The Infonian

By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
www.burnthefat.com

Fat burner supplements are advertised everywhere these days – on the internet, in magazines and even on TV. The ads almost always feature a very lean fitness model or bodybuilder and claim that these products, usually pills, were the secret to their six pack abs and very low body fat levels. Some of these ads suggest that the only way to get as lean as the “hot bodies” you see in the ads is by taking their “miracle pills” and that proper nutrition and exercise alone is not enough.

While I won’t dismiss the fact that there are ingredients in some fat “burner” products that might help a little bit, I take great displeasure in seeing misleading advertising claims as well as the misleading use of models who are often paid to endorse the product even though they may never have even used it (they’re just models!)

Many “fat burner” companies have been sued by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising, false claims and falsifying before and after photos.

In one of my previous newsletters, I said that in my opinion, 97% of your results come from nutrition and training and maybe you get an extra 3% advantage from supplements. Just so you know those numbers arent something I just pulled out of thin air, lets take an example:

That little extra doesnt hurt, especially when it’s delivered in a healthful package such as green tea (rather than central nervous system stimulants), but it’s minutia in the bigger picture. Another way to put this into perspective is to make a list of what other things would burn 75 calories (for 150 lb person:)

• walk your dog for 15 minutes
• walk for 5 minutes at normal casual pace three times a day
• 30 minutes of ironing
• bagging leaves and grass clippings for 14 minutes
• re arrange your furniture for 10 minutes
• wash your car, 15 minutes
• vacuuming for 15 minutes
• 7.2 minutes of walking up stairs (could be spread throughout the day)

Ah yes, but why move your body when you can take the pill and metabolism increases while you sit and watch TV? How about for your health? A body that is not moved, rots away. Unlike a car which only has so many miles on it and wears out from over-use, people are the only “machines” on earth that fall apart from under-use.

Here’s what any good personal trainer will always tell you: No amount of calorie restriction or pill-popping will ever give you FITNESS. It willl never give you STRENGTH. it will never get you MUSCULARITY. It will never give you FUNCTIONALITY. At best it will help you reduce body mass slightly.

On one hand, I’m tempted to say that everything counts and that yes, 75 calories here and 75 calories there, it ALL adds up, because it does. After you’re exercising regularly and all your fundamentals are in place, details and little things do matter.

I’m simply asking you to put the benefits of any fat burners in proper perspective and realize that (1) there is no “need” for taking them and (2) the claims made in the ads are often erroneous or exagerrated.

1. NEVER buy a fat burner unless you get independent verification of the claims made for the product.

2. Put it in perspective

3. See if there are any side effects or health warnings.

4. Read the label and see if the product contains enough active ingredient to even work.

5. Proprietary blend scam.

Some companies don’t let you see how much ingredient is in the product formula, because it contains multiple ingredients and they say their formula is a “trade secret” aka “proprietary”, so they list what is in the product but not how much. Well, if you don’t know how much is in there then how are you supposed to know whether it contains the proper dosage? (answer: you don’t!)

6. Make sure there is human research, not just rodent research.

7. Look for more than one human study.

Actually, I think it’s a good thing that nutrition and supplement companies fund and sponsor some of the research. They should. They should not only back up their claims with published clinical trials, they should share some of the cost of this expensive research.

Do you really need “more” than nutrition and exercise?

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using methods of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com

A news media feeding frenzy erupted recently when a new diet study broke in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Almost all the reporters got it wrong, wrong WRONG! So did most of the gloating low carb forumites and bloggers. Come to think of it, almost everyone interpreted this study wrong. Some valuable insights came out of this study, but almost everyone missed them because they were too busy believing what the news said or defending their own cherished belief systems …

The new study, titled, “Weight Loss With a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet” was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in issue 359, number 3.

I quickly read the full text of the research paper the day it was published. Then, I shook my head in dismay as I scanned the news headlines. I found it amusing that the media turned this into a three ring circus, putting a misleading “low carb versus high carb,” “Atkins vindicated” or “Diet wars” spin on the story. But that’s mainstream journalism for you, right? Gotta sell those papers!

Just look at some of these headlines:

“Study Tips Scales in Atkins Diets Favor: Low Carb Regimen Better Than Low Fat Diet For Weight And Cholesterol, Major Study Shows. “

“Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets Face Off “ “The Never-Ending Diet Wars” “Low Carb Beats Low Fat in Diet Duel.” “Atkins Diet is Safe and Far More Effective Than a Low-Fat One, Study Says” “Unrestricted Low-Carb Diet Wins Hands Down”

Some of these headlines are hilarious! I wonder if any of these reporters actually read the whole study. Geez. Is it too much trouble to read 13 pages before you write a story that will be read by millions of already confused people suffering the pain and frustration of obesity?

Here’s a quick look at the study design.

The low fat restricted calorie diet was based on American Heart Association guidelines. Calorie intake was set at 1500 for women, 1800 a day for men with 30% of calories from fat, and only 10% from saturated fat. Participants were instructed to eat low fat grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high fat snacks.

The Mediterranean diet group was placed on a moderate fat, restricted calorie program rich in vegetables and low in red meat, with poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb. Energy intake was restricted to 1500 calories per day for women and 1800 calories per day for men with a goal of no more than 35% of calorie from fat. Added fat came mostly from nuts and olive oil.

The low carb diet was a non-restricted calorie plan aimed at providing 20 grams of carbs per day for the 2 month induction phase with a gradual increase to 120 grams per day to maintain the weight loss. Intakes of total calories, protein and fat were not limited. However, the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of protein (more on that bizarre-twist shortly).

The study subjects were mostly male (86%), overweight (BMI 31) and middle age (mean age 52)

Here were the study results:

There were some health improvements in cholesterol, blood pressure and other parameters in the Mediterranean and low carb group that bested the high carb group. That was the focus of many articles and discussions that appeared on the net this week. However, I’d like to focus on the weight loss aspect as I’m not a medical doctor and fat loss is the primary subject matter of this website. All three groups lost weight. The low carb group lost 5.5 kilos, the Mediterranean group lost 4.6 kilos and the low fat group lost 3.3 kilograms…. IN TWO YEARS! Whoopee!

My conclusion would be that the results were similar and that none of the diets worked very well over the long term!

Amanda Gardner of the US News and World Report Health Day was one of the few reporters who got it right:

“Diet plans produce similar results: Study finds Mediterranean and low-carb diets work just as well as low fat ones.”

Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times also came close with her headline:

“Long term diet study suggests success is hard to come by: In a tightly controlled experiment, obese people lost an average of just 6 to 10 pounds over two years.”

Even this headline wasn’t 100% accurate. The study was HARDLY tightly controlled. Tightly controlled means metabolic ward studies where the researchers actually count and control the calorie intake.

The problem is, you can’t lock people in a hospital or research center ward for two years. So in this study, they used a food frequency questionnaire. Sure, like we believe what people report about their eating habits at restaurants and at home behind closed doors! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

“No! I swear Dr. Schwarzfuchs! I swear I didn’t eat those donuts over the weekend! I stayed on my Mediterranean diet. Honest!”

One of the most firmly established facts in dietetics research is that almost everyone underreports their food intake BADLY, sometimes by as much as 50%. I’m not saying everyone “lies,” they just forget or don’t know. In fact, this underreporting of calorie intake is such a huge problem that it makes obesity research very difficult to do and conclusions difficult to draw from free-living studies. Another blunder in the news reports is that this study didn’t really follow Atkins diet parameters OR even the traditional low fat diet for that matter, so it’s not an “Atkin’s versus Ornish” showdown at all. If you actually take the time to read the full text of the research paper it doesn’t say ANYTHING like, “Atkins is the best after all.” That’s the spin that some of the news media cooked up (and what the Atkins foundation was hoping for). It says, “The diet was based on the Atkins diet.” However, the sentence right before that says, “The participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein.” Vegetarian Atkins? The chart on page 236 says the low carb diet provided 40% of calories from carbs at 6, 12 and 24 months. If I’m reading that data properly, then the only low carb period was a brief induction phase in the very beginning. Does that sound like Atkins? 40% carb sounds more like the Zone diet or my own  program to me.

The Atkins Foundation, which partially supported this study, told reporters, “We feel vindicated.” HA! They should have paid the reporters and told the researchers they felt ripped off and they wanted a refund for misuse of their research grant!

After carefully reading the full text of this study, there are many interesting findings we could talk about, from the differences in results between men and women to the improvements in health markers. Here’s what the study really says that stood out to me. It’s what I would have talked about if the newspapers or TV stations had called me:

1. “Mediterranean and low carb diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets.”

I can agree completely with that statement. All three diets created a calorie deficit. All three groups lost weight. Low carb lost a little more, which is the usual finding because low carb diets often control appetite and calorie intake automatically (you eat less even if you don’t count calories). Also, if body composition is not indicated, there’s an initial water weight loss that makes low carb diets look more effective in the very early stages.

2. “Personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions.”

Absolutely! Nutrition should be individualized based on goals, health status, body type, activity level and numerous other factors. Different people have different phenotypes. Some people are more predisposed to thrive on a low carb approach. Others feel like crap on low carbs and do better with more carbs or a middle of the road approach. Those who dogmatically follow and defend one type of diet or the other are only handcuffing themselves by limiting their options. Iris Shai, a researcher in the study said, “We can’t rely on one diet fits all.” Hmm, far cry from “Atkins wins hands down,” wouldn’t you say?

3. “The rate of adherence to a study diet was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years.”

THIS was the part of most interest to me. When I read this, immediately I could have cared less about the silly low carb versus high carb wars that the news reporters were jumping on. I wanted to know WHY the subjects were able to stick with it so well. Of course, that’s boring stuff to journalists… adherence? What does that word mean anyway? Yawn – not interesting enough for prime time, I guess. But it was interesting to me, and I hope YOU pay attention to what I found. The authors of the study wrote:

“This trial suggests a model that might be applied more broadly in the workplace. Using the employer as a health coach could be an effective way to improve health. The model of group intervention with the use of dietary group sessions, spousal support, food labels, and monthly weighing in the workplace within the framework of a health promotion campaign might yield weight reduction and long term health benefits.”

Hmmmmm, lets see: * Dietician coaching
* Group meetings
* Motivational phone calls
* Spousal support
* Workplace monitoring (corporate health program)
* Food labels – calorie monitoring
* Weigh-ins (required and monitored)

Wow, everything helpful to long term fat loss that sticks. Can you say, ACCOUNTABILITY? These factors help explain the better adherence.

By the way, the adherence rate for the low carb group was the lowest.

90.4% in low fat group
85.3% in the Mediterranean group
78% in the low carb group

Here’s the bottom line, the way I see it:

First, please, please, please learn how to find and read primary research and take the news media stories with a grain of salt. If you want to know who died, what burned down or what hurricane is coming, tune in to the news – they do a GREAT job at that. If you want to know how to lose weight or improve your health, look up the original research papers instead of taking second hand information at face value.

Second, those who prefer a low carb approach; more power to them. Most studies, this one included, show at the very least that low carb is an option and it’s not necessarily an unhealthy one if done intelligently. I also have no qualms with someone claiming that low carb diets are slightly more effective for weight loss, especially in the short term, free living situations. Is low carb superior for fat loss in the long haul? That’s STILL highly debatable. It’s probably superior for some people, but not for others.

Third, low carb people, listen up! Even if low carb is superior, that doesn’t mean calories don’t count. Deny this at your own peril. In fact, this study shows the reverse. The low carb group was in a larger negative energy balance than the high carb and Mediterranean group (according to the data published in this paper), which easily explains the greater weight loss. Posting the calories contained in foods in the cafeteria may have improved the results and helped with compliance in all groups.

When energy intake is matched calorie for calorie, the advantage of a low carb diet shrinks or disappears. For most people, low carb is a hunger management or calorie control weight loss advantage, not metabolic magic (sorry, no magic folks!)

Fourth, choose the nutrition program that’s most appropriate for your personal preferences, your current health condition, your genetics (or phenotype) and most important of all… the one you can stick with. Then tend your own garden instead of wasting time criticizing how the other guy is eating. Your results will speak for themselves in the end. Take your shirt off and show us.

If I were forced to choose only one approach (and thank god I’m not), I would recommend avoiding the extremes of very low carb or very low fat or very high fat or very high carbs. Balance makes the most sense to me, and the research suggests that this helps produce the highest compliance rate. That’s not rocket science either, it’s common sense. If you have a serious fat loss goal, as when I compete in bodybuilding, then a further reduction in carbs and increase in protein makes perfect sense to me as a peaking diet. If an extremely low or extremely high carb diet worked for you, great. But generalizing your experience to the entire rest of the world makes no sense. Arguing from extremes is the weakest form of argument. The reason I have THREE nutrition plans (three phases) in my own fat loss program is because programs with flexibility and room for individualization beat the others hands down in the long term. In fact, I wrote an entire chapter in my e-book about unique body types, how to determine yours and how to individualize your nutrition – it’s THAT important. If you have more choices, you have more power. The people who are shackled by dogma and narrow thinking are stuck. They also risk missing what’s really important. Things like: Personalization
Adherence
Long-term Maintenance
Accountability
Social Support

and…

CALORIES!

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com
PS. If you want to learn more about a balanced, flexible and proven approach, which teaches nutritional individuality and which can produce similar weight loss in one month, month after month, that the subjects of this study produced in TWO YEARS, (if you ADHERE to it!), then visit my fat loss website.

About the Author:

I have very little interest these days in all the media-hyped stories of dramatic, rapid losses of body weight. “Big losers” don’t impress me, for numerous reasons. For example, weight is not fat. “Weight” could be composed of mostly lean tissue, or it could be mostly water weight. In fact, I would go a step further and point out that rapid loss of bodyweight correlates very highly with a greater chance of relapse, weight re-gain and long term failure.

So what does impress me? What gets my attention?

I pay attention to what the “long term maintainers” have to say – those are the people who have maintained an ideal weight for over a year… preferably even 2-5 years or more.

The difference between losers and maintainers

As I was researching the subject of long term weight maintenance recently, I was surprised at the huge amount of research that’s already been done in this area.

One paper that caught my interest was published by Judy Kruger and colleagues in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, titled,

“Dietary and physical activity behaviors among adults successful at weight loss maintenance.”

This was not an experimental study, but a compilation of data from the “Styles Survey” which was representative of the U.S. population and asked respondents questions about strategies to aid with maintaining an ideal weight.

In this particular survey, only one-third (30.96%) of the respondents said they were successful at keeping their weight off. The researchers wanted to know the difference between the small group that was successful and the majority that were not.

Both groups reduced the amount of food they consumed, they ate smaller portions, more fruits and vegetables, fewer fatty foods and fewer sweetened beverages.

Not really any surprises there, but what we want to know most is not what losers and maintainers have in common, but what the maintainers did that the losers didn’t.

Some major differences emerged between losers and maintainers:

First, a significantly higher proportion of successful maintainers reported exercising 30 minutes or more daily, and they also reported adding other physical activity to their daily schedules (recreation, sports, physical work, etc). In addition, more of the successful maintainers included weight training in their exercise regimens than did the losers.

Reducing sedentary activities (TV watching, etc) was also a significant difference between those who successfully maintained and those who did not.

The next big difference that separated the successful maintainers from the unsuccessful was in their “self-monitoring behaviors” including:

• tracking calories
• tracking body weight
• planning meals
• tracking fat
• measuring the amount of food on their plate

Unfortunately, these types of self-monitoring behaviors, especially weighing and measuring food and counting calories, are among the most avoided and even criticized weight control techniques. Some weight loss “experts” even claim that it’s detrimental to count calories, weigh yourself or measure and weigh your food.

However, these self monitoring behaviors are being identified more and more frequently in the research as part of “the difference that makes the difference.” I agree, and they have always played a major role in my own Burn The Fat program.

A final difference was that people who reported self-perceived “barriers” to their success were 48-76% less likely to be a successful maintainer.

For example, they said they had no time to exercise, they were too tired to exercise or it was too hard to maintain an exercise routine. I interpret this as: the unsuccessful losers were excuse makers!

THE TOP 5 STRATEGIES TO BE A SUCCESSFUL MAINTAINER

So let’s recap and turn these research findings into some practical action steps you can apply today.

1. Increase your total daily activity level, including formal exercise as well as sports, physical work or recreational activity. Exercise improves weight loss, but more importantly, it is critical for weight maintenance.

2. Decrease sedentary recreational activities by cutting back on TV watching, computer games and web surfing. Take up physical recreation such as sports, boating, biking, walking, hiking, gardening, physical hobbies and playing with your kids, if you have them.

3. Include weight training as part of your formal exercise program, throughout the fat loss phase and even more seriously during maintenance.

4. Track and monitor everything! Count calories and nutrients, measure your portion sizes, weigh your food, plan your menus in writing and monitor your body weight and body fat percentage.

5. Avoid excuses and maintain positive beliefs and attitudes towards your environment and what you perceive as “barriers.” For example, say, “I can always make time for what is most important to me” instead of, “I don’t have time to exercise.”

If you’re currently on a fat loss journey, and you want to know how good your odds are for being a successful maintainer, it’s pretty easy to predict using these 5 strategies. If you’re not using all 5 of them yet, then when would be a good time to start today?

There are limitations to survey results such as these, including the fact that they are cross sectional, and therefore cannot prove causality. However, I believe these findings are important and significant.

Not only do they confirm previous similar studies and agree with the findings of other groups of successful maintainers (such as the National Weight Control Registry), I found that these results match precisely what I’ve seen among my most successful “ Burn The Fat ” clients.

THIS is the type of advice I’d suggest you listen to the most: Advice about how to lose body FAT, not body WEIGHT, and how to maintain an ideal bodyweight and body composition over the long haul, not how to lose weight as fast as possible.

Your friend and coach,

Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com

P.S. There was one more “difference that made the difference,” in this study, and this one may surprise you (although it didn’t surprise me). Successful maintainers were LESS likely to take over the counter diet products (pills, etc).

About the Author:

If you want to burn off fat and keep it off permanently, there are a few things you absolutely must do, and a new study from Wake Forest University has just uncovered another one…

Previous research has concluded without a shred of doubt that high levels of exercise are one of the keys to keeping fat off and maintaining your ideal weight. In this new study just published in the October 2008 issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, researchers found for the first time, proof that the drop in physical activity that happens automatically during calorie restriction is directly correlated to weight regain.

We’ve known for some time that when you restrict calories, your level of non exercise physical activity (non exercise activity thermogenesis or NEAT), drops spontaneously, even if you don’t realize it’s happening.

Your physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) also tends to drop when you restrict calories.

Basically, when you cut calories, you get sluggish, you move your body less, you don’t feel like exercising and if you do exercise, you do it with with less “gusto.”

This means that unless you intentionally counter this tendency by pushing yourself to keep active and keep up the intensity, despite your low calorie intake, your weight loss will slow down automatically as you continue with caloric restriction. (can you say, “fat loss plateau?”)

The new twist to this story is that in this latest study the researchers followed up on the subjects through the maintenance period – with 6 month and 12 month checkups.

This is significant, because most fat loss “success stories” are reported immediately after the weight loss phase, but you never know what happened to them afterwards.

Not surprisingly, it wasn’t much of a “maintanence” period… almost everyone regained most of the weight.

The surprise was WHY they regained back the weight and WHO regained the most…

The drop in physical activity during the diet was directly related to the weight regain after the diet!

The researchers wrote,

“The greater the decrease in physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) during the energy deficit, the greater the weight gain during the follow up.”

“That won’t happen to me,” you say? Think again. That drop in activity usually happens unconsciously. It’s part of the “starvation response” (or “weight-regulating mechanism” if you prefer). Your body tricks you in countless ways, in order to restore energy balance and stabilize your weight.

If you believe that diet alone is the answer or that you can skimp on the training, you are shooting yourself in the foot and thinking short-term.

When you extend out your time frame to a year or longer, you get a whole new perspective.

For years, I have been imploring my readers and subscribers to www.burnthefat.com with higher levels of exercise – strength training AND cardio training – while “feeding the muscle” with a higher intake of clean food, instead of simply “starving the fat” with low calorie diets and little or no exercise.

“Eat More, Burn More”… “BURN The fat FEED the muscle.” those are the mottos you want to remember.

Can you lose weight without exercise? Of course. Just be sure you have a dietary-induced calorie deficit. Is it the best way? Not by a long shot.

Bottom line: If you want to MAXIMIZE your fat loss, and keep fat off permanently, it is imperative not only to keep up a high level of energy expenditure (BURN calories not just cut them), but also to make a conscious effort to make sure your activity level does not drop as you lose weight during the calorie deficit.

If you’d like to learn more about this effective and proven approach to fat loss: “eat more, burn more,” then please visit my “Burn The Fat” website at www.burnthefat.com

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.burnthefat.com

www.burnthefat.com About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com

A new study just published in a recent issue of the journal Obesity has revealed that thin people eat very differently than heavy people at all-you-can-eat buffet restaurants.

Researcher Brian Wansink and his team from the Cornell University Food and Brand Laboratory observed diners at 11 different Chinese buffet restaurants across the United States.

Their goal was to find out whether the eating behaviors of people at all-you-can-eat buffets varied based on their body mass.

Trained observers recorded the height, weight, gender, age, and behavior of 213 patrons. The various seating, serving and eating behaviors were then compared across BMI levels.

The heavier (higher BMI) patrons:

• ate more quickly
• chewed more food per bite
• used forks
• sat facing the food buffet

The thin (lower BMI) patrons:

• ate more slowly
• chewed less food per bite
• used chopsticks
• sat facing away from the food buffet

This study confirms earlier research from the University of Rhode Island published in the journal of the American Dietetic Association which found that eating slowly leads to decreases in energy intake.

Scientists even have a name for this now:

“TIME-ENERGY DISPLACEMENT”

Time-Energy Displacement means that the more time you take to eat, the less energy (calories) you are likely to consume. The faster you eat, the more energy (calories) you’re likely to consume.

But wait, there’s even more! A study from the University of Alabama looked at satiety (how full a food makes you feel), energy density (calories per unit of volume) and eating time of various foods. To maximize the effects of Time-Energy Displacement, it was found even more advantageous to choose foods that FORCE you to ingest calories more slowly.

This includes choosing more:

Foods that have a high satiety factor such as high fiber and high water foods (so you feel fuller more quickly):

• Peas
• Red beans
• Raspberries
• Broccoli
• Green beans
• Chick Peas

Foods with a high “chew factor” (so you can’t eat them fast if you tried; you have to chew them thoroughly):

• Lean meats such as top round, lean sirloin
• Celery
• Apples
• Pears
• Peaches

Foods with a low energy density such as salad vegetables and greens (so you’d get tired of eating before you took in a lot of calories):

• Tomatoes
• Artichoke
• Cucumber
• Salad Greens
• Cabbage
• Okra

These results also confirm all the studies that have been advising us not to drink our calories. Liquid calories, especially soft drinks and dessert coffees are two of the biggest sources of excess calories in the typical American’s diet.

The problem: calories in liquid form can have a very high caloric density and can be consumed very quickly. Liquid calories also do not activate the satiety mechanism in your brain and gastrointestinal tract the way solid food does.

“Don’t inhale your food” used to be an admonishment about proper eating etiquette you heard from your mom. It is now scientifically-proven fat loss advice.

To learn more research-proven tips for burning fat, visit the “Burn The Fat” website at www.burnthefat.com

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto
Fat Loss Coach
www.burnthefat.com

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal trainer and freelance fitness writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com