Brandon DaCruz returns: Refeeds and Diet Breaks: What the Research Shows and How to Use Them

WEBVTT

00:00.000 --> 00:18.840
Hey everyone, it's Mikki here, you're listening to Mikkipedia, and this week on the podcast I am joined again by Brandon DeCruz in the next in our collaborative series, bringing together our perspectives on nutrition, fat loss, and body composition.

00:19.460 --> 00:26.820
And today, this episode focuses on diet breaks and refeeds, and how they can be used strategically during a fat loss phase.

00:26.820 --> 00:39.160
So, we break down the difference between a structured refeed and a longer diet break, why neither should be treated as a cheat meal, and what actually happens as a calorie deficit becomes harder to sustain.

00:39.720 --> 00:51.640
We discuss the research showing that refeeds don't necessarily accelerate fat loss, but may still be useful for managing hunger, diet fatigue, training performance, and ultimately, adherence.

00:51.980 --> 00:56.160
We also share how we use these strategies in practice.

00:56.160 --> 01:04.220
Including my scheduled refeeds in Monday's Matter, and how to structure higher carbohydrate days without turning them into a free-for-all.

01:04.480 --> 01:12.340
Who is most likely to benefit from a diet break or a refeed, and why sometimes the best strategy is simply to keep doing what's already working.

01:12.680 --> 01:22.020
So, I'm super excited to bring this series to you guys, particularly just having that opportunity to sit down with Brandon and discuss this stuff.

01:22.020 --> 01:26.140
He is such a brainiac, and I'm loving getting his perspective on all of this.

01:26.160 --> 01:31.800
All of the strategies that are ultimately helping you sort of achieve your goals.

01:32.120 --> 01:45.760
For those of you unfamiliar with Brandon, he is an online nutrition and physique coach, accredited nutritionist, functional nutrition and metabolism specialist, and health and fitness educator with over 16 years coaching experience.

01:45.760 --> 01:56.060
And Brandon is known for his ability to translate complex scientific concepts into practical, actionable strategies, and he specializes in helping clients lose body fat.

01:56.420 --> 02:04.300
Build muscle, improve metabolic health, and create sustainable long-term results without relying on extremes or quick fixes.

02:04.900 --> 02:08.200
As I said, this is a collaborative series with Brandon.

02:08.200 --> 02:17.200
He is also the host of the Chasing Clarity Health and Fitness podcast, a show that is ranked in the top 5% of all podcasts on Spotify, which is amazing.

02:18.140 --> 02:24.520
And through both solo episodes and conversations with many of the industry's leading researchers and educators,

02:24.800 --> 02:26.120
Chasing Clarity aims to bring you the best of both worlds.

02:26.120 --> 02:26.220
He is also the host of the Chasing Clarity Health and Fitness podcast, a show that is ranked in the top 5% of all podcasts on Spotify, which is amazing.

02:26.220 --> 02:26.280
He is also the host of the Chasing Clarity Health and Fitness podcast, a show that is ranked in the top 5% of all podcasts on Spotify, which is amazing.

02:26.280 --> 02:37.380
And Brandon has been on this podcast multiple times at this point.

02:37.620 --> 02:45.620
And so, as I said, super excited to continue to bring these collaborative efforts to suit both of our audiences.

02:46.100 --> 02:54.960
Now, before we crack on into our discussion, I would like to remind you that the best way to support Mikkipedia and get me in the top 5% of Spotify, that'd be amazing,

02:54.960 --> 02:56.100
is to hit subscribe.

02:56.120 --> 03:01.020
button on your favorite podcast listening platform. That increases the visibility of

03:01.020 --> 03:05.880
Mikkipedia and it makes literally thousands of other podcasts out there. So more people get to

03:05.880 --> 03:11.180
hear the conversations that I have on the show, such as the one you're about to listen to with

03:11.180 --> 03:17.140
Brandon. And while you're there, why not just leave me a five-star review? That would be amazing.

03:17.660 --> 03:23.900
All right, guys, enjoy the conversation. Today, we're tackling refeeds and diet breaks.

03:23.900 --> 03:26.880
These strategies have been used in the bodybuilding and physique coaching

03:26.880 --> 03:31.300
industry for decades, but depending on who you listen to, you'll hear very different claims

03:31.300 --> 03:36.000
about what they actually do. Some people argue that they boost leptin, prevent metabolic adaptation,

03:36.480 --> 03:40.980
restore hormones, or even improve fat loss. And then others will argue that they're unnecessary

03:40.980 --> 03:45.420
and simply slow down the dieting process. And in reality, it's much more nuanced.

03:45.760 --> 03:49.460
So today, we're going to cover five main areas. We'll discuss refeeds, diet breaks,

03:49.460 --> 03:53.680
and the other strategies that are often grouped together. We'll discuss what happens physiologically

03:53.680 --> 03:58.820
and psychologically as a fat loss phase progresses and why these tools may become useful. We'll break

03:58.820 --> 04:03.100
down what the research actually shows. And then Mikki and I will each explain how we use these

04:03.100 --> 04:07.280
strategies with our own clients and the benefits that we've seen in practice. Because ultimately,

04:07.440 --> 04:11.860
refeeds and diet breaks are tools. Their value comes down to the understanding of what problem

04:11.860 --> 04:16.140
we're trying to solve, who you're using them with, and then whether they're the actual right

04:16.140 --> 04:20.440
intervention at that point in the fat loss phase. So Mikki, welcome back. I'm really glad we're

04:20.440 --> 04:23.120
able to do this again and get back on the mic with each other and

04:23.680 --> 04:28.660
get down the rabbit hole of another topic. I know. I'm excited as well, Brandon. I will say

04:28.660 --> 04:33.800
I always find it weird when people call me Dr. Mikki Williden. There are only a few people

04:33.800 --> 04:41.380
who do. I think you do. Cliff does. Cliff Harvey is just for listen. Dr. Cliff. And also Dr. Cliff,

04:41.520 --> 04:48.460
exactly. Yeah, Cliff Doggy Dog. And maybe one other, I'm not sure. But I'm not usually called

04:48.460 --> 04:52.900
doctor. So I'm like, oh, that's me. Hello. It's so interesting because you have so much

04:53.680 --> 04:58.460
integrity, but also humility that you would not present yourself as doctor. I've met you in

04:58.460 --> 05:02.020
person. Obviously, I'm sure that if I was to introduce you to friends of mine, especially

05:02.020 --> 05:05.800
those outside of this industry, you would never say Dr. Mikki Williden. And another person in

05:05.800 --> 05:11.220
my life who's a mentor of mine that's like that is Dr. Scott Stevenson. He does not want to be

05:11.220 --> 05:15.740
called doctor. He does not want to be put on a pedestal. And the only time I'm allowed to call

05:15.740 --> 05:19.760
him doctor, because in our own interactions, I'm not, it's just Scott, is when I introduce him in

05:19.760 --> 05:23.660
a podcast. And it's so funny because sometimes the people with the most accolades,

05:23.680 --> 05:28.200
and the most credentials, they are the most humble with them. Whereas we have other individuals,

05:28.360 --> 05:35.180
especially in the era, we're in an era of social media PhDs, where people will get online

05:35.180 --> 05:40.140
certifications as a PhD, online accreditations, and no disrespect, but they always want to be

05:40.140 --> 05:45.080
called doctor. They want to present themselves as such, or they take a doctorate from a different

05:45.080 --> 05:51.640
realm or a different field. And then they essentially prop that up to essentially make

05:51.640 --> 05:53.660
it sound as though they're an expert somewhere else. So they,

05:53.680 --> 05:57.920
they suffer with, or they go through expertise creep, where they use the power of authority.

05:58.020 --> 06:01.500
Hey, I'm a doctor. Hey, dude, you're a dentist, my man. This doesn't have anything to do with

06:01.500 --> 06:05.220
physiology or, you know, they're completely a chiropractor or something. But I always respect

06:05.220 --> 06:08.960
the fact that you have advanced credentials, advanced schooling, but you're an incredibly

06:08.960 --> 06:13.100
humble person. And that's why we love you. Oh, well, thanks so much, Brandon. And it is

06:13.100 --> 06:18.020
funny because I do have clients come to see me and they're like, and I'm talking them through

06:18.020 --> 06:22.260
like a particular, like a concept or something that we're going to be doing. And they're like,

06:22.260 --> 06:23.380
well, Dr.

06:23.680 --> 06:27.640
So-and-so says that we should be doing this. And I'm like, yeah, but Dr.

06:27.680 --> 06:32.540
Williden, who you're speaking to, is saying that this is what we're doing here. You know,

06:32.600 --> 06:38.180
like, so I, so I, I sometimes pull it out, but I'm also quite bemused at, at the level

06:38.180 --> 06:42.360
of authority with which someone who does call themselves doctor gets when, when in reality

06:42.360 --> 06:46.820
we're actually not different, which is super, it's interesting, right? It's just, I don't

06:46.820 --> 06:53.440
know. Human, human behavior. 100%. So Mikki, let's start off. And before we get into what

06:53.680 --> 06:58.320
the research actually shows or how we use these strategy with clients, I think we first need to

06:58.320 --> 07:03.000
make sure that we're defining the terms clearly because people tend to use refeeds or diet breaks

07:03.000 --> 07:07.240
and even cheat meals almost interchangeably when they're actually very different strategies.

07:07.780 --> 07:12.280
And the broader concept here of what we will discuss today is what I would call diet periodization.

07:12.880 --> 07:17.460
So rather than viewing a fat loss phase as simply eating the exact same calorie deficit every single

07:17.460 --> 07:21.900
day until a diet is over, we can essentially manipulate energy intake and sometimes energy

07:21.900 --> 07:23.660
expenditure across the phase based on what we're doing. And so I think that's a really good point.

07:23.680 --> 07:29.180
So at the broadest level, we can separate the concepts that we're going to discuss into either

07:29.180 --> 07:32.980
continuous energy restriction, where you're essentially creating a deficit on a daily basis

07:32.980 --> 07:40.520
and intermittent energy restriction, where we are essentially interjecting and interrupting

07:40.520 --> 07:44.560
that deficit with planned periods where calories are brought back up to maintenance. And within

07:44.560 --> 07:47.760
that category, there are a few different strategies. So I'll give a little bit of a

07:47.760 --> 07:52.300
definitional background behind each of these categories so that there's no confusion in terms

07:53.680 --> 07:57.580
of what's going on. So first, we'll start with refeeds. And when we discuss refeeds, I'm generally

07:57.580 --> 08:01.800
talking about a structured period of roughly one to three days where calories are brought back

08:01.800 --> 08:05.860
towards estimated maintenance intake with a vast majority of that calorie increase coming from

08:05.860 --> 08:10.060
carbohydrates. And one of the main things I'm trying to accomplish with a refeed is increasing

08:10.060 --> 08:13.940
carbohydrate availability and essentially replenishing some of the glycogen that may

08:13.940 --> 08:19.180
have been depleted during the diet. And the big important part here is that this is structured.

08:19.180 --> 08:23.480
A refeed is still tracked, the foods are still planned, and there are targets in place.

08:23.680 --> 08:27.880
Well, refeed is not, I've been dieting all week, so tonight I get to eat whatever the hell I want.

08:28.100 --> 08:32.600
That's, I really want to make that clear. Now, diet breaks is essentially a longer period away

08:32.600 --> 08:36.520
from the calorie deficit. So it's almost like if you were to extend, take an extended period of

08:36.520 --> 08:40.760
refeeds, because this is essentially going to be one to two weeks at estimated maintenance calories.

08:41.280 --> 08:45.420
And really the biggest difference between a diet break and a refeed is just the duration.

08:45.900 --> 08:49.660
Whereas refeeds are generally short, and we're really just trying to boost up carbohydrate

08:49.660 --> 08:53.540
availability, get some training performance back on board, and manage the size of a weekly

08:53.680 --> 09:00.080
refeed. With the diet break, we're essentially doing it with a client that may have more of an

09:00.080 --> 09:04.340
accumulated and significant diet fatigue, and they may benefit from spending a longer period

09:04.340 --> 09:08.940
around maintenance. Now, the final thing that we will not discuss in detail, but I do want to

09:08.940 --> 09:12.780
differentiate it from what we will be discussing in terms of intermittent energy restriction

09:12.780 --> 09:18.580
strategies are cheat meals. Now, a cheat meal is generally untracked, it's unstructured,

09:18.580 --> 09:22.820
calories aren't controlled, food choices aren't prescribed or even thought about oftentimes,

09:22.820 --> 09:27.280
and these meals are often very high in both carbohydrate and fat, because they usually

09:27.280 --> 09:32.560
involve the inclusion of highly palatable foods. So essentially, you'll have a lot of people that

09:32.560 --> 09:37.200
say, I have a weekly cheat meal because I want to get my cravings out, which actually, if you look

09:37.200 --> 09:40.720
into the cravings literature, it actually does the opposite, because the inclusion of crave foods

09:40.720 --> 09:44.640
causes that Q condition response where you end up getting more cravings, but that's nor here nor

09:44.640 --> 09:51.840
there. But from my perspective, when we look at a strategic carbohydrate refeed and then a cheat

09:51.840 --> 09:52.800
meal, they're very different. They're very different. They're very different. They're very

09:52.820 --> 09:57.760
different things. One, we're going to use in terms of a controlled intervention, and it's going to

09:57.760 --> 10:02.200
have a specific purpose, whereas the other one is essentially a temporary removal of the normal

10:02.200 --> 10:06.960
dietary rules. And that distinction is important because when we start looking at research on

10:06.960 --> 10:11.880
intermittent dieting, all the studies that we're going to discuss today are examining structured

10:11.880 --> 10:16.360
periods of eating at or around maintenance calories, not uncontrolled cheat meals. You

10:16.360 --> 10:19.760
would actually have to go into the metabolic health literature to actually see the effects

10:19.760 --> 10:22.800
of cheat meals, which is often looked at in short periods of time. So if you're looking at a

10:22.820 --> 10:28.060
short-term overfeeding studies, essentially. So when it comes to differentiating, we're really

10:28.060 --> 10:33.100
going to define these a little bit differently and really focus on diet breaks and refeeds.

10:33.300 --> 10:37.760
Mikki, are you in agreement with that? Yeah, absolutely. And I'll just add a few things

10:37.760 --> 10:42.860
just to what you've said, Brandon. First of all, I love the way that you said it was like

10:42.860 --> 10:47.580
deliberately interrupting a deficit. And I think this is a really great way to sort of think about

10:47.580 --> 10:52.800
it as a lot of the, I guess, the practical application of a refeed.

10:52.820 --> 10:58.980
Or a diet break, its success or otherwise does come down a lot to psychology as well, right? And

10:58.980 --> 11:06.620
how we think about these things. Because one of the applications that I use, like a refeed,

11:07.000 --> 11:10.980
is that, you know, this is an opportunity for you to practice maintenance calories.

11:11.640 --> 11:18.560
And a lot of the time people are either on a diet, quote unquote, or so off a diet,

11:18.560 --> 11:22.800
it's not even funny. And that extreme is where I sort of fit the

11:22.820 --> 11:27.540
what people call the cheat meal. And I just really, and I know that you and I probably feel

11:27.540 --> 11:32.880
quite similarly, really just hate the term. Like cheat is such a, I mean, there's so much

11:32.880 --> 11:38.520
connotation around that you're cheating yourself, you're cheating your diet. It sort of...

11:38.520 --> 11:44.400
Think about any other category of life. What category of life or what endeavor that you are

11:44.400 --> 11:47.840
pursuing is cheating a good thing? You know what I mean? So I really think that the vernacular

11:47.840 --> 11:52.760
around it is just a really poor usage of a term, especially in terms of

11:52.760 --> 11:56.880
someone that's trying to go towards a goal pursuit. They're trying to lose fat. They're

11:56.880 --> 12:00.720
trying to get leaner. They're trying to improve their health. None of that should be looked at

12:00.720 --> 12:04.880
in the construct in this, you know, this dichotomous manner of you're either on the

12:04.880 --> 12:08.380
diet or you're cheating. We really want to do away with that type of nomenclature.

12:09.220 --> 12:14.040
Yeah, I completely agree. And then also, and with it as well, like a lot of what we're discussing,

12:14.040 --> 12:22.680
you mentioned the sort of the controlled nature of these tactics. And this isn't a bad,

12:22.760 --> 12:27.140
like the control of it isn't a bad thing because it's actually still teaching you the skill and

12:27.140 --> 12:30.920
building you the skill to eat more because eventually you do have to eat more because

12:30.920 --> 12:36.680
you're not going to be in a deficit forever. Whereas a cheat meal encourages behavior around

12:36.680 --> 12:42.300
food that isn't helpful long-term and that we're trying to sort of move away from. So I guess that's

12:42.300 --> 12:46.420
something else that I just wanted to mention. Absolutely. All right. So now that we've defined

12:46.420 --> 12:50.880
essentially what we're going to be discussing today and really the difference between refeeds,

12:50.880 --> 12:52.720
diet breaks, and then cheat meals, which we won't go into,

12:52.760 --> 12:57.200
I want to zoom out and explain why we would ever intentionally move someone out of a calorie

12:57.200 --> 13:01.400
deficit in the middle of a fat loss phase. Because if fat loss requires a calorie deficit,

13:02.020 --> 13:05.140
most people are going to ask, why would you ever deliberately give someone more food and

13:05.140 --> 13:09.180
temporarily reduce that deficit? Because many people are one track minded. So they're only

13:09.180 --> 13:13.200
thinking like, I just need to get the deficit. I just need to get that fat off. And really the

13:13.200 --> 13:16.900
answer comes down to the fact that the longer someone diets and generally the leaner that they

13:16.900 --> 13:21.180
become, the more diet fatigue they tend to accumulate from remaining in an energy deficit.

13:21.340 --> 13:22.740
So when I'm working with clients,

13:22.820 --> 13:26.920
I'm constantly collecting data and looking at how they're responding across the entirety of that

13:26.920 --> 13:31.080
fat loss phase. And I'm not just looking at whether their scale weight is going down. Obviously,

13:31.080 --> 13:35.780
that's part of the equation, but there's other parameters and biofeedback markers that I'm

13:35.780 --> 13:39.480
looking at. And that's going to include things like their hunger and appetite, their energy

13:39.480 --> 13:43.760
levels, their actual training performance, their steps and their general activity, their adherence,

13:43.860 --> 13:48.600
and then your changes in other biofeedback markers. So that could be sleep, that could be mood,

13:48.780 --> 13:51.900
that could be motivation. There's many that we could really categorize.

13:52.220 --> 13:52.740
So what I'd like to do is I'm going to go ahead and show you a few of the things that I'm going to

13:52.740 --> 13:58.300
do, Mikki, first, is I'd like to go through some of the major areas where the cost of prolonged

13:58.300 --> 14:02.620
dieting starts to show up, because I think it's really important to give people a really

14:02.620 --> 14:08.800
all-encompassing look into, hey, for every gimme, there's a gotcha. And so dieting causes certain,

14:09.420 --> 14:13.040
I don't even want to term this negative, there are certain consequences of dieting.

14:13.300 --> 14:17.600
And with that, there may be reasons or rationales for why we would utilize

14:17.600 --> 14:22.440
intermittent dieting strategies to address them. So the first one is going to be hunger levels.

14:22.740 --> 14:25.680
You know, as someone loses body fat and spends more time in an energy deficit,

14:25.820 --> 14:30.380
hunger generally increases and satiety can be harder to come by. And we're also going to see,

14:30.460 --> 14:35.480
like, if you look at the physiology of body fat loss, we're going to see a skewing of hunger

14:35.480 --> 14:38.240
hormones. So we're going to see ghrelin, the main hunger hormone, increase. We're going to see

14:38.240 --> 14:41.460
leptin, the main satiety hormone, that's actually secreted from adipose tissue, it's going to

14:41.460 --> 14:45.240
decrease. We're going to see decreases in insulin, which actually insulin binds to the hypothalamus

14:45.240 --> 14:52.300
and actually signals fullness. We're also going to see decreases in peptide YY. Now, that's all good

14:52.300 --> 14:55.840
and well to know, but really what matters practically is what that client experiences.

14:56.260 --> 15:01.140
So we know that the longer you diet, the deeper of a deficit you're in and the more body fat that

15:01.140 --> 15:05.960
you lose, you're going to increase hunger, you're going to have increased appetite, which is

15:05.960 --> 15:09.940
different from hunger. So hunger would be more of that true physiological hunger, so that deep

15:09.940 --> 15:13.860
gnawing in your stomach, but also appetite, you may start thinking about food more. And that's

15:13.860 --> 15:20.400
really where we see some food preoccupation. And then if hunger becomes high enough that that

15:20.400 --> 15:22.280
person starts to really start to lose weight, they're going to start to lose weight. And that's

15:22.300 --> 15:24.900
where we struggle with it. Often what's going to end up happening is they're going to start taking

15:24.900 --> 15:28.400
more bites, licks, and tastes. They're going to eat off plan more frequently, or they're going to

15:28.400 --> 15:33.760
have larger deviations on the weekends. And then the deficit that we design on paper no longer is

15:33.760 --> 15:37.860
the deficit that they're actually sustaining. And that's one of the most common reasons for fat loss

15:37.860 --> 15:42.660
stalls. Now, in addition to that, we also have to look at the implications of being in a sustained

15:42.660 --> 15:46.800
energy deficit on energy expenditure, because as someone loses weight, their energy requirements

15:46.800 --> 15:50.800
are naturally going to decrease because they're carrying around a lighter body weight. And we're

15:52.300 --> 16:00.160
going to see all four components of total daily energy expenditure come down. You're going to see

16:00.160 --> 16:03.760
resting metabolic rate decrease. You're going to see a thermic effect of feeding decrease just

16:03.760 --> 16:08.940
because you're putting less food into the system. So you have less nutrients that need to be burned

16:08.940 --> 16:13.540
and assimilated, and you get less output out of that. And your exercise output can fall. And the

16:13.540 --> 16:17.460
biggest one out of all these things are need. So your non-exercise activity thermogenesis

16:17.460 --> 16:22.100
is going to decrease quite precipitously in most people. We actually see that around 85%

16:22.300 --> 16:26.620
to 90% of what is turned metabolic adaptation, or there's decrease in total daily energy

16:26.620 --> 16:31.280
expenditure, actually come from unconscious decreases in need. So you're going to have

16:31.280 --> 16:35.660
people that are in a diet. They're moving less without realizing it. They're sitting more. They're

16:35.660 --> 16:41.280
fidgeting less. Their walking pace slows. Or even like, I remember there's been deep diets that I've

16:41.280 --> 16:46.300
had that I blink slower. I'm giving a presentation, and I'm not hardly blinking. You don't think about

16:46.300 --> 16:51.400
these things consciously, first and foremost. So it's hard to offset. But also, you don't realize

16:52.300 --> 16:58.600
whether it's speaking with your hands or walking to get the mail. All these things burn energy. They

16:58.600 --> 17:03.480
all burn calories. And so a lot of times when people are in a sustained deficit, we start seeing

17:03.480 --> 17:08.540
decreases in that. Now, another area that's very important for all our audiences, whether you're

17:08.540 --> 17:14.280
an endurance athlete like Mikki is, or you're a physique competitor, or you're a physique-focused

17:14.280 --> 17:19.280
bodybuilding-esque type of person, is training performance. Because as we get deeper into

17:19.280 --> 17:22.280
deficit, we've got to take nutrients, or we've got to take nutrients, or we've got to take

17:22.300 --> 17:25.780
calories from somewhere. And often, that's going to be both from the energy substrate. So we're

17:25.780 --> 17:30.180
going to decrease fat, but we're also going to decrease carbohydrates. And with a decrease in

17:30.180 --> 17:35.520
carbohydrate intake, glycogen availability can decrease, which is going to impact higher volume

17:35.520 --> 17:39.460
hypertrophy training. We're going to see lower muscular endurance. We're going to see fewer reps

17:39.460 --> 17:42.720
at a given load. You're going to have reduced training output. And then even if you're doing

17:42.720 --> 17:47.000
more of that long-term endurance training, you could essentially hit the wall. You're going to

17:47.000 --> 17:51.660
bunk, essentially, because you do not have enough carbohydrate availability on board. And so that is

17:52.300 --> 17:59.560
at a predisposition towards negative performance outcomes in terms of whether it be endurance or it

17:59.560 --> 18:03.700
be resistance training. And especially when it comes to resistance training, if you have less

18:03.700 --> 18:08.240
energy in the system and less performance, over time, that can be less of a signal to the body

18:08.240 --> 18:11.660
to actually keep your muscle tissues. So that could put you in a precarious position to actually

18:11.660 --> 18:17.160
lose lean mass. And then another thing that we have to consider is what I would broadly call

18:17.160 --> 18:21.360
diet fatigue. And that's where the physiological and psychological effects of dieting start to

18:21.360 --> 18:26.000
overlap. Energy drops, your hunger and food focus increase, which can just throw you off mentally

18:26.000 --> 18:30.160
from a cognitive perspective. Mood and sleep can worsen, your motivation declines, and eventually

18:30.160 --> 18:35.400
adherence becomes harder. And this is why I always tell clients, we cannot separate our psychology

18:35.400 --> 18:39.900
from our physiology. If someone is hungry, they're exhausted, they're sleeping poorly, and they're

18:39.900 --> 18:43.660
watching their training performance decline, we shouldn't be surprised when sticking to the diet

18:43.660 --> 18:49.940
becomes more difficult. So for all of these reasons, we really need to be very cognizant of

18:51.360 --> 18:59.280
what we're trying to do. And that is where it would be very advantageous to use some

18:59.280 --> 19:05.460
auto-regulation strategies. So we can use that in the training context, but when I'm determining

19:05.460 --> 19:10.920
whether it would be advantageous to bring someone back closer to energy balance, I really think that

19:10.920 --> 19:15.200
the easiest way to understand how to approach this would be to compare it to training periodization.

19:15.200 --> 19:21.040
So we don't expect someone to progressively push training every single week, day in and day out,

19:21.360 --> 19:25.480
without eventually accumulating fatigue. And at some point, I will use some auto-regulation

19:25.480 --> 19:29.500
strategies or even a deload, not because the training program stopped working, but because

19:29.500 --> 19:35.280
temporarily reducing the stress can help dissipate fatigue and continue progression. Now, I think

19:35.280 --> 19:39.960
about refeeds and diet breaks in a very similar way. They can almost act like a dietary deload,

19:40.180 --> 19:44.980
where we temporarily reduce the energy gap, and it's going to help to manage fatigue and support

19:44.980 --> 19:48.560
training performance and really put that person in a better position to continue executing going

19:48.560 --> 19:51.340
forward. And so I think that it's advantageous

19:51.360 --> 19:55.800
to realize that there isn't just one path towards the fat loss outcome that you're looking for.

19:55.880 --> 20:01.480
Sometimes it's taking one step forward and taking one step back and kind of holding. And so these

20:01.480 --> 20:05.200
are some of the physiological and actually even psychological effects that we can get from being

20:05.200 --> 20:11.040
in a prolonged deficit. Now, Mikki, before we get into the research and stuff, obviously,

20:11.120 --> 20:14.780
I went over some of those effects, but what changes do you tend to see as someone gets

20:14.780 --> 20:19.020
deeper into a fat loss phase? And what makes you start considering a refeed or a diet break

20:19.020 --> 20:21.340
for that individual? Yeah.

20:21.360 --> 20:26.860
Great question, Brenda, because I utilize these in different ways, actually, depending on if I'm

20:26.860 --> 20:31.520
working at that group level, because as you know, that's where I see the majority of my people are

20:31.520 --> 20:36.180
in the sort of group cohorts, and we're going through something together, and I'll come back

20:36.180 --> 20:42.660
to that. But if I'm working one-on-one with a client, then all of the sort of the biofeedback

20:42.660 --> 20:50.280
measures that you mentioned, like appetite, hunger, like cravings, energy,

20:51.360 --> 20:58.280
sleep, once these start being sort of disrupted sort of continuously, if you like, which is then

20:58.280 --> 21:04.740
leading to behavior that sort of breaks adherence to the diet, then absolutely that's when I would

21:04.740 --> 21:13.480
talk about refeeds, diet breaks with that individual. At the group level, though, I do do

21:13.480 --> 21:18.500
it a bit differently because I have, I know I've got eight, for example, eight weeks with this

21:18.500 --> 21:21.340
group. And there is, there is,

21:21.360 --> 21:26.620
a lot that I want to sort of teach them within the eight weeks. So I always sort of posit,

21:27.220 --> 21:31.480
let's say, Monday's Matter, the fat loss plan, as this isn't a one and done, this isn't an eight

21:31.480 --> 21:37.340
week thing that you're just going to do. This is really a platform with which we're building

21:37.340 --> 21:44.680
behaviors that will extend far beyond this eight weeks. And so my justification for having refeeds

21:44.680 --> 21:51.000
within the eight weeks on a two-weekly cycle is, one, the, the, the,

21:51.360 --> 21:55.980
and I, we talked about this actually with our rapid fat loss episode, that it's a pretty aggressive

21:55.980 --> 22:02.080
approach across the eight weeks anyway. But actually it's one of the skills I want them to

22:02.080 --> 22:07.420
learn is, is what I mentioned before about eating at maintenance, you know, eating more because they

22:07.420 --> 22:14.180
haven't actually, without fear, had that practice of eating more in quite a controlled fashion

22:14.180 --> 22:20.020
because they actually don't know what that really means. So I'm instigating it every couple of weeks

22:20.020 --> 22:21.180
so they can eat more. So I'm instigating it every couple of weeks so they can eat more. So I'm

22:21.180 --> 22:21.340
instigating it every couple of weeks so they can eat more. So I'm instigating it every couple of weeks so they

22:21.340 --> 22:27.400
get within that eight-week period this opportunity to eat more. And it is interesting still, Brandon,

22:27.540 --> 22:32.140
that, that across the eight weeks people see significant shifts in their body composition

22:32.140 --> 22:38.540
favorably, even though they've got these four distinct times where they're, where over three

22:38.540 --> 22:44.920
days we've lifted the carbohydrate in, we've got a metabolic reset meal, which is how I phrased sort

22:44.920 --> 22:51.160
of you eat what you like but in a way that makes you feel good and you don't overeat, etc. So they

22:51.160 --> 22:58.120
get that opportunity to sort of try it so, so yeah the way that I implement it is different depending

22:58.120 --> 23:06.280
on at what level. What I will say though is well is sometimes it's like a, a refeed or a diet break

23:06.280 --> 23:07.460
comes in

23:07.460 --> 23:12.760
and maybe we'll jump into this, depending on the schedule of the individual, right? So isn't just

23:12.760 --> 23:17.160
the biofeedback that i'm looking at we might be looking someone's schedule and thinking well,

23:17.160 --> 23:20.360
you're traveling a lot for work, you know, in the next month or

23:20.360 --> 23:25.400
or you've got your, you know, your vacation is coming up in about three weeks time where you're

23:25.400 --> 23:32.720
away for five days. So it's, it can be determined more by that sort of outside influence, not

23:32.720 --> 23:38.480
necessarily on the individual, because psychologically speaking, I suppose it's just,

23:39.000 --> 23:44.380
you know, if you're on a vacation, or you've got other stresses, like this, the stress of like,

23:44.380 --> 23:50.540
traveling for work, like, you don't also need to be stressing about your deficit at that point.

23:50.900 --> 23:56.400
So yeah, you might be able to handle it, but actually, just take the load off. And we talk

23:56.400 --> 24:01.100
about this idea that you can't chase two rabbits at once. You know, I often talk about this with

24:01.100 --> 24:05.620
my endurance athletes, like, if you're wanting your A performance to happen in six weeks,

24:06.000 --> 24:10.560
then we should not be focusing on fat loss right now, because they are two quite different goals.

24:11.040 --> 24:14.180
But I do think we can extend it beyond sports performance,

24:14.380 --> 24:18.860
just think about performance in life. Like, if you've got a lot going on in this area of your

24:18.860 --> 24:24.060
life, like, it's very difficult to, to really dial in and focus the way that you want to

24:24.060 --> 24:29.400
in your deficit. And the last thing I will say about that is that because if they fail,

24:29.820 --> 24:34.560
if they try to focus on that as well and fail in that deficit, they'll build these narratives that

24:34.560 --> 24:40.100
they can't do it. And that's actually just not the case. In fact, it's just life itself hasn't

24:40.100 --> 24:42.860
lent it to being very favorable to be in that deficit.

24:42.860 --> 24:43.860
I really like,

24:44.380 --> 24:49.140
I really love your application of utilizing what I would term diet breaks, because it would be over

24:49.140 --> 24:54.400
an extended period of time for vacations, I actually see that to be a very advantageous

24:54.400 --> 24:59.160
use case of them. So I will tell you this, there are times that I'm seeing certain biofeedback

24:59.160 --> 25:04.480
parameters start to go awry. You know, I mean, so maybe someone that is dealing with more hunger,

25:04.860 --> 25:08.020
they are their sleep is starting to get impaired, or maybe training performance is starting to

25:08.020 --> 25:12.680
decrease, but not to, like, it's not falling off a cliff, but we're just noticing one session per

25:12.680 --> 25:13.620
week, they're just feeling

25:14.380 --> 25:18.040
a little down and out, or it's really hard to actually have those top end performances, I do a

25:18.040 --> 25:22.720
lot of like, top set and back offsets. And someone is in those back offsets, which are a higher rep

25:22.720 --> 25:28.360
set as a secondary set, they just don't have that that gear left. And there are times that I will

25:28.360 --> 25:33.500
utilize proactive approaches to these refeeds, meaning or reactive approaches where I'll put

25:33.500 --> 25:36.980
them in based on that what that check in look like. But there's other times that I know someone's

25:36.980 --> 25:41.800
schedule. And I know that they have a vacation coming up in two weeks time, whatever it may be,

25:41.800 --> 25:44.080
and they are going to be eight weeks into a fat loss phase.

25:44.380 --> 25:49.240
And so I will proactively in advance, tell them, listen, I want you to keep like, almost like your

25:49.240 --> 25:53.740
eye on the prize, meaning I want you to see very adherent, I want you to think about putting

25:53.740 --> 25:57.280
yourself in the best position to leave for this trip so that you feel confident that you look your

25:57.280 --> 26:02.640
best. But during that trip itself is not going to be an active period of fat loss dieting. This is

26:02.640 --> 26:05.860
where we're going to go back to maintenance, we're going to utilize I call it a deficit deload, but

26:06.380 --> 26:13.000
we'll utilize a diet break type structure. And so we're getting some of that alleviation. And I do

26:13.000 --> 26:14.380
that in advance, I often will

26:14.380 --> 26:19.780
inform them one to two weeks in advance, because I don't want them stressing about having to diet

26:19.960 --> 26:25.360
during the trip itself. And often, I also find that by giving them some advanced notice and some

26:25.360 --> 26:30.460
informed consent, it leads to better adherence in the time period leading into that vacation. So I

26:30.460 --> 26:35.740
think that that's a brilliant application, Mikki, because, yes, there are physiological reasons as

26:35.740 --> 26:39.820
to why we would utilize some of these strategies. But I think that we cannot, especially from a

26:39.820 --> 26:44.380
coaching perspective, discount the psychology. And if they are someone that is very type A,

26:44.380 --> 26:49.000
or they're perfectionist, striving types, individual individuals, they may put excess

26:49.000 --> 26:53.460
pressure on themselves to really nail it perfectly. And they might suffer with that dichotomous

26:53.460 --> 26:57.100
thinking that we often encounter where they have all or nothing thinking black and white thinking

26:57.100 --> 27:03.800
meaning you either nail the plan to a T to 100%. Or if you miss something, all bets are off. And

27:03.800 --> 27:08.820
it's like, why? Why do I even try? I you know, the day is already done. It's already messed up. Let

27:08.820 --> 27:13.920
me just eat whatever. It's already a waste of day. And so we really want to be able to pull people

27:13.920 --> 27:14.360
out of that. And so we want to be able to pull people out of that. And so we want to be able to

27:14.380 --> 27:15.780
pull people out of that. And so we want to be able to pull people out of that habit that they've

27:15.780 --> 27:20.700
had previously to come to us and saying, listen, you know, we have to control what's within your

27:20.700 --> 27:24.080
control. And when you're home, you absolutely have control over eating habits, your behaviors,

27:24.200 --> 27:28.640
your decisions. But when you're on a trip, there may be some extraneous variables that come in that

27:28.640 --> 27:33.080
we cannot expect, we cannot anticipate. However, we have a plan in place, you're gonna have this

27:33.080 --> 27:37.820
extra calorie budget that will bring you back up to maintenance, and you have extra room to play

27:37.820 --> 27:41.540
with. I kind of look at it as almost like I use a lot of financial analogies. It's almost like

27:41.540 --> 27:43.920
having a reserve account, where you know that just like you would have a reserve account, you would

27:43.920 --> 27:49.480
have extra money that you could spend. That is in addition to what you usually would spend when

27:49.480 --> 27:53.820
you're back home. So I think that's a brilliant application that could be very feasible, and then

27:53.820 --> 27:58.920
also beneficial for someone, especially if they are trying to fat loss diet. But that doesn't

27:58.920 --> 28:02.540
mean fat loss dieting doesn't mean that you're in a deficit every single day and every week out of

28:02.540 --> 28:09.320
that period. Yeah, absolutely. And I try to remind people that, you know, we're in doing this now,

28:09.320 --> 28:13.780
and this might be eight weeks, it might be 16 weeks, but you've got decades left, you've got

28:13.920 --> 28:19.700
decades left to do this. And we people can get very impatient, I think, with regards, they just,

28:19.940 --> 28:24.780
you know, if they want to lose fat, they wanted to have lost it by yesterday. But the reality is,

28:24.780 --> 28:30.180
is that, you know, time is passing. And it actually passes quite quickly at our age now,

28:30.260 --> 28:33.380
too. And you know, in the age with which that, you know, the cohorts that we're working with,

28:33.380 --> 28:38.760
so, you know, whether it takes eight weeks or 12 weeks, actually doesn't really matter in the

28:38.760 --> 28:43.280
big scheme of things. Absolutely. So Mikki, you know, we can't do a podcast without us going into

28:43.920 --> 28:48.580
that. That's what we're doing next, my friend. Rather than go study by study, I think what would

28:48.580 --> 28:52.720
be a lot more beneficial, like we can do that in like, if we ever do a webinar on this, we could

28:52.720 --> 28:57.660
go through every single study in nuanced detail, I think it would make more sense in this podcast

28:57.660 --> 29:01.860
to just organize this around the outcomes that most people care about. So I'm going to look at

29:01.860 --> 29:06.140
like, do they actually improve fat loss in terms of refeeds and diet breaks? Do they help to

29:06.140 --> 29:10.380
preserve lean mass and metabolic rate? Do they help with hunger and adherence? And do they help

29:10.380 --> 29:13.900
with training performance? So I'll start off, starting with fat loss,

29:13.920 --> 29:18.220
the overall evidence doesn't show that refeeds or diet breaks consistently produce greater fat loss

29:18.220 --> 29:23.640
than continuous dieting when the overall energy deficit is equated, meaning that regardless of

29:23.640 --> 29:27.820
if you did a five and two diet, or you did seven days of a continuous deficit, as long as those

29:27.820 --> 29:31.800
energy deficits are matched, you're getting the same effects. Now, we actually see this in the

29:31.800 --> 29:36.820
ICE-CAP trial from Pios and colleagues that came out in 2021. They took resistant trained individuals

29:36.820 --> 29:42.480
and they completed 12 weeks of continuous dieting or 12 weeks of dieting broken up in by one week

29:43.920 --> 29:49.020
after every three weeks of dieting. Now, both approaches produce similar fat loss and fat-free

29:49.020 --> 29:54.120
mass retention. And then we see something very similar in Seidler and colleagues' 2023 randomized

29:54.120 --> 29:59.520
trial in resistant trained women, where one group dieted continuously for six weeks, while the other

29:59.520 --> 30:04.620
inserted a one-week diet break after every two weeks of dieting. Again, there was really no

30:04.620 --> 30:09.480
differences in body composition outcomes. And then when we zoom out, there's a 2025 systematic review

30:09.480 --> 30:13.620
and meta-analysis from Pooning and colleagues, and they looked at 12 randomized control trials.

30:13.920 --> 30:18.240
And looked at both continuous and intermittent dieting strategies. And they produced the same

30:18.240 --> 30:23.280
improvements in weight, fat mass, body fat percentage, and waist circumference, with no

30:23.280 --> 30:27.060
significant differences. So really, when we look at refeeds and diet breaks from a fat loss

30:27.060 --> 30:31.920
perspective, this is not some magic tool. It's not creating a loophole or a workaround around

30:31.920 --> 30:36.840
energy balance. If the diets are equated, the deficits are equated, they're going to yield very

30:36.840 --> 30:41.700
similar fat loss outcomes. Now, we could make an argument later on, if it improves adherence and

30:41.700 --> 30:43.200
someone sticks to a deficit better, it could have an impact on the overall performance of the diet.

30:43.200 --> 30:47.340
It could have advantageous effects, but it's not due to the physiology of fat loss. It's not

30:47.340 --> 30:52.140
boosting energy expenditure to a point that it's causing a precipitous loss in fat mass,

30:52.140 --> 30:57.060
as compared to a continuous dieting purchase. Well, can I just ask you a question here,

30:57.060 --> 31:04.080
Brandon? When people started investigating diet breaks and refeeds, was part of the hypothesis is,

31:04.080 --> 31:10.380
hey, this could be changing physiology, almost like a hack for fat loss, because of the shifts

31:10.380 --> 31:13.140
in these hormones. Is this what people were thinking? Yes.

31:13.200 --> 31:17.480
When we initially started looking at diet breaks, actually, when we first started looking at

31:17.480 --> 31:22.640
refeeds, that was the postulation. They thought that it could increase energy expenditure to a

31:22.640 --> 31:26.040
point that it would cause fat loss. Here's the other confounder, and I come from the bodybuilding

31:26.040 --> 31:31.960
industry. What we were seeing quite consistently, and I still see this in practice, was that it led

31:31.960 --> 31:38.160
to when you include carbohydrate refeeds specifically, and they're structured. You're

31:38.160 --> 31:41.820
giving an increase in calories back to that person's maintenance calorie intake. It's very

31:41.820 --> 31:43.180
structured. It's the same food sources. It's the same food sources. It's the same food sources.

31:43.200 --> 31:48.540
We were seeing more consistent fat loss outcomes, and I was seeing this particularly with women.

31:49.000 --> 31:53.060
What I mean by that is that we were getting less fluid dynamics, because we were having what was

31:53.060 --> 31:57.140
colloquially referred to as a whoosh effect. Oftentimes, dieting can cause an increase

31:57.140 --> 32:02.420
in cortisol secretion. Cortisol can bind to the aldosterone receptor, and aldosterone is involved

32:02.420 --> 32:07.600
in fluid balance. If you are a very stressed individual, you're getting poor sleep, you are

32:07.600 --> 32:12.760
dieting as well, and you're retaining fluid due to the fact that you're having excess cortisol

32:13.200 --> 32:18.280
secretion. What we were able to see was that that increase in carbohydrates and that release

32:18.280 --> 32:22.700
in insulin, which is counter-regulatory to cortisol, would bring that in that cortisol

32:22.700 --> 32:26.780
mechanistically. That's what we were thinking. It would cause a scale weight decrease. There's

32:26.780 --> 32:31.320
many times that I would utilize refeeds. If you were just to think from a nutrition perspective

32:31.320 --> 32:34.280
of someone in a surplus, if you gave them higher carbohydrates, say for instance,

32:35.180 --> 32:40.020
someone is eating a 500-calorie deficit, and you just want to increase their intake,

32:40.100 --> 32:42.920
they're at maintenance, but you want to increase their intake by 500 calories,

32:42.920 --> 32:47.360
you give them 125 extra grams of carbohydrates. Logically, you would think, all right, that's 125

32:47.360 --> 32:52.480
grams of extra food. Then we have to consider the fact that there's going to be three to four grams

32:52.480 --> 32:57.220
of water for every gram of carbohydrate that's stored as glycogen. They should increase somewhere

32:57.220 --> 33:03.180
in the realm of maybe 1.2 pounds, somewhere in that realm. A lot of times in the deficit itself,

33:03.260 --> 33:07.180
we were actually seeing a dissipation. We were seeing people get on the scale the next one or

33:07.180 --> 33:11.320
two days actually lighter. That was due to that essentially whoosh effect. That was something that

33:12.920 --> 33:17.800
was termed, but I've seen it so many times in practice. I think that then they started to

33:17.800 --> 33:22.160
investigate, hey, this could help with leptin. Now, there is a study on overfeeding carbohydrates

33:22.160 --> 33:25.600
in women by Durland-Wenger and colleagues. They see that three days of essentially carbohydrate

33:25.600 --> 33:31.420
refeeding increases serum leptin levels. They did it both in terms of three days of carbohydrate

33:31.420 --> 33:37.380
feeding and three days of fat feeding. Even with the same calorie increase from dietary fat and

33:37.380 --> 33:42.380
dietary carbohydrates, we only saw the increase in leptin from carbohydrates. We know that there's

33:42.380 --> 33:46.420
a relationship between carbohydrates, insulin, and leptin. If you're going to increase anything,

33:46.500 --> 33:50.700
it should be carbohydrates. That's especially important for training performance, restoring

33:50.700 --> 33:55.400
glycogen. When it comes from a mechanistic basis, we don't have a lot of research that's actually

33:55.400 --> 34:00.020
teasing out the actual effects from a hormonal perspective. Now, the interesting thing is when

34:00.020 --> 34:05.580
we look at diet break and the refeed literature, this is in quote-unquote resistant trained

34:05.580 --> 34:08.020
individuals, meaning they have a couple of years of resistant training, if that.

34:08.460 --> 34:12.360
There is some military studies. There is a study by

34:12.380 --> 34:17.820
Friedel and colleagues that looks at multi-stressor environments. What they mean by that is it's sleep

34:17.820 --> 34:22.120
restriction, it's very high amounts of activity, and it's getting to a crazy low body fat percentage.

34:22.220 --> 34:27.920
This is in men only. They get them down to like 5% to 6% body fat in a 1,000 to 1,200 calorie deficit.

34:28.660 --> 34:33.200
They're doing somewhere in the range of multiple hours of activity. I believe they were only

34:33.200 --> 34:37.460
sleeping 3.5 hours per night. It's safe to say that at the end of that eight-week trial

34:37.460 --> 34:41.560
with these army rangers, they were essentially at cash rate levels of testosterone,

34:42.380 --> 34:46.500
they had fallen off a cliff, all these things. They actually did a carbohydrate refeeding

34:46.500 --> 34:50.740
protocol, but it's not termed that. It was before any of these diet break and refeed studies were,

34:51.080 --> 34:54.840
but actually within one week of refeeding with an increase in carbohydrates, they were actually

34:54.840 --> 34:58.940
able to restore thyroid levels. Testosterone started coming back onto baseline, but they

34:58.940 --> 35:03.180
were also still very lean. We have to consider the fact that a lot of these sex hormones are

35:03.180 --> 35:08.480
going to get increased once fat mass is regained, but they were able to see an improvement in thyroid

35:08.480 --> 35:12.260
status. Now, we can think about it mechanistically. Insulin is going to

35:12.260 --> 35:16.560
help with the conversion of T4, which is our inactive thyroid, which is what our thyroid

35:16.560 --> 35:22.780
gland pretty much predominantly produces. 90 plus percent of thyroid hormone secreted by the thyroid

35:22.780 --> 35:29.060
gland is T4, but what we want is T3. If we're looking for peripheral conversion, meaning in

35:29.060 --> 35:35.440
the tissue, of T4 to T3, insulin can help with that. Although a lot of these studies don't tease

35:35.440 --> 35:40.860
this out, there are some mechanistic arguments as to why maybe carbohydrate refeeding could be

35:41.180 --> 35:41.660
advantageous.

35:42.260 --> 35:46.980
However, I don't think that we have the types of study designs that have been able to tease

35:46.980 --> 35:50.960
those things out. Even if they do do those things, we have to think about the fact that

35:50.960 --> 35:55.540
a refeeding strategy of increasing carbohydrates is transient. It's temporary. It's one to two days,

35:55.580 --> 35:59.780
maybe three days. Once you go back into deficit, you're going to have that decrease in those

35:59.780 --> 36:04.460
hormones again. I don't think it's substantial enough that it would cause fat loss independently

36:04.460 --> 36:09.660
from those hormone production, those hormonal conversions by itself.

36:10.800 --> 36:12.100
Yeah, interesting. Thanks, Brandon.

36:12.100 --> 36:17.020
Absolutely. All right. The next component that we need to look at is lean mass and metabolic rate.

36:17.580 --> 36:21.140
This is where it gets a little bit more interesting. In Campbell and Colley's 2020

36:21.140 --> 36:25.460
randomized control trial, resistant trained men and women followed either a continuous deficit

36:25.460 --> 36:30.620
of 25% deficit across the week, or they used a larger deficit of 35% five days per week,

36:30.700 --> 36:35.720
followed by two consecutive maintenance calorie high carbohydrate refeed days. The original paper

36:35.720 --> 36:40.260
reported better preservation of fat-free mass in the refeed group. However, there was some

36:40.260 --> 36:42.020
statistical musings, essentially.

36:42.100 --> 36:47.860
There was a debate back and forth. There was a letter to the editor. If you look at the published

36:47.860 --> 36:54.540
reanalysis, the clearest between-group difference was actually in dry fat-free mass rather than

36:54.540 --> 36:59.680
total fat-free mass. I think it's appropriate to say that there is some evidence that consecutive

36:59.680 --> 37:05.680
carbohydrate refeeds may help with lean mass retention. There was a secondary outcome from

37:05.680 --> 37:09.780
that study. It's just hard to disentangle whether it was accurate. They did show that there was

37:09.780 --> 37:11.980
about a doubling of where they were able to...

37:11.980 --> 37:16.280
To preserve metabolic rate and cut metabolic adaptation at the level of RMR in half. However,

37:16.860 --> 37:21.500
there's still some debates as to whether that data was clean. We'll look at other pieces of data that

37:21.500 --> 37:27.000
actually look at this. When we look at metabolic rate more broadly, the newer 2025 Poon meta-analysis

37:27.000 --> 37:30.980
does make the discussion more interesting because the reduction in resting metabolic rate

37:30.980 --> 37:35.220
was similar with intermittent dieting than with continuous dieting overall.

37:36.180 --> 37:41.400
Continuous dieting led to a 92-calorie drop in RMR, whereas intermittent dieting led to a 39-calorie

37:41.400 --> 37:41.660
drop.

37:41.980 --> 37:45.640
There was about a 50-calorie difference. We're not saying that these are massive,

37:46.020 --> 37:51.300
but over time, they could add up to something. We are seeing differences. They're just preserving

37:51.300 --> 37:56.360
a little bit better, but it's not anything that's going to make or break from a fat loss perspective

37:56.360 --> 38:01.200
independently. It's not the energy expenditure savings that it's having that's reversing

38:01.200 --> 38:06.640
metabolic adaptation and that is allowing people to lose more fat. Now, I think the strongest

38:06.640 --> 38:11.000
evidence that we actually have for intermittent dieting strategies is their effects on hunger,

38:11.300 --> 38:11.960
appetite, and hearing.

38:11.980 --> 38:16.660
We can go back to that ICE-CAP trial, which was by Pios and colleagues. They found that the

38:16.660 --> 38:20.640
intermittent dieting group experienced lower hunger and desire to eat and greater satisfaction

38:20.640 --> 38:26.100
from a dietary perspective than the continuous dieting group. Then what they actually did was

38:26.100 --> 38:32.320
they did a secondary study. They found that when they took participants out of a deficit for a

38:32.320 --> 38:36.960
week time for one week period, they experienced less hunger and irritability, greater fullness,

38:37.260 --> 38:41.460
satisfaction, and alertness. Now, there's a second diet break study that was done by Seidler

38:41.460 --> 38:41.820
and colleagues.

38:41.980 --> 38:46.540
This is based on a Bill Campbell's lab. They found an effect on disinhibition, which is essentially

38:46.540 --> 38:51.380
someone's tendency to lose dietary restraint and overeat. Now, disinhibition increased in the

38:51.380 --> 38:57.740
continuous dieting group while a decrease in the diet breaker, meaning that those that continuously

38:57.740 --> 39:02.340
dieted without the diet break structure, they essentially were more likely to lose control

39:02.340 --> 39:06.780
and be more likely to overeat and veer off the beaten path. We see an improvement from there.

39:06.880 --> 39:11.460
I think if we're really to consider all the literature that we have on refeeds and diet

39:11.460 --> 39:15.420
breaks, and obviously this is premature because there's only a few studies, I think this is

39:15.420 --> 39:19.440
probably the most important perspective from you and I. When we really think about it from a coaching

39:19.440 --> 39:24.560
perspective, I think it's important to highlight the fact that even if a diet break doesn't directly

39:24.560 --> 39:28.500
make someone lose more fat, if it helps them manage hunger and makes them more capable of

39:28.500 --> 39:33.000
consistently adhering to the diet, that's still a meaningful benefit because that could lead

39:33.000 --> 39:37.740
to more substantial fat loss in the long term because of their ability to better adhere to

39:37.740 --> 39:41.440
the diet itself. What do you think, Meg? Yeah, no, I completely agree. I think it's a good point.

39:41.460 --> 39:50.180
I also wonder, Brandon, about personality types. There are some people, I think, who are much,

39:50.500 --> 39:55.980
who I think the majority of people are well suited to having diet breaks for all the reasons you've

39:55.980 --> 40:02.440
described, like the adherence and the ability to train better, et cetera. I think there will be

40:02.440 --> 40:07.840
some people who might not need that intervention because their personality type, they're just,

40:07.840 --> 40:10.320
they're like, cool, I can, you know, we know people who can just

40:10.320 --> 40:14.760
tell them what to do and they will do it. They will absolutely do it until you tell them what to do

40:14.760 --> 40:22.780
otherwise. So I think that the adherence piece holds for probably, you know, 95% of people,

40:22.880 --> 40:26.400
but there'll be people who will be like, I don't need this, you know, it wouldn't really affect

40:26.400 --> 40:30.780
or change. I agree with you because I've utilized intermittent dieting strategies during diets

40:30.780 --> 40:35.100
myself, and then I've went without them at all. And I'm going to adhere either way, but I'm kind

40:35.100 --> 40:40.280
of like a robot. I'm going to go one step further than even you. I think for many,

40:40.320 --> 40:43.860
intermittent dieting strategies can be advantageous. And then for some, it could

40:43.860 --> 40:48.680
be demonstrably negative. And what I mean by that is if you are, we have to look at personality

40:48.680 --> 40:53.780
types, even like from a psychological perspective, let's consider the distinction between moderators

40:53.780 --> 40:58.520
and abstainers. There are for some that are refeed, even if it's structured and they're

40:58.520 --> 41:03.080
given instructions, once they get that little bit of extra carbohydrate, or maybe they get a little

41:03.080 --> 41:09.000
bit of more dietary flexibility, they just cannot stop at that, you know, 125 gram increase. So

41:09.000 --> 41:09.960
I'll tell you personally,

41:10.320 --> 41:14.480
Lau and I have had discussions about this, and there were certain dietary strategies that he

41:14.480 --> 41:18.580
found he just didn't do well with. And it was because like, for instance, he would not,

41:18.860 --> 41:23.180
he could respond well physiologically to a moderate carb diet, but it would be hard to

41:23.180 --> 41:27.660
lose fat because once he has carbs, he wants them all. And so for him, refeed strategies were

41:27.660 --> 41:31.560
actually advantageous because he would put a window where he would have 12 to 16 grams of

41:31.560 --> 41:35.620
carbohydrates per kilogram of body weight, and he would get that overfeeding. And he used to use

41:35.620 --> 41:39.520
what was called the ultimate diet too, which is one of his initial books. It's the second book

41:39.520 --> 41:40.280
that he ever published.

41:40.320 --> 41:45.860
Now, that is a particular case where he essentially manipulated the strategy towards

41:45.860 --> 41:51.520
his physiology and his psychology. But there are other people where just the act of getting back

41:51.520 --> 41:56.580
to maintenance can cause them to actually overshoot. And once they went off their diet

41:56.580 --> 42:01.760
itself, and they think they've broken the diet, it does not only lead to overeating that day,

42:01.760 --> 42:05.920
but subsequent days. So it could be, hey, we implement one refeed day,

42:06.100 --> 42:09.860
and that one refeed day becomes a whole refeed week. And really, it becomes,

42:10.320 --> 42:14.880
it becomes an overfeeding week. And then it's harder to get back on the right track. So I think

42:14.880 --> 42:21.280
that this is a strategy that A, is not necessary. B, it can be beneficial, but does not mean it is

42:21.280 --> 42:30.240
beneficial. Yeah. No, I completely agree. And for some, it's, and part of it, when we're talking

42:30.240 --> 42:36.160
about increasing just carbohydrate, right? It doesn't then therefore allow, if that was the

42:36.160 --> 42:40.120
strategy, it doesn't then allow a lot of these hyperpalatable foods that people,

42:40.320 --> 42:43.800
have in their head, they're like, oh, carbohydrate, I can have pizza. I can have,

42:44.000 --> 42:50.360
you know, I don't know, name any, you know, biscuits, cake, etc. But a lot of, with those

42:50.360 --> 42:54.540
foods, a lot of the calories are coming from fat. So when I'm thinking about carbohydrate, I'm like,

42:54.980 --> 43:01.060
rice, you know, fruit. Yes. I don't know. I think that's the best approach to it,

43:01.080 --> 43:05.160
first and foremost, because we're trying to restore glycogen, and also maintain digestion.

43:05.160 --> 43:09.620
But I think that in and of itself, the construction and the controlled element and the structure

43:09.620 --> 43:10.200
behind,

43:10.320 --> 43:15.460
refeeds, especially when done in a coaching scenario, leads people to be more likely to

43:15.460 --> 43:19.660
stay on track, because we're essentially just giving them increased portions of highly satiating

43:19.660 --> 43:24.840
foods that are not overly palatable. So they're going to be less likely to have like that dopamine

43:24.840 --> 43:30.540
release from cookies, cakes, sweet treats, and things of that sort, and be less likely to kind

43:30.540 --> 43:34.760
of have like an abstinence violation effects, where they're essentially, they feel like they

43:34.760 --> 43:40.000
broke the diet, and they, you know, had some of the forbidden fruit. And now it's like, all bets are

43:40.320 --> 43:42.180
taken down the entire pantry.

43:42.180 --> 43:47.940
Yeah, 100%. And I mean, it's, and to be clear, it's not like Brandon and I are saying you can

43:47.940 --> 43:54.700
never eat these other foods ever again. But the purpose of the diet break or the refeed is not to

43:54.700 --> 44:01.800
to bring in these hyper palatable foods like that. It's sort of just, it's orienting your

44:01.800 --> 44:08.360
behaviors. So you're eating more food, you're feeling better. And you're almost losing that

44:08.360 --> 44:10.160
desire to overeat.

44:10.320 --> 44:14.760
Because over time, you know, you're, I don't know, just psychologically, you'll just respond

44:14.760 --> 44:22.460
better to these, the idea of eating the other hyper palatable foods also. I don't know,

44:22.520 --> 44:23.380
there's a lot going on.

44:23.800 --> 44:27.980
Absolutely. Now, one other area that I think it's important to cover, we have limited data in this,

44:28.060 --> 44:31.380
but because we are people that love to train, we have an audience that loves training,

44:31.700 --> 44:36.840
we do have a little bit of actually ICR data in training. So in there was a secondary analysis

44:36.840 --> 44:40.300
of the ice cap trial. And the researchers look specifically at what changes, what changes,

44:40.320 --> 44:44.280
over a one week diet break, where calories were brought back up to maintenance entirely

44:44.280 --> 44:48.720
through increased carbohydrate intake. And they found that lower body muscular endurance improved

44:48.720 --> 44:53.120
after the diet break. And those trainees that were in that sub analysis group essentially reported

44:53.120 --> 44:58.320
improvements in fullness, hunger, satisfaction and alertness. And I think that this distinction

44:58.320 --> 45:04.060
makes physiological sense. They were able to get better, higher repetition, resistant training

45:04.060 --> 45:08.520
performance. And if you think about what resistant training relies on, it's a glycolytic activity. So

45:08.520 --> 45:10.240
by replenishing those glycogen source,

45:10.320 --> 45:14.280
they were able to get better training output. And that's something I personally do with a lot

45:14.280 --> 45:17.940
of the physique athletes that I work with. When they're deep into a diet, carbohydrate intake is

45:17.940 --> 45:25.720
low. I utilize a lot of refeed strategies where it's based around increasing carbohydrate

45:25.720 --> 45:31.580
availability during their most important training sessions, because I'm trying to get improvements.

45:31.960 --> 45:36.280
Say that they have a weak muscle group. I'll give you a great example. I recently turned one of my

45:36.280 --> 45:40.300
clients pro in the IFBB. So he became an IFBB pro. And one of the things that I've done is I've

45:40.320 --> 45:46.020
been working on his back development, because that was the one area that the judges gave the most

45:46.020 --> 45:50.440
constructive feedback and criticism on in his last show. He got second at nationals,

45:50.600 --> 45:53.960
and he was one spot away from a pro card in two categories. But they said, listen,

45:54.020 --> 45:58.340
he needs to bring his back up. So all offseason, we're working on that. But what you have to realize

45:58.340 --> 46:04.380
is if something is a weak point, like previously, we always have to pay extra attention to that. So

46:04.380 --> 46:08.640
when I would utilize refeed days or high carbohydrate refeed days in his program,

46:08.640 --> 46:10.240
I would always make sure at least one of them,

46:10.320 --> 46:14.240
landed on a back day, so that he had the highest training performance. It would either be the day

46:14.240 --> 46:17.180
before the back day or the back day itself, because he used to train in the evening. So he

46:17.180 --> 46:21.220
would get three, four meals in by the time he would get into the gym. And then it would just

46:21.220 --> 46:25.620
make sure that we were maintaining performance on that high priority muscle group. And that was

46:25.620 --> 46:28.740
something that allowed him to maintain training performance and thus maintain lean mass.

46:29.300 --> 46:36.800
Nice one. And you can't discount the psychology of feeling better during training as well. So

46:36.800 --> 46:38.560
that in and of itself is going to

46:38.560 --> 46:46.460
be a motivating factor for people to, when they're doing the, the refeeds and having the

46:46.460 --> 46:51.220
higher carbohydrate, right? Because a lot of the time when you're in a deficit, your training can

46:51.220 --> 46:56.100
take a hit if you're not fueling appropriately around it, or just the fact that you're deep

46:56.100 --> 47:02.440
into that deficit. So I love that. That's what I chat to my clients about too, is like, you know,

47:02.440 --> 47:08.520
let's make the most of these added calories and do your training on that day. And you'll feel like a

47:08.520 --> 47:14.440
rock star and that will sort of drive that motivation to continue to adhere to the diet

47:14.440 --> 47:18.600
once they're off the diet break as well. Absolutely. There's the feed forward mechanism

47:18.600 --> 47:22.040
essentially, because you have the positive effect from having the refeed and the performance

47:22.040 --> 47:27.140
increases. And then it also has downstream effects on the days to come because you have

47:27.140 --> 47:31.100
that heightened motivation. You feel better physiologically, physically, you see a better

47:31.100 --> 47:35.580
pump in the gym. So there's even like a better performance outcome in one of your long runs.

47:35.760 --> 47:38.500
And then it has this feed forward cycle.

47:38.520 --> 47:42.240
Essentially where you're able to keep pushing until you get that next refeed, which is

47:42.240 --> 47:46.680
essentially, or that next diet break, which is the next reprieve. Now we went through all the

47:46.680 --> 47:50.660
research. What I want to do is now switch to more of like the practical application and really

47:50.660 --> 47:54.520
discuss how we apply these strategies to our clients, because that's where the context matters.

47:54.760 --> 47:57.460
So Mikki, I'm gonna let you go first. I want you to really discuss instead of Mikki,

47:57.640 --> 48:03.620
money's matter. If you were utilizing, whether it be diet breaks or refeeds with a one-on-one

48:03.620 --> 48:07.520
client, how do you typically structure those strategies when you do use them with these

48:07.520 --> 48:07.840
clients?

48:08.520 --> 48:16.820
Okay. So how I implement a diet break or a refeed for a client, we've already talked through some

48:16.820 --> 48:23.200
of the scenarios, right? So their schedule might dictate when I'd put a refeed in, depending on

48:23.200 --> 48:28.200
how early they are on into the deficit. Like if someone's been with me for a couple of weeks and

48:28.200 --> 48:33.720
they're off on vacation, like I'm not necessarily going to say, or they're off on traveling for

48:33.720 --> 48:38.500
work. I'm not necessarily going to say, have a diet break here, but I am, you know, I'm going to

48:38.520 --> 48:43.040
because their motivation will probably be high. They don't have a lot of this sort of physical

48:43.040 --> 48:50.400
fatigue that comes through dieting for a long period of time. And there are strategies we can

48:50.400 --> 48:55.740
put in place that mean that they're largely going to be adherent. So I'm not going to just

48:55.740 --> 49:02.880
automatically sort of implement a diet break there. But if someone has been in the trenches

49:02.880 --> 49:07.800
for six or eight weeks and this is coming up, so we have that sort of planned in place.

49:08.520 --> 49:14.520
So the adherence to their diet and those biofeedback markers we discussed, Brandon,

49:14.660 --> 49:19.860
these are conversations that I'm having with someone as well as to whether or not we sort of

49:19.860 --> 49:24.240
need a diet break. And also I want to think about what's going on in their life as well. So,

49:24.360 --> 49:30.180
you know, maybe their sleep's disrupted, not because of the caloric deficit, but there's

49:30.180 --> 49:35.180
something else happening that is meaning that their sleep isn't great. So I do really want

49:35.180 --> 49:38.500
to chat about what's going on with regards to their lifestyle. And I'm going to talk a little bit

49:38.520 --> 49:43.440
about the lifestyle and what's happening that week or the subsequent weeks that is causing

49:43.440 --> 49:48.640
these other biofeedbacks that might not actually be because they need a diet break. It might be for

49:48.640 --> 49:54.940
another reason. The cravings one is interesting. You did mention it, that cravings can be sort of

49:54.940 --> 50:01.920
driven not just from the deficit, but from maybe exposure to foods that they haven't actually told

50:01.920 --> 50:07.400
me about. So I think I'll be doing, I mean, this happens anyway. We do an audit as to what's

50:07.400 --> 50:08.500
happening, but I'll be keeping an eye on that. So I think I'll be doing, I mean, this happens

50:08.500 --> 50:08.620
anyway. We do an audit as to what's happening, but I'll be keeping an eye on that. So I think I'll

50:08.620 --> 50:08.640
be doing, I mean, this happens anyway. We do an audit as to what's happening, but I'll be keeping

50:08.640 --> 50:14.340
these things in mind. So, you know, if the biofeedback markers are changing legitimately

50:14.340 --> 50:21.380
through a deficit, then I'm going to want to implement, like, it doesn't have to be like a

50:21.380 --> 50:26.440
full break for a week or two weeks. It could just be sort of, I like a three days, you know,

50:26.740 --> 50:33.660
three days sort of refeed type scenario. But I do want to at first determine that

50:33.660 --> 50:38.440
all of that biofeedback data that we're

50:38.500 --> 50:43.760
collecting is due to the fact that it's a deficit and not other sort of elements.

50:44.560 --> 50:48.320
Absolutely. I think really what you're trying to get across is that these are useful tools,

50:48.320 --> 50:51.840
but they're not something that we automatically utilize. I think you would agree with me with

50:51.840 --> 50:58.160
that. I kind of look at this as an auto-regulated approach where what I'm doing is I'm looking at

50:58.160 --> 51:02.160
the entire data set that that client is providing me with, and I have an extensive check-in form.

51:02.260 --> 51:06.740
So I'm looking at many different parameters. And then really, when I think about these strategies,

51:06.740 --> 51:10.360
I'm thinking to myself, what problem am I trying to solve? Because

51:10.360 --> 51:15.400
really when it comes down to it, I'm only utilizing this if it's a necessary component. Besides,

51:15.700 --> 51:21.460
there's going to be some exceptions to the rule where it is a scheduling conflict or vacation,

51:21.660 --> 51:25.520
but I will know that way in advance. This is not something I use in early days in fat loss.

51:25.820 --> 51:29.640
This is when someone has gotten deep into the deficit. We have lost a substantial amount of

51:29.640 --> 51:34.600
body fat. And then I start seeing things like the rate of loss is becoming faster than I want.

51:34.680 --> 51:36.620
That's one case that I would utilize refeed to,

51:36.740 --> 51:41.960
to slow down that rate of loss. Especially I use a descending and dynamic approach to rate of loss

51:41.960 --> 51:45.940
where I start very quickly off the bat when someone's motivation is high, their body fat

51:45.940 --> 51:50.300
is higher, their calories are higher. So I just pull it out and I get things moving and they get

51:50.300 --> 51:56.160
the motivation. And what you have to realize is that progress leads to momentum and momentum

51:56.160 --> 52:00.360
leads to motivation. It's not the reverse causality. And so once I get someone bought in

52:00.360 --> 52:04.940
and we see that early weight loss, like we discussed last week or last podcast on the

52:04.940 --> 52:10.020
Rapid Fat Loss podcast, early weight loss is actually predictive of long-term weight loss

52:10.020 --> 52:15.420
and long-term weight loss success. So if someone can get a good four to six week productive start

52:15.420 --> 52:19.260
to a fat loss phase, they often do better long-term. But that does not mean I keep them in

52:19.260 --> 52:26.140
that same net deficit from week one of the fat loss phase to week 12. I'm going to undulate,

52:26.240 --> 52:32.280
I'm going to change that. Now, another potential scenario that I will utilize, a refeed, because

52:32.280 --> 52:34.920
I'm always going to start with a refeed first. I really want to gauge that person,

52:35.040 --> 52:38.320
which response I'm going to start with one day. I'm not going to extend it out. I'm going to kind

52:38.320 --> 52:43.540
of use it in a titrated manner. If I start seeing that multiple components of their biofeedback are

52:43.540 --> 52:49.660
coming in and I'm triangulating the data and I'm seeing that training performance is starting to

52:49.660 --> 52:54.880
decline, their hunger and fatigue are increasing. Or there may be in this specific case, I just

52:54.880 --> 52:59.860
spoke about Wes, my client that just turned IFE pro, there were certain specific sessions that

52:59.860 --> 53:04.820
I wanted to better support. Now, in those specific cases, I'm going to use a refeed. And I also,

53:04.940 --> 53:09.040
will utilize, and the only time that I will say I will always utilize refeeds are with physique

53:09.040 --> 53:14.520
competitors. Because what I use refeeds for, and this is only later in a prep, I use them as an

53:14.520 --> 53:18.900
opportunity to gather data that can eventually help me carb load them during their peak week.

53:19.080 --> 53:24.120
Now, when I implement a refeed, I'm generally going to bring calories right back up to estimated

53:24.120 --> 53:28.620
maintenance. I'm going to keep protein stable, or it may decrease because obviously we know that

53:28.620 --> 53:32.840
carbohydrates are protein sparing. So if I'm really trying to increase the amount of buffer

53:32.840 --> 53:34.920
room I have for carbohydrates, I'm going to use a refeed. And I'm going to use a refeed. And I'm

53:34.920 --> 53:39.560
pulling down protein a little bit and increase carbohydrate, but I'm always going to keep that

53:39.560 --> 53:43.640
stable. And then that entire calorie increase is going to come from carbohydrates. And really,

53:43.740 --> 53:49.180
a big thing that I think is important to highlight is the dietary construction. Because what I do

53:49.180 --> 53:53.740
personally with my clientele is I keep their normal dietary structure in place. I'm not

53:53.740 --> 53:57.020
suddenly introducing a bunch of new foods that they haven't been eating. We don't know if they

53:57.020 --> 54:01.340
digest well. I'm really, what I'm doing is I'm increasing the portions of carbohydrate sources.

54:01.340 --> 54:04.440
I already know that they digest well and they perform well on.

54:04.920 --> 54:10.520
And that makes the response much more predictable. And usually what I'll do is I'll prioritize that

54:10.520 --> 54:15.220
higher carbohydrate intake really around the most demanding training session or the muscle group

54:15.220 --> 54:20.100
we're prioritizing. I'll utilize a nutrient timing based approach. Now, another thing I don't do,

54:20.500 --> 54:25.820
I think this is important. I don't automatically, and it's easy to say, hey, we have these estimation

54:25.820 --> 54:29.420
equations, this, that, and the other. I always start low and titrate up. So what I will say is

54:29.420 --> 54:33.000
I will go back to that person's predicted maintenance based off how much body weight

54:33.000 --> 54:34.680
they lost and how deep they are into the deficit.

54:34.920 --> 54:39.320
But sometimes I'll undershoot it purposely because I would rather start conservatively,

54:39.680 --> 54:45.280
collect data, and then titrate up based on that person's response. So after I refeed,

54:45.360 --> 54:49.300
I want to look at that person's body weight, their visual changes. So am I seeing better

54:49.300 --> 54:54.560
muscular fullness? Am I seeing rounder, fuller looking muscles? How was their training performance?

54:54.660 --> 54:57.720
How were their pumps in the gym? What was their hunger like? What was their energy like?

54:57.720 --> 55:03.660
I also am big on digestion. So this increase in carbohydrate content of the same foods that you

55:03.660 --> 55:04.820
ate, did that sit?

55:04.920 --> 55:07.780
Well, with you, because I'll tell you personally, there are certain food sources that I won't

55:07.780 --> 55:11.600
increase in those meals. So for instance, if I have someone that's eating a good deal of oatmeal

55:11.600 --> 55:15.420
in their breakfast, I'm not going to just double that to get carbohydrate content. I might cut that

55:15.420 --> 55:20.080
with cream of rice and they might have croats, or I might just bias that carbohydrate increase for

55:20.080 --> 55:23.640
that day in other meals where it's going to be more high glycemic carbs that I know are going

55:23.640 --> 55:28.780
to sit well. So there's a lot of titration, there is a lot of adjustments, and there's a lot of

55:28.780 --> 55:33.120
gauging in that biofeedback. Now, that's what I do with refeeds. And I'll start with one day,

55:33.480 --> 55:34.480
then I'll often go to two.

55:34.920 --> 55:39.860
The most I'll do is three days. And that will usually be back to back that I will utilize that.

55:39.900 --> 55:43.600
And I will be tracking that on each of those days. I often have additional check-ins when I'm

55:43.600 --> 55:46.940
utilizing that with physique athletes. Now, a diet break is something that I use

55:46.940 --> 55:53.840
more sparingly, but it's really when there is more accumulated global fatigue. And this would

55:53.840 --> 55:57.660
be something that I would only really utilize with someone that has been dieting consistently

55:57.660 --> 56:02.480
hard for several months. And usually in this case, there's multiple biofeedback markers that are

56:02.480 --> 56:04.900
starting to show that we need to pull back a little bit.

56:04.920 --> 56:09.840
So we're going to see that hunger is consistently high. Their training performance has started to

56:09.840 --> 56:14.760
trend downwards. Their energy and their motivation are lower. And in a lot of cases, they're starting

56:14.760 --> 56:18.640
to kind of feel burnt out from being in a deficit. So there are times that I have conversations with

56:18.640 --> 56:24.800
clients where I really try to do a progress or essentially a goal reevaluation. And sometimes

56:24.800 --> 56:30.020
we're eight, 10 weeks into a diet. And I ask them, listen, you had a specific goal that you came to

56:30.020 --> 56:30.800
me for. Now, we are deep into this process, and it could have changed the way that you've been doing it.

56:30.800 --> 56:34.900
And I ask them, listen, you had a specific goal that you came to me for. Now, we are deep into this process, and it could have changed the way that you've been doing it.

56:34.920 --> 56:35.420
And I ask them, listen, you had a specific goal that you came to me for. Now, we are deep into this process, and it could have changed the way that you've been doing it.

56:35.420 --> 56:42.140
There could be one of two things. You may want to pull out a little bit early, or you actually may want to push for greater

56:42.140 --> 56:45.800
progress than you thought was possible. I have this specific case. I'm going to actually post a woman

56:45.800 --> 56:52.680
tomorrow that I took her through a 24-week dieting phase. And it wasn't straight dieting. It wasn't a

56:52.680 --> 56:57.560
straight linear deficit. There was times where I included refeeds or flexible high days, or I

56:57.560 --> 57:02.600
included diet breaks. And she had vacations in the mix. So it wasn't 24 weeks, but it was 24 weeks

57:02.600 --> 57:04.900
where fat loss was our focus. And initially, she had 24 weeks where I was actually dieting. And so

57:04.900 --> 57:09.260
told me she wanted to lose, when she first came to me, 15 to 20 pounds. But once we had gotten

57:09.260 --> 57:12.580
into the work together, we realized that she really needed to lose a lot more to actually

57:12.580 --> 57:16.920
reach the goal that she had. So when we got into that 24-week fat loss phase, if I had just taken

57:16.920 --> 57:20.420
her initial goal, she would have had to lose 10 more pounds because we had lost 10 pounds in our

57:20.420 --> 57:24.660
initial period of time working together. But I had a feeling that we could go further, and I asked

57:24.660 --> 57:30.480
her. And so we ended up losing, during those 24 weeks, 24 pounds. And her physique looks

57:30.480 --> 57:36.740
completely different. But it really came down to a progress or a goal re-evaluation and asking her,

57:36.920 --> 57:41.420
listen, now that you're actually in the process itself, how do you feel? In her case, she felt

57:41.420 --> 57:45.540
great. So she wasn't dealing with hunger. She felt well-fueled. I kind of got her into a higher

57:45.540 --> 57:50.740
energy flux approach. She went from 7,000 steps. She now averages 15,000. So she's a completely

57:50.740 --> 57:57.100
different woman. But there's other cases where I have to ask this person, listen, is it that you

57:57.100 --> 58:00.240
want to pull the plug sooner? Or would you like to keep pushing?

58:00.240 --> 58:03.940
In a lot of cases, clients will tell me, actually, we're way further than I ever thought I could get.

58:04.020 --> 58:07.940
Let's see how far we can get. And that's where I'll say, listen, before we move any further and

58:07.940 --> 58:12.660
we push for more, let's pull back. Let's do a diet break. And let's restore your physiology

58:12.660 --> 58:18.220
and essentially dissipate that dietary fatigue that you've accumulated. And then we're able to

58:18.220 --> 58:23.380
come back into the deficit in a better position. And so I think that that's a really good strategy

58:23.380 --> 58:30.200
to utilize in order to get someone further along, because it is essentially putting them

58:30.200 --> 58:34.500
in the best position to succeed. Now, I do also want to highlight the fact that

58:34.500 --> 58:40.760
this is not for everyone. And so just like we had highlighted, I can have two clients that are on

58:40.760 --> 58:45.840
the same exact calories losing at the exact same rate. But one could be performing great and

58:45.840 --> 58:50.600
honestly adhering easily. And there would be no need to slow down their rate of loss or to give

58:50.600 --> 58:54.200
them the strategy. Whereas I could have another person on the same calorie intake, but they're

58:54.200 --> 58:57.460
hungry, they're exhausted, and they're barely holding things together. And that would be

58:57.460 --> 59:00.020
a person that would be a better candidate.

59:00.200 --> 59:07.580
Yeah, 100% Brandon. And I guess a couple of other, well, actually a comment and then a question for

59:07.580 --> 59:13.360
you. So my comment is, you mentioned about the training aspect of it and putting higher carb or

59:13.360 --> 59:18.180
refeed days around heavier training loads. And as an endurance athlete and working with a lot of

59:18.180 --> 59:26.660
endurance athletes, that's 100% a smart approach as well, right? So even if you're training for

59:26.660 --> 59:30.180
something and your actual goal race isn't, and you know, it's not, it might be different, but

59:30.200 --> 59:40.300
you're still building towards that session, then having like your, typically it's like either

59:40.300 --> 59:45.420
midweek or it will be midweek and it's weekend. These are your longer days where you're out for

59:45.420 --> 59:50.640
longer, or you've got that threshold work done. Then that's when we're going to put extra carbs

59:50.640 --> 59:58.500
in. So you'll have more carbohydrate on those days as well. My question to you is an interesting

59:58.500 --> 01:00:00.180
one, because I see it a lot, actually, on social media. And I think it's really important to

01:00:00.200 --> 01:00:04.840
social media and unsurprising you, because you work with a lot more individual clients than I do

01:00:04.840 --> 01:00:10.460
in a very different way that I do. So you're very calculated in how you do it, different

01:00:10.460 --> 01:00:16.480
personalities, you know. I see on social media, people posting their macros for different days

01:00:16.480 --> 01:00:22.760
of the week and the coach for them does manipulate their fat calories. And in fact, the fat comes

01:00:22.760 --> 01:00:28.220
down to allow for more carbohydrate, whereas you've just said that you sort of, you reduce

01:00:28.300 --> 01:00:29.980
protein, if anything, for that.

01:00:30.200 --> 01:00:33.560
So can you just chat a little bit about the reasoning?

01:00:34.600 --> 01:00:39.360
Yeah, absolutely. So generally, if I have someone and realize that I'm utilizing these refeeds and

01:00:39.360 --> 01:00:43.280
these diet break strategies deeper into a diet. So I've already pulled out some of the dietary fat

01:00:43.280 --> 01:00:47.120
to create a deficit. And then I've also pulled down carbohydrates. Now, if I'm looking from a

01:00:47.120 --> 01:00:51.480
training performance perspective, a glycogen restoration perspective, even a visual improvement

01:00:51.480 --> 01:00:56.580
perspective, my number one priority is restoring carbohydrate availability and making as many of

01:00:56.580 --> 01:01:00.180
the increases in calorie intake from a diet break strategy as possible. So I've already pulled out

01:01:00.200 --> 01:01:05.060
carbohydrates in and of itself. Now, when it comes down to dietary fat, oftentimes, someone will be

01:01:05.060 --> 01:01:11.860
towards a level at which I don't really want to pull that down anymore. You know, A, I want to make

01:01:11.860 --> 01:01:15.460
sure that they have enough for their hormone production. Although hormones really, when we get

01:01:15.460 --> 01:01:21.660
down to like the brass tacks of science, you could be in a high fat diet and be losing body fat. And

01:01:21.660 --> 01:01:28.300
that lack of energy availability is what's going to be driving your hormonal system to be down

01:01:28.300 --> 01:01:30.020
regulated from an HPA access.

01:01:30.200 --> 01:01:31.200
Dr. Justin Marchegiani 05,004

01:01:31.200 --> 01:01:34.360
perspective or HPTA or HBO access perspective. So really, when we look at the differences between

01:01:34.360 --> 01:01:38.740
fat intakes, we're not seeing a substantial effects, especially in natural or endogenous

01:01:38.740 --> 01:01:45.120
hormone production. However, we still want enough for a mega fatty acid intake, we want to make sure

01:01:45.120 --> 01:01:48.140
that they have vitamin and mineral absorption, and then also just like from the palatability

01:01:48.140 --> 01:01:52.800
perspective, like making things taste well. So usually, I'll hold fat constant. But on those

01:01:52.800 --> 01:01:57.400
days, think about it in a short term perspective, I can easily pull down protein because oftentimes

01:01:57.400 --> 01:02:00.180
with people that I'm working on fat loss with, I can easily pull down protein because oftentimes,

01:02:00.200 --> 01:02:07.040
they're eating 1.25 to 1.5 grams per pound, or that would be, say, 2.5 to 3.3 grams per kilogram.

01:02:07.740 --> 01:02:11.720
And so I have a little extra, and there's an extra buffer. So I want you to think about it

01:02:11.720 --> 01:02:17.040
like this. First and foremost, carbohydrates are protein sparing. But also, we have to think about

01:02:17.040 --> 01:02:22.120
the fact that even if I pull down protein to say, from whole foods, and complete protein sources to

01:02:22.120 --> 01:02:28.880
one gram per pound per day, or 2.2 grams per kilogram per day, they're going to actually bump

01:02:28.880 --> 01:02:30.180
their protein intake up if I do that. So I'm going to have to think about that. So I'm going to have

01:02:30.200 --> 01:02:32.700
to increase their carbohydrates. So they're going to get incomplete proteins, but they're

01:02:32.700 --> 01:02:37.240
probably still going to land at 1.25. So I have no problem on a short term. But oftentimes,

01:02:37.420 --> 01:02:41.540
to be honest with you, if it's not a physique competitor, I will leave often protein and fat

01:02:41.540 --> 01:02:45.600
content the same. And I will just increase the portions of their actual carbohydrate content

01:02:45.600 --> 01:02:51.760
because I honestly want them to almost look at the initial base diet as a skeleton, which we can

01:02:51.760 --> 01:02:56.060
just add and subtract from. So really, I'm just trying to manipulate their carbohydrate sources

01:02:56.060 --> 01:03:00.140
so that it's very easy for them. Now, yes, I may get more nuanced. There are times,

01:03:00.200 --> 01:03:04.940
when I'm changing fatty acid composition with certain people when I'm loading them for

01:03:04.940 --> 01:03:08.520
competition. So for instance, I'll give you a great example. When I'm carb loading or I'm

01:03:08.520 --> 01:03:14.540
peaking someone, oftentimes I will front load the actual peak week itself with a fat load. So I'll

01:03:14.540 --> 01:03:18.820
increase their fat content so we can restore intramuscular triglycerides. Because when somebody

01:03:18.820 --> 01:03:23.420
gets really lean, they're actually burning through IMTGs. Now, I will do that preferentially through

01:03:23.420 --> 01:03:29.960
mono and polyunsaturated fats because saturated fats do not work as well for this restoring of

01:03:30.200 --> 01:03:36.100
intramuscular triglycerides. So I will use anti-inflammatory fats. I will use things like

01:03:36.100 --> 01:03:41.540
almonds or nuts or macadamia nut butter. I will utilize extra virgin olive oil,

01:03:41.860 --> 01:03:46.040
just anti-inflammatory fats. And then when we transition to the carb load, I will bring down

01:03:46.040 --> 01:03:49.860
fats itself and I will increase carbohydrate content. I will make sure that there's a balance

01:03:49.860 --> 01:03:54.100
between high glycemic carbohydrates to restore glycogen. There is fruit, so I want to utilize

01:03:54.100 --> 01:03:58.620
multiple transportable carbs. So I will utilize something that's glucose-based like your white

01:03:58.620 --> 01:04:00.180
rice, which is going to go through the sodium.

01:04:00.200 --> 01:04:03.740
Glucose transporters in the gastrointestinal tract. And then I'll utilize some type of

01:04:03.740 --> 01:04:08.120
fructose source, whether that be berries or even honey or something of that sort. So that goes

01:04:08.120 --> 01:04:12.400
through GLUT5. So we have the increase in carbohydrate uptake from utilizing both a

01:04:12.400 --> 01:04:17.320
glucose and a fructose source. But then I will also utilize something that has potassium in that.

01:04:17.680 --> 01:04:23.740
So maybe I'll utilize potassium-containing fruits. Oftentimes, when competitors get very,

01:04:23.820 --> 01:04:26.940
very lean, it's hard for them to go to the bathroom. So I might use dates or I might

01:04:26.940 --> 01:04:30.120
utilize prunes. So I'm going to get some potassium content through.

01:04:30.200 --> 01:04:34.380
But I'll also make sure there's some sweet potato within that week because I'm trying to balance out

01:04:34.380 --> 01:04:38.980
their sodium to potassium ratio. So we have a good sodium-potassium pump and that we're able to...

01:04:38.980 --> 01:04:44.500
Remember, we're trying to manipulate some of the subcutaneous to interstitial water and fluids and

01:04:44.500 --> 01:04:47.980
things of that sort. So it's really like a cosmetic look that we're going for. So I'm trying to look

01:04:47.980 --> 01:04:53.500
at all the variables. But in the actual diet construction for a lifestyle client, I'm really

01:04:53.500 --> 01:04:57.680
focusing on making it easy to adhere to and something that's going to be highly satiating.

01:04:57.680 --> 01:04:59.960
So really my goal when I'm utilizing a

01:05:00.200 --> 01:05:04.280
refeed, and the reason I'm very specific about the food sources is because in the past,

01:05:04.320 --> 01:05:09.720
and I know this personally because I've seen other people do this, if you ever see how people used to

01:05:09.720 --> 01:05:14.900
do a refeed in the if-it-fits-your-macros days, they would take the calorie increase and they

01:05:14.900 --> 01:05:20.120
would utilize a lot of hyperpalatable foods. They would put Pop-Tarts or they would utilize protein

01:05:20.120 --> 01:05:23.620
shakes or whatever it may be. And if you actually weighed out, and I actually did an experiment one

01:05:23.620 --> 01:05:27.480
time like this, if you weighed out their actual food weight across a day, we as humans, there's

01:05:27.480 --> 01:05:30.180
research by Barbara Rolls and colleagues, that if you actually weighed out their actual food weight

01:05:30.180 --> 01:05:33.360
across a day, we as humans, regardless of the calorie intake or the calorie density of our foods,

01:05:33.460 --> 01:05:37.620
we eat approximately the same amount of food weight per day. So we can really drastically

01:05:37.620 --> 01:05:41.660
change our calorie intake by utilizing, say, a low energy density diet versus a high energy

01:05:41.660 --> 01:05:46.660
density diet. She has a lot of studies that look at this where she'll exchange salads with dressings

01:05:46.660 --> 01:05:52.960
versus normal salads, or she'll do salad preloads or vegetable preloads or fruit preloads or soup

01:05:52.960 --> 01:05:56.140
preloads. And they're essentially changing the energy density of these meals, but they're eating

01:05:56.140 --> 01:06:00.000
the same amount of food in terms of food weight. And that is because,

01:06:00.180 --> 01:06:06.200
our gastrointestinal tracts have gastric receptors that perceive food volume, which send a satiety

01:06:06.200 --> 01:06:10.520
signal to the brain. So what I was starting to notice with a lot of it, if it fits your macros

01:06:10.520 --> 01:06:14.820
dieters or macro coaches, was that their clients and people would come to me in this same fashion,

01:06:15.440 --> 01:06:19.620
they were essentially utilizing their refeed days to fit more of the foods that they craved,

01:06:19.780 --> 01:06:24.700
but they were actually hungrier after because they were utilizing higher energy density food

01:06:24.700 --> 01:06:28.860
sources that actually had less food weight. So if you looked at the amount of food on a plate,

01:06:28.860 --> 01:06:30.040
or if you measured it out,

01:06:30.180 --> 01:06:33.640
and you weighed it, they were actually eating less food on the refeed days, despite eating 500

01:06:33.640 --> 01:06:38.700
calories more than they were on their normal diet. So it didn't give them the satiating effects that

01:06:38.700 --> 01:06:42.300
you would if you had just taken your sweet potato or your white potato and your rice,

01:06:42.760 --> 01:06:48.360
and maybe your butternut squash and things like that, and just increased the portions of them.

01:06:48.440 --> 01:06:50.740
So that's something I really try to help clients avoid.

01:06:51.500 --> 01:06:58.360
Yeah, no, I love that, Brandon. And I expected a comprehensive answer, and you did not disappoint,

01:06:58.360 --> 01:06:58.720
amazingly.

01:07:00.180 --> 01:07:05.460
And what I would also say, just to reiterate, your skeleton diet approach, it's exactly what

01:07:05.460 --> 01:07:09.700
I want to do with people as well. We are building habits, and we are building behaviors and building

01:07:09.700 --> 01:07:16.500
plates for life. Yes, we're in a fat loss phase now, but what you do in your diet really needs to

01:07:16.500 --> 01:07:22.540
be able to be transferred to life after a diet as well. And you cannot do that if you're just

01:07:22.540 --> 01:07:27.920
chaotic with your food choices, and you don't have any structure around it.

01:07:28.680 --> 01:07:29.640
100%. So Mikki,

01:07:30.180 --> 01:07:34.740
I want to bring the research and then our coaching application together. And I want to talk about the

01:07:34.740 --> 01:07:39.440
benefits that we've actually seen from utilizing refeeds and diet breaks in practice, because

01:07:39.440 --> 01:07:44.260
the research doesn't show that these strategies magically accelerate fat loss. But I think there's

01:07:44.260 --> 01:07:49.140
several things that they do that make a fat loss phase easier. And so that's really what's

01:07:49.140 --> 01:07:53.980
important to me. So the first thing that I see is that it improves hunger. Because when someone has

01:07:53.980 --> 01:07:57.460
been dieting for a while, and their hunger has progressively increased, temporarily bringing

01:07:57.460 --> 01:08:00.160
calories back towards maintenance can give them some relief. So if you're in a fat loss phase,

01:08:00.180 --> 01:08:04.760
they may feel less hungry. A lot of times what I actually notice is that they feel less focused on

01:08:04.760 --> 01:08:09.320
food and mentally more refreshed. So I feel like it gives them a little bit more mental bandwidth

01:08:09.320 --> 01:08:14.900
to continue pushing forward. The next thing that I see personally is a large benefit to training

01:08:14.900 --> 01:08:19.180
performance. And this is especially noticeable with my physique athletes, because they're a

01:08:19.180 --> 01:08:23.380
little bit more tuned in to their actual training performance, and they log every single lift.

01:08:23.960 --> 01:08:29.100
And often, those are also the same individuals that I have to push harder from a deficit perspective.

01:08:29.100 --> 01:08:30.160
So their carbohydrates are going to be a little bit more efficient, and they're going to be a little bit more

01:08:30.180 --> 01:08:30.600
efficient. And they're going to be a little bit more efficient. And they're going to be a little bit more

01:08:30.600 --> 01:08:30.680
efficient. And they're going to be a little bit more efficient. And they're going to be a little bit

01:08:30.680 --> 01:08:36.320
actually gets lower than many of my lifestyle clients. So they are seeing more of a performance

01:08:36.320 --> 01:08:41.200
decrement as compared to their building phase when they're in deep into like a prep. And so after

01:08:41.200 --> 01:08:46.380
carbohydrate refeed day, a lot of times what I will do is I will have them check in, like it is an

01:08:46.380 --> 01:08:50.940
additional check into their normal weekly check in. And I'm getting reports of better pumps. I see

01:08:50.940 --> 01:08:54.260
that visually, but they also tell me, hey, I finally got a pump in the gym, where they have

01:08:54.260 --> 01:08:59.460
better muscular endurance, where they have better training output. And another thing is, oftentimes,

01:08:59.460 --> 01:09:00.160
this can help you with your weight loss. So if you're in a weight loss phase, you're going to get

01:09:00.180 --> 01:09:08.060
a recovery enhancement, essentially. The other thing is, it's going to help with adherence. A lot

01:09:08.060 --> 01:09:12.700
of times, I'll say this personally, when I tell a client in advance, hey, listen, we're going to go

01:09:12.700 --> 01:09:17.500
four of your normal diet days, so you're going to be in a deficit. And then on day five, so say it

01:09:17.500 --> 01:09:22.560
was Friday, on Friday, we were going to utilize a high carbohydrate refeed. A lot of times, it

01:09:22.560 --> 01:09:28.540
allows them to buy into the process, first and foremost, more, but then also they are more

01:09:28.540 --> 01:09:30.160
adherent week long, because they don't want to be in a deficit. So they're going to be in a deficit

01:09:30.160 --> 01:09:33.380
and they almost have like an incentive to work towards, and it kind of breaks up the monotony of

01:09:33.380 --> 01:09:37.620
the diet. Now, I will say that that is for many people, but at the same time, I do want to

01:09:37.620 --> 01:09:42.980
acknowledge that for some people, including a refeed or a diet break or whatever it may be,

01:09:43.280 --> 01:09:46.880
it's almost like they open up the floodgates, because once they eat more, their food focus

01:09:46.880 --> 01:09:50.840
goes up, and then getting them back into the deficit becomes harder. So really, what I do

01:09:50.840 --> 01:09:54.380
personally is I'm always looking at someone's personal psychology and our interactions. And

01:09:54.380 --> 01:09:58.460
then also, I'm looking at their previous dieting history, because I don't want to assume that every

01:09:58.460 --> 01:10:00.140
single person is going to respond the same way. So I'm looking at their previous dieting history,

01:10:00.160 --> 01:10:03.180
and that this is a strategy for everyone. So I do want to make that very transparent.

01:10:03.800 --> 01:10:07.560
And then another thing that you mentioned that I love is, and this we actually went through in

01:10:07.560 --> 01:10:11.280
detail in a podcast that you and I did together about fat loss being more challenging, or fat

01:10:11.280 --> 01:10:15.720
loss maintenance being more challenging than fat loss itself, is I really do think that this is

01:10:15.720 --> 01:10:20.200
an opportunity, especially diet breaks in and of itself, provides people with an opportunity to

01:10:20.200 --> 01:10:25.920
practice eating at maintenance. Because for every single person that we work with, the fat loss

01:10:25.920 --> 01:10:30.040
phase has to end. And really what we find, and I know that you would agree with me on this,

01:10:30.160 --> 01:10:34.600
is that many people, because of the myopic focus that they could put on something, and really the

01:10:34.600 --> 01:10:40.220
drive, the motivation that they receive or derive from weight loss in and of itself, they're good at

01:10:40.220 --> 01:10:44.580
getting themselves to adhere to the deficit. But once they reach that goal, and that carrot is

01:10:44.580 --> 01:10:49.060
essentially taken away from them, they really struggle with developing the skill of maintenance.

01:10:49.740 --> 01:10:54.560
And so I see this a lot of time with women, they're great at restricting, and they know how

01:10:54.560 --> 01:10:59.340
to diet, but they really don't know how to eat at maintenance. So it's almost like these refeeds or

01:10:59.340 --> 01:10:59.800
these diet breaks, they're not going to be able to eat at maintenance. And so I see this a lot of

01:10:59.800 --> 01:11:00.140
times with women, they're great at restricting, and they know how to diet, but they really don't know

01:11:00.160 --> 01:11:06.520
are an opportunity to show someone what eating more food looks like, how to essentially pause

01:11:06.520 --> 01:11:12.320
your fat loss goals and fuel yourself and restore your energy availability. But then I think that

01:11:12.320 --> 01:11:16.480
it's really important to see what happens when you do, especially a diet break. I think that's

01:11:16.480 --> 01:11:20.520
the best use case for really teaching someone how to eat at maintenance, taking a week or two weeks

01:11:20.520 --> 01:11:25.520
and getting them back to maintenance calories, because A, it teaches, especially women, that

01:11:25.520 --> 01:11:29.400
you're not going to gain fat from eating at maintenance. I think there's a lot of misconceptions

01:11:29.400 --> 01:11:30.060
around that.

01:11:30.160 --> 01:11:33.280
Like women think that eating more, even if you're in a deficit and you're just getting back to

01:11:33.280 --> 01:11:39.280
maintenance, they're very fearful of fat gain. But at the same time, they also have the opportunity

01:11:39.280 --> 01:11:42.880
to normalize those scale fluctuations when they increase those carbohydrate intake. Because I

01:11:42.880 --> 01:11:46.220
can tell them, listen, you're literally at maintenance and your weight is going to go up

01:11:46.220 --> 01:11:49.400
one to two pounds. And they see that, and they realize as soon as they get back in the deficit,

01:11:49.520 --> 01:11:53.020
it comes right off because they're dissipating the water that came and that was associated with

01:11:53.020 --> 01:12:00.120
that carbohydrate content. But many times, this is an exercise or essentially a,

01:12:00.160 --> 01:12:05.360
a skill building exercise at practicing what eating at maintenance is like that many people

01:12:05.360 --> 01:12:10.900
have never done because they've really went into, you know, diametrically opposing viewpoints or

01:12:10.900 --> 01:12:15.220
approaches. They've gotten themselves and over-restricted themselves into a deficit or,

01:12:15.440 --> 01:12:19.080
and then they've, you know, got off the beaten path and eaten in excess. They've never just

01:12:19.080 --> 01:12:24.380
eaten at a level that is fueling their body well, nutritionally, but is maintaining their current

01:12:24.380 --> 01:12:28.920
body weight and body composition. A hundred percent, Brandon. I've got almost nothing to add

01:12:28.920 --> 01:12:30.140
there other than, you know, I'm not going to go into too much detail, but I'm going to go into a

01:12:30.160 --> 01:12:35.140
just to say that evidence builds confidence, right? So the more opportunity you get to practice

01:12:35.140 --> 01:12:39.800
those skills and habits and behaviors that we're talking about, the more you actually believe that

01:12:39.800 --> 01:12:46.260
you can do it. And so much of diet success is around that self-belief and sort of getting rid

01:12:46.260 --> 01:12:51.440
of those self-limiting beliefs and seeing yourself as a person who can be successful in this space.

01:12:51.440 --> 01:12:57.860
Because for both of us, we work with people who have been dieting for most of their life, you know,

01:12:57.860 --> 01:12:59.940
a large part of them have been dieting for what,

01:13:00.160 --> 01:13:05.480
it seems like forever and they don't quite believe that they can successfully diet and keep weight

01:13:05.480 --> 01:13:11.860
off. So being able to practice the diet breaks, the refeeds and getting that evidence that they're

01:13:11.860 --> 01:13:16.700
not going to just gain weight and they can eat more. I think that's so important. So yeah.

01:13:17.300 --> 01:13:23.380
I agree, Mikki. One last thing that I do want to touch on is maybe delineating who we think that

01:13:23.380 --> 01:13:27.300
benefits most from this. Cause we've discussed how there are certain personality types that

01:13:27.300 --> 01:13:30.140
this might not be feasible for, but I also want to just make it very clear that there are certain

01:13:30.160 --> 01:13:40.640
people that we need to utilize. So for instance, I find these strategies more useful when someone

01:13:40.640 --> 01:13:44.080
has been dieting for a long period of time and they're getting to a point where they're leaner

01:13:44.080 --> 01:13:48.580
than they ever have been in the past. They're really trying to manage both the fat loss goals

01:13:48.580 --> 01:13:53.320
that they have with high training demands. And they're starting to feel some negative pushback

01:13:53.320 --> 01:13:57.200
on their biofeedback. So they have high hunger. They have a substantial amount of diet fatigue.

01:13:57.800 --> 01:14:00.140
That's when I think that these are the most beneficial.

01:14:00.160 --> 01:14:03.760
But I also want to make sure that people realize that these aren't mandatory, nor

01:14:03.760 --> 01:14:09.780
are they unnecessary or useful for every single person. If I have a client that is losing at an

01:14:09.780 --> 01:14:13.960
appropriate rate, they're training well, and they're adhering consistently, then I don't

01:14:13.960 --> 01:14:18.600
need to overcomplicate this by adding in another intervention, just because it's something that

01:14:18.600 --> 01:14:24.540
is sexy or that a lot of people talk about. I think that a lot of these strategies should be

01:14:24.540 --> 01:14:30.100
used when there's a specific problem that they can help us solve. But I don't think that we

01:14:30.100 --> 01:14:34.320
really need to overcomplicate fat loss. There are certain time periods that I've had individuals

01:14:34.320 --> 01:14:38.040
where they just get into a really good groove. And it's like they're finally firing on all the

01:14:38.040 --> 01:14:42.460
cylinders. They like the routine of being in the deficit, and they want the diet straight through

01:14:42.460 --> 01:14:46.900
the 12 weeks. And if we were to include these, it would either just slow down their progress,

01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:50.520
it would kind of frustrate them, or it would really break that momentum that we've helped

01:14:50.520 --> 01:14:55.500
them build. And so I think it's important to realize that these are tools. But just like

01:14:55.500 --> 01:14:59.940
with every tool, it can be used properly, it can be abused. But

01:15:00.100 --> 01:15:04.960
ultimately, we need to decipher and determine who are we actually utilizing this with,

01:15:05.020 --> 01:15:11.040
because it's not a one size fits all protocol. Yeah, no, I totally agree with that, Brandon. And

01:15:11.040 --> 01:15:17.580
particularly on that motivation piece and that momentum piece that you mentioned earlier,

01:15:17.580 --> 01:15:24.000
like people are motivated by momentum, and you don't want to just cut that momentum because

01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:29.300
we have to have a diet break every four weeks or every eight weeks or anything like that. So

01:15:30.100 --> 01:15:34.220
entirely in agreement with that. Perfect. Mikki, is there anything else that you want to hit on

01:15:34.220 --> 01:15:39.400
before we wrap this up? I don't think so, Brandon. I think we've comprehensively covered all of the

01:15:39.400 --> 01:15:44.280
areas that we thought we might. Perfect. All right. So I think that the biggest takeaway from

01:15:44.280 --> 01:15:49.980
this entire thing that I really want to get across to you guys is that these are strategies that are

01:15:49.980 --> 01:15:55.880
useful, but that not every single person needs to use during a fat loss phase. They're really best

01:15:55.880 --> 01:16:00.080
used and most useful when they're applied to the right person for the right reason,

01:16:00.100 --> 01:16:04.540
at the right time. Mikki, thanks again for doing this with me. Before we close this one out,

01:16:04.860 --> 01:16:09.060
where can everyone find your work and all the things that you have to offer?

01:16:09.660 --> 01:16:16.120
Of course, Brandon. So I'm over on Instagram at Mikki Williden. Obviously, if you're listening

01:16:16.120 --> 01:16:20.980
to this on Chasing Clarity, you'll know that, or you may have listened to me before. I've got my

01:16:20.980 --> 01:16:28.200
own podcast. This is streaming on as well, Mikkipedia. My website is mikkiwilliden.com.

01:16:28.200 --> 01:16:30.080
Those are the predominant ways to

01:16:30.100 --> 01:16:34.500
with which you can reach me. But Instagram, I'm very responsive on Instagram.

01:16:35.240 --> 01:16:40.700
100%. And for me, guys, you guys can find me on Instagram at BrandonCruzUnderscore or at my email

01:16:40.700 --> 01:16:44.700
for one-on-one coaching, which is b2cruzfitness at gmail.com. If you guys enjoyed this episode,

01:16:44.860 --> 01:16:48.340
please make sure that you're following both the Chasing Clarity Health and Fitness Podcast and

01:16:48.340 --> 01:16:52.440
the Mickepedia Podcast, because Mikki and I will be continuing these collaboration episodes

01:16:52.440 --> 01:16:56.540
and tackling more of the topics that overlap between both of our audiences. For Mikki and

01:16:56.540 --> 01:16:59.560
myself, thank you guys for tuning in. We'll see you next time. Peace.

01:17:00.100 --> 01:17:00.640
See ya.

01:17:13.640 --> 01:17:19.880
All righty. Hopefully you enjoyed that. As I said, this is just one of a continuing series

01:17:19.880 --> 01:17:24.940
with Brandon. We've already got another one in the books. Really looking forward to again

01:17:24.940 --> 01:17:30.080
diving in with him. And guys, if you've got any questions, comments, or anything,

01:17:30.100 --> 01:17:36.120
you'd love for us to discuss, hit me up. I'm over on Instagram, Threads, and X at Mikki

01:17:36.120 --> 01:17:42.000
Williden, Facebook at Mikki Williden Nutrition, or head to my website, mikkiwilliden.com.

01:17:42.540 --> 01:17:47.220
Scroll right down to the bottom and pop your name and email in the little box in the bottom,

01:17:47.480 --> 01:17:54.180
and you can jump on my email list where I send weekly updates on what's on my mind,

01:17:54.180 --> 01:17:59.960
where the latest research is, clinical pearls, and also share all of my discount codes there,

01:18:00.100 --> 01:18:04.720
as well, for the brands that I trust and recommend. All right, guys, you have the best week.

01:18:04.720 --> 01:18:05.460
See you later.