What do you think of Charles Poliquin's diet approach?

Hi Michael,

"carbs clog your system" is a pretty wishy-washy statement - it means nothing.

Also, "Eat Right for you Blood Type" is a completely unsubstantiated dietary theory. Scientists and other experts have been waiting for any evidence that it works for years and none has been forthcoming. If anyone knows of any published research showing that this diet works, please make me aware of it and I will certainly evaluate it in an unbiased fashion and give my professional opinion but until then, this diet does not seem legitimate.

Hey Mark,

Somehow you and me seem to never see eye-to-eye. I do admit to "carbs clog your system" could be wishy washy to a scientist like yourself. Well, I guess a 4-year degree does not qualify you as one. It is just plain language for easy reading. However, you put it out there again so let me explain, for you.
Excessive carbs/sugar over time has thought to increase the chance of Type 2 Diabetes.
Blood markers such as fasting glucose, fasting insulin, hemoglobin A1C, and HDL are general markers for detection. Type 2 Diabetes is a condition where insulin is made(Type 1 does not) and insulin receptor sites are less activated. One could say these receptors are clogged but more accurately these receptors are either down regulated or lost sensitivity. Sensitivity or down regulation require longer explanations
and to keep things simple, I used the former explanation.
When these receptors are less than optimal, weight gain is highly likely. I mean you could eat no calories at this point and lose weight but safe to say nobody in this condition stops eating.
Storing calories is quite the opposite of burning calories(try not to argue this-I know it's tempting). So, if calories are not burned and are stored, it is much like a "clog" if the metafor is acceptable as an example of a simplification of the system.
"Eat Right for Your Blood Type" was not advocated by me. You are over reactive. The book was on the NY Times best seller list. I simply pointed to a popular and best selling book and honed the message which was to get off grains and pork. It's not bad advice no matter how you shake it...

Also, I wrote this 5 months ago... Did you go into my file and attempt to find something to argue me about?
Mark, I am a very experienced trainer with over 28,000 logged hours and on my way to doing my Masters. I have owned a personal training center and own a health club. I have two top notch certs and mentor with Poliquin whom you really dislike. I have coached athletes to 21 records. I don't see a power packed resume on your end. What gives?

I also do endurance events like yourself. I did 4 century rides this past year but I don't think it makes me a better person to include it on my resume on this site...

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure why you want to attack me personally when we simply seem to have differing opinions on our interpretation of the science around nutrition, supplements and health. Even eminent scientists in the same field can disagree substantially having read the same research. The key is to treat the other person and their opinion with respect, as it is perfectly possible that their opinion is more accurate or valid than your own??

The reason I responded to your comments, is because you made a statement that even you agree was wishy washy and then you made another statement that clearly seems to indicate that you think that the "Eat Right for your Blood Type" Diet is an effective or legitimate dietary strategy.

As this is a Q & A site that people visit looking for accurate information, my responsibility is to ensure that if someone were to read your comments and subsequent comments, they wouldn't be left with the impression that we give wishy washy information or that we condone the theories promoted by the "Eat Right for your Blood Type" diet.

As far as your justification for using the "Eat Right..." book as evidence that you should eat less pork and grains, this is completely nonsensical?? Why would you use an unsubstantiated "quack" diet book as your substantiation for your diet theories? That's like saying, "the Saint Lawrence river flows from West to East and I can prove it because the world is flat"??

As far as writing this 5 months ago, it popped up when I was searching for a previous question and I answered it for the reasons I've already expressed above as I have done on numerous occasions.

As far as "disliking" Charles Poliquin, I have never even talked to the guy?? I've been at several seminars, events and expos where he has also attended but we've never even talked. I certainly have no dislike for him. My impression is that most people seem to like him and think that he's brilliant. We both write for the magazine Muscle Insider (and I'm on that magazine's Medical Advisory Board).

Also, in my answers to questions on Charles, I always give him due credit for his success as a strength and athletic coach...but that doesn't mean I'm going to endorse his nutrition and supplement advice if I believe it is erroneous!

The fact is that I don't agree with many of his nutrition and supplement theories...just as I could not train athletes as well as Charles, he cannot advise people about nutrition or supplements as well as me - that's just a fact.

As far as my resume, since you've mentioned it, I'll include a short (non-exhaustive) synopsis of my credentials in the next answer box and if anyone thinks my experience is lacking, they can certainly choose to follow someone else's advice who they feel has better credentials...that's democracy in action...

Finally, I wish you continuing success in running your businesses and pursuing your Masters Degree

Mark Gilbert's Bio:

Mark has studied and worked in Sports / Medical / Clinical Nutrition and health for 20 years. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in nutrition, has obtained multiple certifications in exercise science and pharmaceuticals and has worked for some of the world’s largest bodybuilding, supplement and pharmaceutical companies (MuscleTech, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Nutricia Medical Nutrition, etc). Mark has worked in one capacity or another with most of the world’s top-20 sports supplement companies, including in product development, scientific/regulatory affairs and marketing. He’s also advised hundreds of doctors, clinical nutritionists and other health professionals in hospitals and other healthcare settings.

He is Editor-in-chief of http://FitnessInventor.com, owner of www.MuscleDiet.net, is a columnist and Advisor for Muscle & Fitness Magazine/Weider, UK Ltd and a columnist and member of the Medical Advisory Board for Muscle Insider Magazine. He has conducted training and seminars for audiences in Canada, the USA, the United Kingdom and Europe, provided nutrition counselling for several professional bodybuilders and athletes, designed and patented multi-million-selling nutritional supplements and worked as an expert witness for the courts on matters of nutritional supplements and performance-enhancing drugs.

Mark,

I do agree with us being professional is best. I do spend a lot of time countering your comments. Some comments you make could be poised a bit better.

Research is not the only answer and you seem a little obsessed with research. For example, there are over 22 million entries in Pubmed.com alone with about a million being added every year. How many can you read? I mean the full texts, not the summaries.

Because research hasn't currently confirmed a source, it does not mean it is wrong. There is no research on a double blind study involving participants jumping with parachutes. Thereby there is no control group not having an actual parachute. I think it is safe to say that parachutes do work even without the study. I also haven't run across a study that looks at kicks to a groin as to whether it is painful. I know that neither you or I would sign up for that study.

It is about walking the walk. I read an article that was an interview of 115 year old man. He had some theories on how he was so old. No research... He said things like eat fresh vegetables, keep your colon clean and go for walks amongst many other things. You can't find enough subjects that old to even make a study.

I have worked with thousands of people and all improve many aspects of health if they reduce grains. All wheat is processed and readily and quickly converted to sugar(wheat is abundant in just about everyone's diet.). It is great advice no matter what the source. I have personally known many people that benefited from the book and a few who didn't.
So then, you are saying that the whole book is wrong?

As for Poliquin, every time his name comes up, you disagree with him. You should check your responses. Personally, I was drawn to him by how many athletes he has made better. To me the best measure is how successful a coach is-it's in delivering results. Seriously, he has over 100 Olympic medals-wouldn't you take notice? When someone does so much, why would you just discard his advice?

His information comes by partnering with doctors and nutrition people like Mark Houston and Johny Bowden. I mean you have to admit that school only brings you so far. In nutrition, progress is made almost daily.

Hi Michael,

So I guess you didn't read my bio??

You paint a picture of me as if I sit in a library 12 hours a day and read scientific journals wearing a pair of thick glasses?

In fact, I have worked with several professional bodybuilders and athletes. As you know, these guys only get paid if they are lean and muscular and/or reach exceptional levels of fitness, I've also worked with clinical dieticians, educating them on the effects of diet and supplements on heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes and every other nutrition-related disease. I've similarly had discussions with and educated doctors and other health care professionals on the effects of diet and drugs...and of course done numerous diet consultations with aspiring athletes, bodybuilders and others.

University and other study only accounts for part of my knowledge and beliefs regarding nutrition and supplements.

I also walk-the-walk, michael. I've proven that even at age 43, I can compete with and beat 99% of guys half my age who train twice as much as I do in national tests of anaerobic fitness and muscle strength.

Just last year, I got down to about 5% bodyfat (again, at age 43)...part of the reason I do this is because every time I diet down, I experiment with a few different techniques and learn a little bit more.

So to imply that my knowledge is somehow inferior to yours because I have read thousands of scientific journals seems a bit silly??

It also begs the question, if you don't believe in academic education, why are you pursuing your Master's Degree? Did you find a university that doesn't believe in using scientific studies to further student's knowledge?

Also, how do you think most life-saving drugs were developed and proven? The ketogenic diet was discovered using science and originally used to treat epileptic children. Without this, Atkins may not have come to prominence and it would have taken longer to discover the benefits of low-carb and shortly after, high-protein diets.

If not for scientific studies, probably someone you know and someone I know would not be with us today. Trial and error works - as seems to be your point above but in some respects, science is just a sophisticated, controlled method of trial and error.

Finally, I'm also an advocate of high-protein diets that restrict sugar and starch (especially from grains). In fact, I remember reading the first study on these diets in 1999 at the American College of Sports Medicine meeting.

Mark,

Can you provide the citation to the 1999 ACSM article on restricting grains? That seems to completely go against other ACSM things I've studied, which have focused more on carbs. I teach to focus more on complex carbs and use the formula for the right amount of protein. (0.8g protein per kg of body weight for the average person and 1.7g protein per kg of body weight if strength training)

I really like that you are well researched, Mark. I still need to get back to you on creatine research. I think your research on creatine countered some of the things I learned through some reading (increasing water weight but not necessarily muscle mass). I agree that creatine is probably not going to be harmful, but is it really helpful to improving muscular fitness?

Hi Tim,

That was an ACSM annual meeting at which thousands of sports scientists present abstracts, which are then usually accepted subsequently by scientific journals and published in their full-length form. The study I was referring to didn't specifically focus on minimizing grains. It looked (as most of the high-protein research does) at replacing some of the carbohydrates in the diet with protein. As with subsequent studies, this practice not only results in better weight loss but also (especially if it is high GI carbs which are replaced) a better cholesterol and blood lipid profile.

I could probably find the abstract if I had to Tim but it was a looooong time ago and could take a while to dig up. Also, it is not difficult to find plenty of published studies showing the same effect of this kind of dietary alteration.

As far as grains, most people who eat moderate amounts of grains won't experience any ill health effects as a result but if you eat a lot of grains and other starchy, high GI foods, it is difficult to lose weight, control bodily inflammation, appetite, blood triglycerides and as Michael says above this would increase your risk of diabetes (probably) and obesity (almost certainly)...although some studies show an inverse relationship between whole grains (without the fibre removed) and obesity but this could be because people who eat whole grain bread also make other dietary choices that are deemed healthy and are more likely to exercise.

It seems like we probably agree, Mark. The foundational principle is to stay away from a high GI diet. Although, this does not necessarily mean more protein but more complex carbs, like whole grains and vegetables and nuts.

Mark,

That's great you walk the walk, so many don't. I have some old bodybuilding trophies and a more recent powerlifting record. How many seminars have you been to where all the trainers are um overweight-and not in their biceps..?
My point on citing research is that it isn't all there. You keep bringing up the point. I am not sure what more there is to discuss on this.
As for an MS, I think you get the idea. You have a bachelors as do I. How many times have you been overlooked because of that. It's a game and often in this business, you are evaluated on how much school you have. I don't agree with that and I don't think more school will advance my learning too far in any one direction.
Tim, as for the carbs, it eventually becomes an adjustment. Do frequent measurements to keep a tally. A diet is never static and needs to constantly evolve. Also, most people either underestimate or lie about what they eat(that is a study). Also, if you eat out, there is almost no way to tell how many calories you've consumed. Check this book out "The End of Over Eating" by Kessler.

I think that the question was more along the lines of that Poliquin's out look on carbs (especially grains) are due to the fact that these foods such as Rice have phytates and lectins which are proteins that cause inflammation in the system. Pasta which contains gluten is also something many people find hard to digest. Taking these out of your diet have massive health benefits and obviously help in weight loss due to finding more carb sources through fresh fruit and vegetables which is scientifically proven. Read the book "The Paleo Solution" by BIOCHEMIST and strength and conditioning coach Robb Wolf.
It shows that it doesn't matter how many pieces of paper you have or how much "experience" and awards you think you may have if you do not do your research properly you come out with dumb comments like the ones above.

Once more "eat right for your blood type" again has no scientific proof and is all gimmik

This is kind of like the, "Is squatting better than single leg training." (kind of) Mike Boyle uses the single leg approach and louis simmons, Jim Wendler, etc. use the 2 legs at a time approach (squat). Who's right? They both are. They both deliver results. This is the way it always will be when dealing with the human body. We don't know what we think we know. Charles has to know a little bit about something like Michael stated or he wouldn't have the track record he has. There are coaches who disagree with his methods who also have a great track record (Charles has been around longer than most so he will have a longer "wrap sheet" than most as well). In my opinion, I don't see the conclusive evidence in regards to dieting that he uses (Last I checked, which has been a while, he was an advocate of the Paleo/low to zero carb type diet). That doesn't mean it doesnt work, he just has a "thing" where when he is giving advice or answering a question, it's so absolute. The method he uses is the only way to go. He said noone has ever gotten big and strong from full body workouts and then goes on to give examples of people who use split routines (all these guys are on steroids which really defeats the point he is making) that are huge/strong, yet coaches make a very good living from training professional athletes using full body workouts. He gets results, but that doesn't mean it is the only way things can be accomplished. I like his articles but sometimes he says things that are very extreme based off inconclusive evidence. (inconclusive evidence doesn't mean whatever is being done doesn't work, it just means that the rationale may be incorrect and other methods may also work just as well). All coaches have their philosophies on how to train. They can all make their point as to why they are right. If they produce results then science goes out the window (assuming they're applying what works based off results and not a lab test/reasearch). Carbs are good. It doesn't mean eat 3 loaves of bread. Anything in excess isn't good. What ever happened to "Quit eating so much?" Both of you guys make good points. I don't think we will ever have all the answers. Modertion seems to be the only "theory" that has stood the test of time. If your clients are healthy and are getting the desired results then everyone is right so to speak. I enjoy these debates because they teach everyone else. It gives people options that they may have not known existed. Maybe one approach doesn't "agree" with their body and so now someone with a different perspective/study/proof based off results etc. can be a different path for the person to explore. Good luck to both of you in your future endeavors.