Title TEXT BOOK.pdf ✅

Who is Layne Norton? Welcome everyone. I am so excited to be bringing this to you guys. This is the kind of thing I've wanted to do for a long time and didn't really have methodology for getting it to you guys. But thanks to Clean Health, they've given me the means to put this together. I'm very excited to be bringing these courses to you guys. I'm assuming a lot of you already kind of know about me because you are here, but if you don't, let me give you a little background on myself. I started lifting weights when I was young, around age 14, because I was picked on a lot, bullied, didn't really get attention from girls, and I thought lifting weights would help with that. So I started lifting weights. It didn't help with anything other than, make me love lifting weights. But, it got me started in a lifelong passion, that turned into a career. I started competing in bodybuilding at age 19 and 2001 so you can do the math. And won my first teen show and also the novice division at that show and that kind of sparked my love even more. I had just finished my first year of college or university as Australians would call it. And really didn't know what I wanted to do with my life. So I was kinda like, well, I'm into this bodybuilding thing. Let's give this a try. And changed my major to biochemistry because it seemed like it would fit more with what I wanted to do. Did a four year degree in biochemistry, competed in a few more bodybuilding shows, did pretty well. Then felt like I just didn't know enough and went to do a PhD in Nutritional Sciences. During that time, that six year period where I did my PhD in Nutritional Sciences, I won a natural pro card. I competed in power lifting and, in the year 2010, I graduated with my PhD in Nutritional Sciences and my specific area of focus was protein metabolism as well as body composition. And after I graduated, I did a series of natural pro shows. I won the heavyweight division at the 2010 IFPA International, and I placed top five and all of my pro shows. Went on to get really interested in power lifting as a way to keep myself focused in the off season. And it turns out I'm actually better at powerlifting than I was at bodybuilding. I won the USAPL National Championship twice in the 93 kilo class. USAPL is the USA affiliate of the IPF, the IPF being the biggest powerlifting organization in the world. I was able to go to the world championships in 2015 where I finished second in my weight class and set a then squat world record of 303 kilos in the 93 kilo class. Since then, I've done a lot of other business type stuff. I've done pretty well at some other meets. I have launched several businesses that deal in the fitness industry, nutrition, coaching, apps, supplement companies, those sorts of things. But my real passion is education. As part of that education. my website, biolayne.com publishes a lot of educational material, and not just the academic stuff, because obviously I've published peer review literature, including the Journal of Nutrition, the American Journal of Physiology, Journal of Applied Physiology, the Journal of the International Society for Sports Nutrition, and several other journals. So, educating people really has been a lifelong passion of mine. So that was the motivation and inspiration for creating these courses. I love education. I think academia is wonderful. I think one of the best ways to sharpen your mind is to go into high level academics and especially peer reviewed literature publishing. However, I understand that that's not necessarily feasible for everyone, especially people who want to become coaches it can be very daunting trying to go back to school for several years. And if you don't
have that option, then you're left with trying to get some kind of certification or figure out who to learn from. It can be very daunting to try and separate the legitimate information from the information that is not legitimate. So my hope is that this course is not only going to educate you, but also inoculate you against some of the bullshit that's out there. And there is a lot of it. So now that we kind of have that part out of the way, let's get into the course. Get ready to take a dive with me into the wonderful world of science. Understanding "The Science" in The Science of Nutrition What's the best energy source to fuel the body: carbs or fats? Which is better: eating your calories evenly distributed throughout the day or compressing them into a short feeding window at the end of the day? Is it possible to be so hormonally out of balance that you can't lose weight? Which supplements are necessary when it comes to fat loss or muscle gain? Does energy balance matter anymore when it comes to losing fat, or is it all about eating clean? It just takes a few seconds of searching on Google to find a huge diversity of views on these and most questions that face today's coach trying to produce body composition results for a client. For every old school bodybuilder telling you to spike carbs during a workout because insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the human body, you'll find a keto warrior advocating the benefits of keeping insulin low all the time and forcing the body to run off ketones. For every bro telling you to smash 300g of animal protein a day, you'll find someone on Instagram talking about their vegan gainz. Trouble losing weight? You'll have no trouble finding a chorus of backup singers all going on about how energy balance doesn't matter "cuz mah hormonez". If you're into other people's opinions, what a great time to be in the fitness industry! The internet is full of opinions. If you're after real, sustainable results for you and your clients, then the industry is in a bit of a mess. How does a coach, or even a layperson, sift through the chaff to find the real keys to using nutrition for body composition outcomes? Well, my friends, I have an answer for you. It's called SCIENCE. Science is the best method that humanity has come up with to reliably discover why and how things happen in the physical universe. You have science to thank for things like the germ theory of disease, modern farming, and the computer, tablet or mobile phone you're taking this course on right now. Our old ways of understanding how and why the universe worked: looking to the stars, reading cards, seeking out wise elders and mystics, none of these old sources of knowledge could have gotten humanity to the incredible state of progress it is in. Science brought us out of the dark ages, and it can overhaul your coaching business. You just need a basic understanding of what it is, how it works, and how not to get fooled when people throw it around without knowing what they're doing. Science starts with a testable hypothesis. We take a position. We establish a starting point. That's a hypothesis. For example, we may start with the hypothesis that spreading protein
intake out over six evenly-spaced meals per day will result in more muscle hypertrophy than consuming the same amount of protein over two meals. Great. We're very clear about the position we're taking, and it's testable. We just need to get two people to eat the same amount of protein, one split over six meals and the other over two meals. We'll then compare their change in muscle mass and either prove or disprove our hypothesis, right? If you've got an eyebrow raised, then your intuitions are strong. This example gets at one of the many problems you will encounter as you delve into the science of nutrition. Just because you're using the scientific method does not good science make. In fact, one of the biggest problems with the state of modern science is just how difficult it can be to replicate some of the so-called discoveries many studies claim to have made. We can't possibly explore the full extent to which good scientific intentions turn into bad scientific research. Still, we can give you some of the more common issues to be on the lookout for, especially when you read something that sounds a bit on the dubious side. Let's start with sample size. In our muscle hypertrophy experiment, we propose to test our hypothesis that protein spread evenly throughout the day will result in greater gains than restricting protein to just two meals a day by having one subject eat the distributed protein diet, and another eat the time-restricted protein diet. We put the call out and get two test subjects who are willing to undertake this experiment with us. One is a 20-year-old college athlete. He's lean, muscular and athletic. Let's call him Chad. The other test subject is a 40- year-old dad who has always struggled with his weight and lives an average sedentary life. We'll call him Bob. Let's give Chad the even protein diet and Bob the time-restricted protein diet. What do you think we'll discover? What if we reversed them? Do you think the results would reverse, as well? Obviously not. There's a lot that goes into muscle hypertrophy. Protein intake is one element, but there are a thousand more ranging from lifestyle to hormones, age and training history. Even if we managed to control Chad's and Bob's diets perfectly, we're not controlling for all of the other variations among them. These other variations could just as easily be the cause of any result we observe from this experiment as our protein intervention. The results, therefore, are unreliable. How do we fix this? We increase the sample size. Rather than just two people, we study dozens, hundreds or in the most ambitious cases, thousands of test subjects. We then randomise them to ensure one test group does not have a higher prevalence of any particular external factor than the other. The greater the sample size, the more likely that any difference we observe between the groups is caused by our experiment and not something else. OK, so say we're able to get a few dozen participants for our experiment. We properly randomise them. Time to get them either eating protein spread evenly across six meals a day or two meals a day. Where does the food come from? Should they all eat the same amount and kind? How do we know they've eaten all of the food we gave them? How do we know they didn't eat more or less or different from what we planned for our experiment? One of the biggest problems with nutrition studies is exactly this. Human beings are hard to control. In a way, this is a good thing if you're a coach. It's a client's inability to control themselves that keeps you employed after all. But when it comes to studying the impact of nutrition on the human body, this tendency to not do what you're told is a real problem. Consider how difficult it can be to get a client, or even yourself, to accurately track your diet. The number of people who can track every single bit of intake down to the gram for a period long enough to observe differences in something as slow as muscle hypertrophy is vanishingly small.
The difficulties don't end there. How do we measure muscle mass? There are many ways to approach this problem, but none of them is perfect. Some are heavily influenced by levels of hydration. Others depend on execution method from person to person. Regardless of the method, there will be errors. OK, let's say you manage to solve the measurement problem. Now you have another issue to contend with: human psychology. What happens when you leave a kid alone in a room full of curiosities and hazards. Nine times out of ten, that kid is going to get into trouble. There's a certain freedom, a lack of consideration for the long term, that runs the kid's thinking. Without an adult in the room, there's nothing to remind him that he should be a good boy. Grownups are no different. Tell a grownup that you're studying the impact of protein intake on muscle mass and guess what will happen? Their behaviour will start to change. Maybe they'll push a bit harder in the gym, or maybe they'll start going to the gym in the first place. They might think about walking to the corner store rather than driving. They like that little kid surrounded by hazards and curiosities, only they know they're being watched, so they're going to avoid the bad stuff and try to do as much of the good stuff as they can so they can get rewarded at the end of the study. The problem is that these changes in behaviour contribute to changes in the very thing you're measuring. Was it your nutritional intervention that changed the rate of muscle hypertrophy, or was it the study subject's commitment to go to the gym because they were being watched? The way that researchers control for this is by limiting the information that reaches the study subjects. In the strictest study protocols, neither the test subjects nor the people directly administering the intervention know exactly what is being delivered or what is being tested. This prevents the formation of expectations in those participating in the study, and without expectations, they don't know how to modify their behaviour to conform to the hypothesis. These are what we call "double-blind" studies. Double-blind randomised controlled trials are the gold standard when it comes to researching the effects of a particular intervention. But there's a problem. How do you blind test subjects to the fact that they're eating six meals a day? Or that they're eating two? Nutrition isn't like a pill where one may have an active ingredient and the other not. Food is visible and differentiable to the human eye. This is another reason why it's so incredibly hard to study nutrition in humans. But let's say that you manage to control for all of this. You have an adequate sample size. You've sufficiently randomised them. You've controlled their intake perfectly, and you've done so in a way that they can't perceive. Further, you've accounted for changes in their activity, for better or worse. You run your experiment, get your results, and you're ready to change the world with the results, right? Not quite. Having one study find a successful outcome is just the beginning of establishing a scientific consensus around an idea. It's not sufficient for something to happen just once. You need it to happen again, and again and again. This is called replication, and you should be sceptical of any study that makes a big claim but hasn't been replicated. Replication is the only way we have to control for individual research teams making mistakes. As more and more teams replicate the results of a given study, our confidence that the original results were sound increase as well. When it comes to studying nutrition, our challenge is that getting enough subjects, controlling all of the variables, and doing so for long enough to accurately measure a result takes a lot of money... FOR JUST ONE STUDY. Now try to find the