.

I’ve recently had several discussions on Facebook about the fact that I think the single biggest factor for weight loss is calorie balance.  In other words, I believe that if you want to lose weight you need to simply consume less calories than you burn.

.

In fact, this is the ONLY way you can lose weight unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed since I went to school.  So if we want to lose weight we need to either consume less or exercise more to create a calorie deficit.  (Regular readers will know that I think exercise isn’t a great tool for weight loss…but I digress)

.

At the same time, there is mounting evidence that if you are in a calorie deficit for a while there are hormonal changes that result in a weight loss plateau.  And most people will know that if you increase calories in a person like this you can actually jump start their weight loss again.

.

The problem with this is that some people take this to mean that the calorie balance equation is flawed and that the “calories in, calories out” equation doesn’t apply.  However, the key point that I want to address is not to suggest that the equation doesn’t apply, but that calorie balance is not static for any individual.

.

Any changes that happen as a result of undereating, overeating, stress, lack of sleep, supplements, and anything else you can think are not making the equation invalid, but are altering the “calories out” side of the equation in either a favorable or unfavorable direction.  In other words, the body “learns” and adapts to a stimulus, but the equation still applies.  If you are trying to lose weight and you hit a plateau it isn’t because the equation doesn’t work.  It is because one side of the equation has changed and you need to adjust accordingly.

.

Anyone who suggests that you can lose weight without worrying about calorie balance is either selling something or totally naive.  More to the point, I’ve yet to see evidence from a randomized controlled trial (the gold standard of research) where a group of people lost any measurable amount of weight while not in a calorie deficit.  If someone can present this I’ll gladly reconsider…but I think I’ll be waiting for a LONG time.

.

The other argument that I often encounter is that the equation primarily applies to WEIGHT loss and not FAT loss.  Many are quick to point out that you don’t need need to lose weight to improve body composition, but that you can lose fat and gain musle while staying at the same body weight.  In this case I do agree that you don’t necessarily need to be in a calorie eficit to see improvements.

.

However, this is most often the case with novice trainees and those returning from a layoff from training.  After a few years of training though, the degree to which you can simultaneously lose fat and gain muscle is more limited.  After 2-3 years of training you simply aren’t going to be losing 15 pounds of fat and gaining the same amount of muscle (without drugs).  If this is you and you aren’t as lean as you want to be, you are probably going to have to lose some weight to achieve this look.  You do want it to be fat weight…but the number on the scale is going to have to go down.

.

To do this…calorie balance is THE most important factor regardless of what diet you’re on.  If you’re not in a deficit you’re pretty much wasting your time.

.

A few years ago when I first heard Charles Poliquin mention Biosignature Modulation at a seminar I was completely blown away by the concept.  If you’re unfamiliar with the idea, Charles explained that he’d done caliper measurements on 12 skinfold sites with loads of athletes and discovered a relationship between certain hormones and the location of fat storage.

.

Moreover, he suggested that these hormones could be affected by food, supplements, and training such that we could actually remove fat where we wanted to remove it.  Charles Poliquin had discovered the secret to spot reduction!!!

.

I was so enamored with the idea that when Charles came to Toronto for a 3 day Biosignature seminar I was all over it.  My wife paid for my registration as a birtday gift (yep…she’s awesome like that) and I spent three days learning the protocol and brought it back to experiment with my clients.

.

In the end, it worked.  My clients’ skinfolds went down, they lost fat, and looked better.  But since the program is pretty heavy on the supplements it could also get VERY costly.  What I eventually noticed was the clients I had that couldn’t or wouldn’t use the supplement protocols get exactly the same results.

.

Over time I slowly found myself disenchanted with the system and I completely phased it out.  Below are my thoughts on the Biosignature Modulation system after having had a couple solid years to reflect on the protocol and its effectiveness.

.

Note that these thoughts are not meant to attack or belittle coach Poliquin, but to express my opinion.  As Mike Boyle has said brilliantly, “there is a difference between disagree and dislike”.  Charles Poliquin was an early influence for me in this industry and has inspired me in many ways.

.

My Restrospective thoughts on Biosignature Modulation

.

As I see it, Biosignature Modulation relies on three central assumptions:

.

1. Body fat storage is correlated with specific hormones

.

While this may certainly be true (I can’t say one way or the other), a correlation does not equal causation.  In other words, just because the hormones and fat storage are related does not mean that hormones cause the fat to be deposited in certain areas.  There may be an association, but one may have nothing to do with the cause of the other.

.

2 – Changing those hormones will cause changes in the location of fat storage

.

Even if these hormones do cause fat storage in specific locations, evidence would have to support the notion that changing them would alter fat storage.  In the Biosigature system estrogen is reported to be the primary cause of excess fat store in the glutes and thighs.  If this were the case and it could be altered by changing the hormone then estrogen blocking drugs would decrease fat storage in this area.  I don’t believe that any research supports this claim.  As I’ve mentioned before, changing hormones doesn’t always result in the expected outcome.

.

3 – Those changes can be brought about by manipulation of hormones with nutrition, supplementation, and training.

.

This assumption is based on the fact that the two previous ones are true.  And while I can’t attest to the fact that there is no evidence for any of the strategies provided by coach Poliquin, one of the most popular seems to be the use of fish oils for accelerated fat loss in those with extra fat at the insulin sites (love handles being one of these sites).  I can say that without a doubt there is currently no scientific evidence to support this as explained by Alan Aragon HERE.

.

And while you might argue that I haven’t really provided evidence that all of the protocols don’t work, I would suggest that the burden of proof when selling a product/service/system is not on the potential user, but on the person/company selling the system.  Their job it to convince me that the protocols stand up to rigorous testing and, in this case, I don’t believe they’ve met the requirement.

.

But proponents say it works…

.

With any popular system you will always get hard line proponents that are completely inflexible when it comes to questioning of their methods.  In terms of those using Biosignature Modulation, it can also contribute a rather sizable revenue stream to their business so letting it go can be economically challenging.  And, of course, there are those who are just afraid to question the protocol because it comes from Charles Poliquin.

. 

Personally, I’m not about to argue that those using Biosignature aren’t getting results.  What I would argue is that those results could probably be had with an appropriate diet and training strategy.  Moreover, when using Biosignature I never did see the specificity of fat loss that was suggested.  People lost fat, but it was pretty much what I would have expected with a good diet and training. 

.

The one advantage of the protocol is that if people are spending a lot of money on supplements in addition to private training they might be more apt to stick to their plan.  As you’d expect, you will obviously see greater results with greater compliance which is a possible people report good results.

.

In the end, if you’re considering taking a Biosignature course I’d suggest keeping your money in your pocket.  If you are considering using a Biosig protocol on yourself, I would highly recommend you skip it and stick to the time honored classics…nutrition, training, and consistency.

.

There is no substitute for hard work.  There are no shortcuts.  If someone tells you differently they are selling something.

.

Questions?  Comments?  Random Insults?  Leave ‘em below!

.

If you’d like to read research for yourself, check out my product How to Read Fitness Research.