Exciting interview with

Greg Ellis, author of the recently released book, Ultimate Diet Secrets. Also check for Spectrum Training System and the Vitamin and Mineral Hoax. Check out his informative website here, Ultimate Diet Secrets.

Greg, could you tell us a bit about your new books?

Like any young kid or young man interested in strength and training, I was bitten by the muscle "bug" at age 9. I bought my first barbell with my paper route money when I was 12. About this time, in 1960, my parents divorced. I was really broken up by my father's leaving and compensated by eating everything in sight. Over the next 6 months, I gained 60 pounds with no increase in height. I was also emotionally scarred by my classmates who ridiculed me. I got high blood pressure and multiple skin diseases.

It was a mess. But, I had my barbell and my muscle magazines and I sought a way out of my problems through the study of the magazines and by vigorous training. It worked and I became enamored by the whole process. As with anyone who takes up these activities, I developed many questions about diet, training methods, and the optimization of these processes. I studied and read constantly and by my late teenage years had become pretty knowledgeable and was doing to my body just about whatever I willed. I became a champion athlete both in football and in putting the shot in track and field. I broke all the Pennsylvania high school shot put records in 1965.

I played football at the University of Pittsburgh. I continued with my training which became my passion. I continued a relentless study of both nutrition and exercise, particularly training for maximal athletic performance. The football plan didn't go well and my new goal upon graduation was to go train at the famous muscle beach. I did that in the winter of 1970. Arnold had just came over from Germany and other greats worked out at Gold's Gym too. Here, I took steroids and bulked up to 265 pounds. I tried out for the San Diego Charges but was released within two weeks.

I returned to Philadelphia to play semi-pro ball but realized this was no longer for me. I had barely made it through Pitt academically (academics were never my strong suit) and was trying to figure out what to do with my life. The Nautilus machines had just been released and I opened one of the first Nautilus centers in the country. Then, as today, there were arguments over free weights vs. machines. I decided that an academic degree would help me convince others about the value of diet and exercise.

The muscle mags and the street talk were not answering my ever-growing list of questions and I thought science might have the answers. I had to make up 31 credits in science courses to prove that I had the "smarts" to make it in grad school. I got a 4.0 average and was admitted to the Temple University Exercise Physiology Program. After one semester, I applied to the Physiology Department in the medical school and was admitted. I excelled in these programs earning honors. I soon had the training to read any paper in the scientific journals and this is what I did.

I had plenty of questions answered but more new ones were generated as the old ones were answered. I just kept probing more deeply with my new found education in hand. I conducted an endless array of experiments on my own body trying to figure out how it all worked. Over the years, I tried every diet program out there and discovered that they all had some flaw or lack of information. As the years progressed, I continued my experiments and studies. I continued to read everything in the popular press too. As I did this, it was my observation that all the writers really didn't know what they were talking about.

I began writing articles in 1990, several of which were published in Muscle & Fitness. These were radical articles as I recommended the consumption of a lot of fat and protein and a reduction in carbohydrate intake, a heretical idea then, and even today.

I realized that I had acquired more answers than anyone that was writing and decided that it was time to write a book because I believed that I knew more about diet, nutrition, and training than the others, a point many my argue. Oh well, that was, and is, my belief.

So, Ultimate Diet Secrets came about. It was designed to answer questions related to all aspects of bodyweight regulation, not just issues related to diet. I started writing and when the process was over I'd written a volume with 600 pages of information-packed material ever written on the subject. There's information in there that has never been presented before to the public.

What is the Spectrum Training System? What is the target audience for that book?

A business partner from California, who owns Muscle Dynamics Corporation, decided to build a home exercise machine. He asked me to write a training manual for it in 1989. By this time I had become an exercise physiologist and an expert in muscle physiology and biochemistry. I had many ideas about how to train that had never been presented before.

As I was working on Ultimate Diet Secrets, I visited various weight loss forums on the web and discovered that most posters had no training experience and even those with a background in training really had no idea about what was going on. They were looking at diet and knew they had to exercise too but had no clue where to begin or what to do. So, I took out the first edition of STS and began a complete rewrite. I described basic training and advanced training ideas so that the book could serve as a guide for all levels of trainees. I discuss all aspects of training including aerobics, anaerobics, calorie burning, training programs for all kinds of specific needs, diet info, protein needs, and a detailed account of over-training. It's very comprehensive.

The target audience is beginners through advanced trainees.

You opened one of the first Nautilus gyms in the country. Weight machines have come under fire recently, what is your opinion on the debate between free weights and machines?

Well, this isn't a recent development, it's been going on as far back as I can remember. I think it's all a waste of energy. Your muscles don't know whether they're lifting a barbell or working on a machine. Now, the barbell was a significant advancement over gymnastics or bodyweight only exercises and produced far better results. Machines were the next evolution over the barbell. Take any rotary exercise: A barbell can never provide the same level of resistance across the whole range of motion that an accommodating, rotary resistance machine can. So the machines are far more effective.

The next evolution came in the late 80's, developed by me and my partners, but we haven't yet gotten the product to market. This is a series of machines that are powered by a rotary hydraulic cylinder. The software allows the hydraulic to sense the changing strength curve of the muscle as it goes through its range of motion and automatically changes the resistance to meet the muscle's output. This way the muscle is maximally loaded throughout its full range of motion. The other fantastic thing these machines can do is overload the muscle during the eccentric phase of muscle contraction so now the trainee experiences optimal resistance during both the concentric and eccentric phases of muscle contraction. These machines will kick anyone's ass. Free weights can never match the functionality of these machines. Machines will allow so much more development across the wide spectrum of muscle function that will outstrip anything a barbell, kettlebell, or free weight can provide, not to say it will be vastly different but more on the order of a few percentage points.

The main problem in developing training theories is that the issue is much more emotionally charged than result charged. By this I mean, it seems once a trainee adopts a particular training regimen that he must defend his choice by saying that what he does is the best -- better that what other trainees do. Look, there's lot's of stuff that works and the way that one trains is far more important than the tool he uses. And there's lots of good tools. One of the arguments I hear in defense of free weights is the use of synergistic muscles. Now, I ask what are these? And what contribution does the activation of some small inconsequential balancing muscles have to do with anything? After a week or two of doing any free weight exercise, all the balancing and coordination is done and any increases in strength must come from increases in muscle size. One could raise the argument about training forearms, for example. Why bother unless you shoe horses? These muscles are so small as to make even thinking about training them a waste of time unless you have a need to use your forearms for some sport activity or you're a barroom arm wrestler. For me, my forearms connect my upper arm to my big torso muscles and these are the muscles that I want to train and invest my time and energy into, not the tiny little forearm muscles.

Therefore, I don't spend one second of my time wrestling over free weights vs. machines. They both make a contribution, they're both good and either or both can be used for very good results. There's no barbell exercise that can match the performance of the Nautilus Pullover torso machine for those particular back muscles -- not one -- and there's no machine that can match the effectiveness of power cleans from the floor to the shoulders offered by an Olympic bar. I say, use them all, they're all good.

You mentioned that one of your goals was to reach 5% body fat. What was your program to reach this goal? Did you encounter any problems along the way?

It started off as a straight-line cut back on calories, reduce carbs, and burn lots of cals. Pretty vanilla and standard nutritional claptrap. Then the problems came up and what worked early didn't work later. I knew this experience from my vast dietary experiments that I conducted in the 1970's. So I undertook a detailed study of the subject in the summer of 1999 and learned some of the most exciting, but disappointing, information that I ever learned. As you lose weight, your body implements strategies to counter what you're doing to it. These become stronger and stronger the leaner you become. I had to devise sophisticated strategies to overcome the body's increase in metabolic efficiency. You may discover that your goal to become lean is not worth the price you have to pay to achieve it. I detail all of this in two chapters on Metabolic Adaptations in Ultimate Diet Secrets.

Diet was obviously an important part of the equation. Do you have any foods that you particularly value for their health and nutritional benefits? Also, what are your thoughts on supplements, do you recommend any?

Diet is not as important as physical activity but is critical in controlling appetite and its effects on body composition. I am a low-carb guy and if I had the discipline at age 55 that I had at 25, I'd eat nothing but meat and never touch grains, fruits, vegetables, and sugar. Don't get me wrong, I don't eat much of that stuff now and rely largely on a high intake of saturated animal fat and protein, just the opposite of the current dietary recommendations. I think that eating animal products is by far the healthiest way to eat. I also drink wine and have done so for more than 20 years. I do believe that drinking also contributes to health. So, as you can see, I'm pretty much of a dietary renegade. But, there's nothing I haven't tried, including vegetarianism so I can talk from experience instead of from theory which is what most people use to discuss optimal ways of eating and training. I'll take experience any day over theory.

I make my own vitamins and minerals and use them along with ephedra, green tea extract, DIM, and homeopathic Growth Hormone. I regularly use homeopathic detox products to assist my body in eliminating the after-effects of environmental pollutants. There are no supplements that I haven't tried and I'd say that no nutritional supplement could ever stand up to the power of what I've gained by using this detox protocol -- hands down the winner.

Do you have any favorite exercises or activities that you use in your training?

I'm pretty consistent any more and don't do much deviation from what I have found gives me the results I'm trying to achieve. This is a combination of weight training to build and maintain muscle (although my building days are just about over as I've reached the genetic limits of my size increases) and I also burn about 2,000 calories per day doing eight miles of weighted vest walking carrying 40 pounds. I've designed a new training program for this year but I'm sure it's going to be too tough to stick to -- too hard and time consuming -- and I'll probably back off after Christmas -- we'll see. I do all body parts in one workout while varying reps, weights, and effort over a sort of weekly/monthly cycling type of training. I walk only one 4-mile walk on the weight days which is whole body three times each week.

What are your thoughts on kettlebell training? How do you think it compares to or would fit in with other training regimens?

I don't like to combine twisting and bending motions while under load due to the injury potential and I've noticed comments from too many people on dragon door about injuries. For me, low reps, high weights, bending and twisting is sort of a bad combo that I would like to avoid. Further, I don't like to do one limb exercise because it is not as demanding because of the smaller amount of muscle mass involved. That being said, few people have experimented with more things than I have, so I'd be the last one to tell people not to do something they want to try. I think experimentation and variation are the key to lasting a long time in this game. And, at the end of the day, longevity is all that matters. At age 55, I sort of like the rut and routine of doing the same thing as it requires no thinking and I can let my mind drift into other issues as the work-out is rather robot like.

It's just another training tool. To elevate any of these tools or training programs to magical status is a waste of mind-power. It's obvious that repeated lifting of a 5-pound dumbbell is a waste of time and that training once every five weeks is useless too. I think one needs to understand, first and foremost, how the body responds to a stimulus and then to design a program around those responses to achieve whatever goals you have in mind. You must first define the goal and then design the program to meet that goal. There's so much that works that one should never box himself into a corner. Responses vary according to the training stimulus on the spectrum of muscle response -- one type of stimulus gives one response and another type a different one. There may be some crossover, particularly as the training stimuli approach uniformity.

What is your opinion of Paleolithic nutrition?

I think the records are fairly clear that man was a predator and a hunter and gatherer and a lot of the hunting and gathering was of animal products. In the high season of animal availability, 86% of his calories came from animal products and in the off season, 76%. I think our modern-day nutrition pundits are sort of micro-managing all this trying to make more out of it than it is, looking for little differences that, at the end of the day, are inconsequential but they build them up into differences of importance.

I'm much more interested in understanding man's biochemical heredity as the dictator of the best dietary intake. In this, carbohydrates are converted to fat and used then for fuel or fat storage. If exposed to a high carbohydrate diet, man will burn a bit of it as fuel and store the rest as fat which then will be used later as a source of fuel as fat. Sixty percent of all proteins are converted to carbohydrate and the amino acid skeleton is then used for the provision of substrate for fatty acid synthesis. It is clear that the body's make up is that fat manufacture for use as building blocks for important constituents is critical to health.

Given the profile of fatty acids in contemporary hunter-gatherer diets (mod sat., high mono., good n-3/n-6) what is the basis for recommending the consumption of cream and meat from grain fed cattle?

I don't know if "contemporary" is indicative of "indigenous" but it must be realized that the fat stored in the adipose tissue is highly saturated and that glucose and protein (66% converted to carbohydrate then to fat) results in the production of a saturated human fat. So, for whatever reason, the body chose saturated fat as its fat of choice. The argument over saturated fat is a waste as it has never been shown that saturated fat is a health hazard. That may be the greatest scientific deception of all time. So, to go off into a discussion of the differences in these fat types is an enormous waste of time. The only fat worth discussing as dangerous is the man-made trans fatty acids. This is the fat to worry about.
Now, the question is polluted. Let's look at beef fat --it's 50% saturated and 44% mono. That's not a big spread and all of these so-called high monos, like olive oil at 70% mono, are manufactured foods and did not exist in the world of primitive man or even until recently in man's time on the earth. Clearly, what we ate in animal foods is what we were designed to eat. Polys HAVE been shown to be dangerous too and they occur rarely in animal foods but appear in MANUFACTURED foods. So, I'll take Nature's Wisdom any day over the things that man has made. Most meats are a mixture of monos and sats with monos averaging about 40% of the meat fat's fat content and SATs averaging about 44%.

Considering the work of Loren Cordain and others using the Ethnographic Atlas ( a compendium of information regarding 250 HG groups) in addition to bone mineral analysis of H. Erectus, H. Neanderthalensis, and H. Sap. Sap which show a highly omnivorous diet, (i.e. no HG group with access to seasonal fruits and vegetables avoided their consumption). What is the scientific basis for recommending the avoidance of seasonal fruits and vegetables?

I don't recommend the AVOIDANCE of them but how long was the "season" 2 million years ago? And who was growing the stuff? None of this really existed. They didn't even have fruits and vegetables in the major US cities until trucking and refrigeration in the early part of the 20th century. This whole effort to inculcate people with the idea of the health-giving power of fruits and vegetables is fueled by the need of people to confirm to themselves their acceptance of this baloney. They just can't let it drop because the cultural consciousness has been so poisoned by the sanctity of fruits, vegetables, and grains that we have to keep delivering this fallacious message. The institution of eating alternative foods other than animal products was driven by the disappearance of meat from the ancient city-states and was an economic necessity due to the growing population. It was also instituted for greed so the upper mucky-mucks could keep the meat on their own plates while taking it from the peons. The only way the peons would accept this was through institutional and religious sanctions on meat eating.
We have to seriously question some of Cordain's "interpretations," and that's just what they are because there are many other witnesses showing that man's diet was not so varied and was loaded mostly with meat. During periods of meat shortage, man would eat anything but always prefers animal products when available. There's no need to say don't eat veggies and fruits but they certainly should never constitute the bulk of one's diet. I remember growing up that the baseball season was in the spring. Well, sport seasons now know no bounds today and food availability is the same. What was once a 2-week season and 6 berries sprouted on an uncultivated berry bush has turned into year-round availability today.

With the exception of HG groups living at high latitude a net alkalinizing diet is consumed and the bone mineral density of these HG's is quite impressive. Hg's living at high latitude consume a net acid diet and display osteoporosis in stark contrast with their lower latitude counterparts. Please reconcile your dietary recommendations considering the aforementioned facts.

Having spent my life pursuing everything related to diet and weight control, I had, many long years ago, been an advocate of the acid/alkaline food theories, as preposterous as they are. The acid/alkaline dialogue is absurd and shows why we must pay little attention to any of the conjectures arising from people, about any subject, who have been conned into buying into the acid/alkaline dialogue. People say we want our bodies to be alkaline, not acidic. The last time I studied the subject, I found that blood pH is highly regulated to remain around 7.4, the inborn homeostatic (balancing) level dictated by the Laws of Nature (below 7.0 and above 7.7 then you may be dead, below 7.3 and above 7.44 and you're in trouble). The most important pH level is the one inside the cells, and it must be highly controlled to maintain proper enzyme function to maintain life. The body's pH is strongly defended and breaks down only in disease. It's also impossible to change it because it's so highly defended. The acid/alkaline tale is a scam. This is modern food faddism at its grandest. This is also the attempt by people to over-analyze all these inconsequential ideas and hype them as important and meaningful. Just think about it: Are we all so different that living at different latitudes would make much of an impact on health? So now, along with everything else, we've got to consider the latitude in which we live as if that has something to do with bone density? Nah, it's all nonsense. And all of the many studies clearly show that bone density in high meat eaters was very high. So there is clearly something missing in the analysis of those who reported the data in the above question. Quit micro-managing -- none of it makes that much difference -- make life easier, not harder. The aforementioned "facts" are not facts but misinterpretations. The body was designed to handle acids in the diet and a 100% meat diet only uses about 10% of the body's total capacity to eliminate acids. That's a fact. So the researchers should learn their basic physiology first and then see if their interpretations hold up under the real facts. If they don't, then they'd better look a little harder because they're not making any sense. When you use sound Laws and Facts to evaluate the notions arising from measurements that are less rigorous than the known facts, you can often unmask the interpretation as a misinterpretation.