o to 12^o Centigrade hastens the speed of gastric emptying. Cold fluids also help the athlete to reduce his or her body temperature in hot weather.

Fructose is absorbed and metabolized more slowly than other simple carbohydrates, so it may help to prevent the development of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) during the event. Glucose polymers (complex carbohydrates that are digested more slowly than simple sugars) are considered by many nutritionists as an ideal muscle fuel during and after exercise. A mix that has a small amount (less than 10%) of fructose and a balance of more complex carbohydrates appears optimal.

Consumption of 50 g to 100 g of carbohydrates per hour of exercise is believed to delay the onset of fatigue. This is best done by sipping a solution with 5% to 10% concentration of carbohydrates during training, so that you are meeting fluid and carbohydrate needs simultaneously.

Post-Game Meals

There are two primary nutritional concerns immediately after an event is over: rehydration (if needed) and the replenishment of carbohydrate stores. Some research suggests that volumes of fluids in excess of 800 ml per hour cannot be effectively absorbed. Therefore, when fluid loss exceeds that level or dehydration has occurred prior to the event, replenishment of fluids lost during exercise must continue after the exercise or event is over.

Meals that are relatively high in both simple and complex carbohydrates are optimal for the replacement of carbohydrate stores. Because the body (particularly the muscles) has a great need for carbohydrate replenishment following exercise, it is believed that the replenishment of muscle glycogen (energy) stores is facilitated when carbohydrates are consumed as quickly as possible after exercise .Some protein intake assists the body in the repair of tissue that has been torn down during a particularly strenuous bout of training or competition.

Summary

Great performers in all walks of life agree that excellence is built upon attention to detail. Proper nutrition is one of those details, one that should never be overlooked. Training stimulates the body to rebuild itself to perform at a higher level. Sound nutrition supplies the body with the raw materials that it needs for the rebuilding process. Nutritional management also permits the athlete to modify his or her body weight and body composition as is appropriate, a true key to weightlifting success. Therefore, training without giving proper attention to nutrition is nothing less than foolish. On the other hand, relying on miracle foods for strength and Bodyweight gains is no less foolhardy. You need to use the right bricks in the right way in order to build the perfect house, but more bricks will not make the house more perfect: so it is with nutrition, restoration and the body.

No matter how careful or genetically gifted an athlete may be, it is likely that her or she will face the prospect of on injury some day. The next chapter deals with preventing, treating and training around injuries.