LIFT WEIGHTS, LADIES, AND DITCH THE CARDIO IF YOU WANT TO LOSE FAT

Here is a great article from Body By Science:

It has always seemed to be an automatic assumption that since women do not possess as much muscle mass (or muscle mass potential) as men that somehow resistance training is less important and less well suited for them. As it turns out, proper resistance training is even more important for women because they possess less muscle mass.

There are a couple of new research articles out that I hope will illustrate this point. I will discuss the underlying physiology of my theory on this after we look at these articles. The first article is entitled Effect of Exercise Training Intensity on Abdominal Visceral Fat and Body Composition. The authors are Irving BA, et al. It is published in Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Oct 8.

This article looked at twenty-seven middle-aged (51+/- 9 yrs) obese women with the metabolic syndrome comparing either no intervention, low intensity exercise below the lactate threshold, or high intensity exercise above the lactate threshold. Remember from our discussion in BBS, high intensity exercise is characterized by producing pyruvate from anaerobic metabolism more quickly than the mitochondria can use it. Pyruvate stacks up, and then gets acted on by lactate dehydrogenase producing lactic acid. When this occurs, you are above the lactate threshold.

The really cool thing this article did is that it adjusted the workout times so that the caloric expenditure was identical in both exercise groups. Exercise time was adjusted so that 400kcal was expended per session. This clearly would show that any changes could not be attributed to burning more calories in a particular session. Actually, the calories burned would actually favor the low intensity group since they performed more 400kcal sessions per week.

The subjects’ body composition was evaluated using single slice CT scan at the L4-L5 disc space and mid-thigh to determine abdominal fat and thigh muscle cross-sectional areas. Percent body fat was assessed by air displacement plethysmography (a Bod Pod).

The results were very clear. The high intensity group significantly reduced total abdominal fat, abdominal subcutaneous fat, and abdominal visceral fat. There were no changes observed in the non-exercise group or the low intensity group. The part not mentioned in the study is the most important part. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: THE RESULTS ARE CORRELATED WITH INTENSITY NOT CALORIES BURNED. Each exercise session was controlled to expend the same number of calories, AND based on total calories burned, the low intensity group had the advantage since they worked out more days per week. Despite this advantage, the low intensity group did not lose fat. This is a key concept: when it comes to losing body fat you cannot achieve it by “burning calories” in an attempt to influence the calories in/calories out equation. Fat will be mobilized when you use an exercise modality that mobilizes glycogen out of the muscle, creating a need for replenishment via the insulin receptors. As insulin sensitivity improves, serum insulin levels drop and body fat can be mobilized. As this scenario is repeated, triglycerides can be tapped from fat cells to supply energy for high intensity exertion, compounding the fat loss effect.

A similar study was conducted in 2004: The effects of exercise training on abdominal visceral fat, body composition, and indicators of the metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women with and without estrogen replacement therapy: the HERITAGE family study. Green, JS et. al. Metabolism. 2004 Sep;53(9):1192-6. This study used the same methods for evaluating body composition as the study above. However, the variable studied here is the presence or absence of hormone replacement. There were no significant changes in body composition in either group. The problem with this study is that a low intensity exercise routine was used. Since hormone replacement was the variable studied, it may have been incorrect to conclude it had no value, because it was evaluated in the context of low intensity exercise. If the exercise protocol had been of high enough intensity to actually stimulate results, then perhaps the magnitude of the results would have actually been different with hormone replacement. This illustrates how a study can go awry when it evaluates a given independent variable while using the wrong dependent variables as a backdrop.

Let me take the opportunity to anticipate and address a potential objection to the use of these studies. One objection might be that the high intensity exercise was not done with weights. This is true. But from a metabolic standpoint what is important is that the intensity was high enough to exceed the lactate threshold. Exceeding this threshold is the variable being studied, how that variable is achieved is not important — except that this variable can be achieved much more efficiently and aggressively done the Body By Science way. You must remember that when we use a study to support the premise of BBS, it does not have to be a study that uses exactly the protocol we advocate. We are using studies that look at independent variables that are part of the Body By Science approach. The variable in this case is the concept of high intensity training done above the lactate threshold. Also, Body By Science is not just based on the scientific literature; it is based on an understanding of basic science that has been well ahead of the research curve for over two decades. Stated differently, John and I (and others like us) have relied on an understanding of basic science to construct our exercise philosophy and have shouted our theories from the mountaintops and argued with keepers of the status quo over the decades. Indeed, we have made enough noise throughout the years that our theories are now actually being tested, and there is now data accumulating to support our approach.

These are the studies that you will find referenced in Body By Science.

Let me now discuss the basic science that explains why high intensity exercise is even more important for women than for men when it comes to changes in body composition. The metabolic syndrome and the body composition changes that result from it are due to derangements in carbohydrate metabolism. We evolved from an environment of food scarcity where carbohydrate was the least abundant macronutrient, and where high intensity exertion was required to acquire the food we needed. In our modern environment, carbohydrate is very abundant and high intensity exertion is very rare. Most of the carbohydrates consumed are refined and are quickly/easily absorbed. Our evolutionary background has produced a mechanism for signaling energy storage that is predicated on an abundance of what would be the least abundant macronutrient in our ancestral environment. That macronutrient is carbohydrate. What happens in the metabolic syndrome is something that would have been very foreign to our ancestors. We are exposed to very high levels of carbohydrate. This is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream causing blood sugar to rise, which triggers the pancreas to release insulin so that glucose can be moved into the cells of the body. This normalizes the blood glucose level, and stores the glucose as glycogen for future use. However, your body has limited glycogen storage capabilities. An adult male can store about 70 grams in his liver, and 220 grams in his skeletal muscle. If more glucose than this is present, insulin will then drive synthesis of triacylglycerol, which will, in turn, result in the glycogen being stored as body fat.

The average American consumes way more than 290 grams of carbohydrate in a 24-hour period, even when they are “cutting back” or “watching what they eat.” As this situation compiles on a day-by-day basis, the body adapts by decreasing insulin sensitivity on the muscle cells. This protects the metabolic machinery of the muscle from being jammed with “glycosylation products” by basically binding sugars to proteins within the cell. As a result, insulin sensitivity on the fat cells remains relatively preserved so that excess carbohydrate can be more efficiently shunted towards fat storage.

At this point your body has now become a fat-producing factory. You are now in the throws of the Metabolic Syndrome. Now your fat cells are a tissue colony with a competitive advantage. Any nutrition you intake now gets shunted directly to the fat cells. You now suffer from “internal starvation.” You may take in 4,000 Calories per day, but none of it supplies your lean tissue. Your muscle mass, total protein and albumin all drop despite a gluttonous intake of food stimulated by your chronically elevated insulin levels. Why a gluttonous intake? Because LOW insulin levels are needed to tap energy out of fat cells, and with insulin levels being so high, immediate energy needs have to be obtained by the intake of more food (acquired by stimulating hunger)…which then gets shunted to the fat cells. AARRGGHHH!! You are now in the vicious cycle of the metabolic syndrome – but it gets worse: Many of the circulating hormones your body relies now will have glucose attached to them and your body recognizes them as foreign and begins attacking them (this is my theory) and the glands that produce them (thyroid hormone being a prime example).

An article from the Journal of Nutrition and Health A discussion of the relationship between selenium, thyroxine and indigestion. Nutr Health, 1998;12:131-4., suggests that agricultural wheat products have a low selenium content which depresses the activity of the diodinase enzyme crucial to the production of thyroid hormone. Whatever the mechanism, hypothyroidism commonly occurs in tandem with the metabolic syndrome. Now the cycle is truly in lock-down mode. When Oprah asks on the cover of her January 2009 issue of “O” magazine, “How did I let this Happen Again?” I think she might find the answer in the above paragraph.



This situation is more likely to occur in women simply because they DO have less muscle mass than their male counterparts. As a result, their glycogen stores become full more easily and more quickly and the process described above occurs more easily and more aggressively. This is why high intensity exercise is even more important for women. Only high intensity exercise activates the adrenaline-stimulated amplification cascade that mobilizes huge amounts of glycogen out of the muscle. This is a survival mechanism that provides emergency energy for on-site use in our muscles. When you work out HARD (as detailed in Body By Science) you activate this process and empty your muscles of excess glucose. This creates a scenario where glucose needs to be replaced within the muscle. This is done by the action of insulin. Insulin receptors on the muscle surface then become restored, serum glucose can then drop and Insulin levels drop. When insulin levels drop, hormone sensitive lipase can then become active and mobilize fat stores for immediate energy needs. You no longer have to rely on a ravenous appetite to meet immediate energy needs. Before, elevated insulin levels would cause you to misinterpret ANY discomfort as hunger. Now, only energy needs that cannot be met by fat mobilization through hormone sensitive lipase actually stimulate hunger AND it is a subtle signal that it is time to eat (rather than a sense of ravenous panic).

Having detailed the role of high intensity exercise in reversing the metabolic syndrome, I must devote some attention to the dietary aspect of the problem. No exercise program (even high intensity strength training) can compensate for a bad diet that is too high in refined carbohydrate. High intensity exercise certainly gives you more latitude in your diet, but it cannot do it by itself. The diet we advocate is basically a hunter-gatherer diet, which focuses on healthy meats, fats, and carbohydrate derived from fibrous vegetables and low-sugar fruits. What is absent are agricultural-based refined carbohydrates.

Anything derived from the seed-head of plants must be ground into flour which is high in rapidly absorbable carbohydrate. Also, seeds of plants contain phytotoxins which help to protect the plant’s reproductive elements from being eaten. These toxins keep animals from reproducing and thriving by disrupting their hormone function. High intake of refined carbohydrate will create the cascade described above. By eating a natural, hunter-gatherer type diet and combining high intensity exercise you can begin reversing the metabolic syndrome.

The important fact to remember is that all of these derangements and their correction occur more quickly in females BECAUSE they have less muscle mass. When eating a modern diet and not exercising, the glycogen stores fill more quickly because less muscle means less storage capacity. When eating properly and performing high intensity exercise, the situation is turned around efficiently because a given amount of glucose mobilization represents a larger percentage of total glycogen stores. Once the situation is reversed, the larger muscle mass represents a larger storage reservoir and more glycogen storage capability. Thus in the future there is more latitude for slip ups before the metabolic syndrome gets a foothold.

When diet and exercise are properly understood, body composition auto-regulates in the ideal range. You are no longer ravenously hungry, to the point that you will often forget to eat. Gone will be the days of weighing food, counting calories, and plodding along on the treadmill for hours. When you eat a proper diet, and partake of high intensity exercise, you set into motion a vicious positive cycle that makes the body you desire easy to achieve.

Compare this to the advice Oprah’s fitness expert gives on page 152 of the magazine shown above when asked to address her relapse:

“Instead of thinking, I’ve failed over and over again, why bother trying again?, take your relapse in stride and stay positive no matter how many attempts it takes you. Each new effort brings you closer to the one that might really work. The key is to stick with it until you achieve your weight and health goals — that’s my definition of a true success story.”

Apparently Mr. Green has not heard the old yarn that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing that has failed you over and over again, and expecting different results this go ‘round. 

So to any woman out there who is fed up with trying the same thing over and over, I offer this suggestion, instead of getting back on the treadmill “one more time,” try this: Alter your diet so that you eat no grain-based carbohydrate: no flour, no sugar, no bread, no pasta, and no high fructose corn syrup. Then go to the gym and perform a workout of leg press, pulldown, chest press, row and overhead press. Lift slowly and smoothly but with as much effort as possible. Go to complete fatigue, or as close to it as you can tolerate. Work out once, or at most, twice a week. Make sure your workouts last no longer than 20 minutes. Then sit back and watch what happens.

– Doug McGuff, MD

SOMETHING IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER THAN NOTHING - DREW BAYE

I just found a great article that expresses so clearly what I have come to understand about the supremacy of weight training over cardio exercise.  Not only is lifting healthier and more effective, but cardio is downright dangerous and unnecessary for fitness and/or cardiovascular health.

The article is great, but don't stop reading there.  The comments are just as full of information as the article itself.  Drew Baye writes:

I recently posted a link on Facebook to Arthur De Vany’s Top Ten Reasons Not to Run Marathons, to which a friend who runs replied,

Everyone has their opinion. I run because I like to. Not because I want to run 26.2 miles every day or even 13.1 miles every day. I think it’s a stress reliever and I truly enjoy it. I’m sure this study was done on people who run extreme distances all the time. I’m sure you think your way of training is the best and I’m also sure it’s great for a lot of people. Exercise of any sort is better than sitting on the couch eating potato chips =)

Contrary to popular but uninformed opinion, something is not always better than nothing where physical activity and exercise are concerned. In fact, many activities people perform for exercise or health reasons do more harm than good.

The goal of exercise is to stimulate improvements in fitness, and should not undermine health in the process, as Dr. Doug McGuff stresses in Body by Science. However, activities like jogging, aerobic dance, plyometrics, and others exposing the body to high peak and impact forces are often recommended as exercise despite carrying a significant risk of injury or damaging health in some other way.

In the case of running, doing nothing would definitely be better. Since jogging is a very slow, very inefficient, very poor way of improving cardiovascular conditioning and burns few calories for the time invested, very little benefit would be lost by quitting, compared to the benefit of preventing long term damage to the feet, ankles, knees, hips and spine and associated degenerative joint conditions, not to mention the likely pulls, strains and tears.

If everybody in the world stopped doing what they consider to be exercise today, the net result would be an increase in average health over time and a decrease in traumatic injuries and joint problems, since what the majority consider to be exercise involves repetitive, high force or high impact movements, often done inattentively and with sloppy form.

A person’s enjoyment of an activity may justify performing it, but then they should call it what it is, recreation. While recreation is certainly a matter of opinion, exercise is not. Different people enjoy different activities, but the principles of exercise are the same for everyone, and I happen to know for a fact the principles my training is based on are the best. They produce improvements in all general factors of fitness equal to or better than any other method or activity, and they do so more efficiently and more safely.

Another popular but wrong opinion implied in her reply is people should base their exercise program on their recreational preferences. Exercise is the application of a physical stressor to stimulate an adaptive response, and should be performed in accordance with how the body handles and responds to stress and using movements based on muscle and joint function, and not in accordance with the conventions or movement patterns of some recreational activity. While a physical recreational activity may have an exercise effect, this is not the same as being effective exercise.

I suspect part of the reason for this is it allows people to tell themselves and others they’re doing something healthy, without actually having to engage in the extremely demanding physical and mental work characteristic of real exercise. Most people do not find real exercise to be fun. It is brutally hard work.

I am not saying people shouldn’t run, walk, cycle, or perform other activities they may enjoy just because they carry a risk of injury or are not relatively effective methods of exercise. I enjoy practicing various martial arts and doing parkour, both of which carry a significant risk of injury and neither of which I would consider exercise. Just don’t do something primarily for fun and pretend you’re exercising.

If you truly value some form of physical recreation, a separate, real exercise program will enhance your enjoyment of it by improving your performance and your resistance to injury. Exercise in accordance with proper training principles, then apply your improved fitness to the enjoyment of your chosen recreational activities, but don’t try to mix recreation and exercise – it takes the fun out of recreation and the effectiveness out of exercise.

To read the full article and the comments, click here.

FRED HAHN EXPLAINS WHY RESISTANCE TRAINING PUTS CARDIO TO SHAME

Dana Carpender, low carb cookbook author, interviews Fred Hahn, the co-author (along with the Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades) of The Slow Burn Fitness Revolution.

The first part of the podcast is reader input and Dana's take on The Rice Diet, and the second part is Fred's comparison of different types of exercise and which ones are more beneficial. (Spoiler alert - it ain't cardio!) 

Click here to listen to the interview.

A CASE AGAINST CARDIO - MARK SISSON - MARK'S DAILY APPLE

From Mark Sisson of Mark' Daily Apple:

We all know that we need to exercise to be healthy.

Unfortunately, the popular wisdom of the past 40 years – that we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity – has created a generation of overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics. Hate to say it, but we weren’t meant to aerobicize at the chronic and sustained high intensities that so many people choose to do these days. The results are almost always unimpressive. Ever wonder why years of “Spin” classes, endless treadmill sessions and interminable hours on the “elliptical” have done nothing much to shed those extra pounds and really tone the butt?

Don’t worry. There’s a reason why the current methods fail, and when you understand why, you’ll see that there’s an easier, more effective – and fun – way to burn fat, build or preserve lean muscle and maintain optimal health. The information is all there in the primal DNA blueprint, but in order to get the most from your exercise experience, first you need to understand the way we evolved and then build your exercise program around that blueprint.

Like most people, I used to think that rigorous aerobic activity was one of the main keys to staying healthy – and that the more mileage you could accumulate (at the highest intensity), the better. During my 20+ years as a competitive endurance athlete, I logged tens of thousands of training miles running and on the bike with the assumption that, in addition to becoming fit enough to race successfully at a national class level, I was also doing my cardiovascular system and the rest of my body a big healthy favor.

Being the type A that I am, I read Ken Cooper’s seminal 1968 book Aerobics and celebrated the idea that you got to award yourself “points” for time spent at a high heart rate. The more points, the healthier your cardiovascular system would become. Based on that notion, I should have been one of the healthiest people on the planet.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t – and that same mindset has kept millions of other health-conscious, nirvana-seeking exercisers stuck in a similar rut for almost 40 years. It’s time to get your head out of the sand and take advantage of your true DNA destiny, folks!

The first signal I had that something was wrong was when I developed debilitating osteoarthritis in my ankles…at age 28. This was soon coupled with chronic hip tendonitis and nagging recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. In retrospect, it is clear now that my carbohydrate-fueled high-intensity aerobic lifestyle was promoting a dangerous level of continuous systemic inflammation, was severely suppressing other parts of my immune system and the increased oxidative damage was generally tearing apart my precious muscle and joint tissue.

The stress of high intensity training was also leaving me soaking in my own internal cortisol (stress hormone) bath. It wasn’t so clear to me at the time exactly what was happening – in fact it was quite confusing, since I was doing so much of this so-called “healthy” aerobic exercise – but I had no choice but to give up racing, unable to train at anywhere near the intensity required to stay at an elite level.

To make ends meet, I became a “personal trainer” and I refocused my attention on training average “non-athletic” people to achieve reasonable levels of general fitness and health. Of course, we lifted weights as part of the overall plan (and I will go into greater detail on that important aspect of fitness in a later post), but for the aerobic component of their training, I started doing long walks or hikes or easy bike rides with them. My many clients got the benefit of me actually working out right along side them and I got the benefit of 3 to 5 hours a day of very low intensity aerobic work (well, very low for me anyway). It was refreshing and really didn’t take much effort on my part, but I knew I had to be deriving at least some small benefit from those hours.

Since I didn’t have much time left in the week for my own workouts, once or twice a week I would do a very short but very intense workout for my own benefit, usually sprints at the track or “hill repeats” of 2-3 minutes each on the bike. Lo and behold, within a year, my injuries were healing, I was rarely sick and I was even back to occasionally racing – faster than ever. Something “primal” was happening and it made total sense in the context of the DNA blueprint. I was training like my hunter-gatherer ancestors, building my aerobic capacity slowly and steadily without overstressing my adrenals or my immune system, training my body to derive more energy from fats (and not glucose), requiring far fewer carbohydrate calories from my diet, and building muscle with occasional quick bursts of speed and intensity. I was suddenly both fit AND healthy. My Primal Health system was kicking in and it all made perfect sense.

Humans, like all mammals, evolved two primary energy systems that powered the skeletal muscles of our hunter-gatherer ancestors 40,000 years ago and that would keep us all well-powered the same way today, if we weren’t so bent on circumventing them with our ill-fated (literally) lifestyle choices.

The first energy system relied heavily on the slow burning of fats, keeping us fueled while we were at rest or sleeping, yet also allowing for continuous or intermittent low levels of aerobic activity (think of our ancestors walking across the savannah for hours foraging for roots, shoots, berries, grubs, insects and the occasional small animal). It makes sense. Fats are very efficient fuels that are stored easily in the fat cells and burn easily and cleanly when lots of oxygen is present (as when we are breathing normally). Even if there’s no food in the immediate area, a well-trained fat-burning hunter-gatherer could continue walking and foraging for days without compromising his or her health or efficiency.

The second major energy system we developed through evolution was an ATP-fueled system that allowed for intense loads of work to be done in very brief bursts (think of our hunter-gatherer ancestors sprinting to the safety of a tree to avoid being eaten by a lion). ATP is always sitting right there within the muscle cells, available in a split second, and it is the highest octane fuel we have. In fact, it’s ATP and adrenaline that allow the little old lady to lift the front end of the Ford Fairlane off her husband when the jack fails. Unfortunately, the muscles can only store about 20 seconds worth of this precious fuel to complete life-or-death tasks. If our ancestors survived that quick sprint to safety, their ATP reserves were filled again within minutes using the other energy systems.

Furthermore, that brief burst of intense energy sparked a small “growth spurt” in the muscle, making it even stronger for the next encounter with the next lion – a true survival adaptation.

(Note: While our energy systems are actually quite complex, varied and interrelated, I have simplified things here to make it easier to “digest”.)

Bottom line: Fats and ATP were the two primary energy sources for locomotion: we either moved slowly and steadily or “fight or flight” fast, and we became stronger and healthier the more we used only those energy systems.

But here’s the real take-home message for us: We did not evolve to rely heavily on a carbodydrate-fueled energy system, and yet, carbohydrate metabolism seems to rule our lives today. Yes, carbohydrate (in the form of glucose) can play a major role in the production of energy in skeletal muscle, but it turns out that the heart and skeletal muscle prefer fatty acids (fat) as fuel over glucose.

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn’t regularly ramp their heart rates up for over an hour a day like so many of us do now. Even when the concept of organized hunting came along, it would appear that our hunter-gatherer ancestors relied more on superior tracking ability (using our highly evolved and exceptionally large brains) and walking (using our superior fat-burning systems), rather than on actually “chasing down” their prey. In fact, squandering valuable energy reserves (and increasing carbohydrate [glucose] metabolism by a factor of ten) by running hard for long periods of time was so counterproductive it would have likely hastened your demise (imagine chasing some game animal for a few hours and – oops – not succeeding in killing it. You’ve spent an incredible amount of energy, yet now you have no food to replace that energy. You have suddenly become some other animals prey because you are physically exhausted).

So, what does all that mean for us in the 21st century seeking to maximize our health and fitness?

Well, we know that this current popular high intensity aerobic pursuit is a dead-end. It requires huge amounts carbohydrate (sugar) to sustain, it promotes hyperinsulinemia (overproduction of insulin), increases oxidative damage (the production of free radicals) by a factor of 10 or 20 times normal, and generates high levels of the stress hormone cortisol in many people, leaving them susceptible to infection, injury, loss of bone density and depletion of lean muscle tissue – while encouraging their bodies to deposit fat. Far from that healthy pursuit we all assumed it was! What, then, is the answer?

Knowing what we know about our hunter-gatherer ancestors and the DNA blueprint, we would ideally devise an aerobics plan that would have us walking or hiking several hours a day to maximize our true fat-burning systems and then doing intermittent “life or death” sprints every few days to generate those growth spurts that create stronger, leaner muscle.

However, since allocating a few hours a day to this pursuit is impractical for most people, we can still create a plan that has a fair amount of low level aerobic movement, such as walking briskly, hiking, cycling at a moderate pace, etc a few times a week and keep it at under an hour. Then, we can add a few intense “interval” sessions, where we literally sprint (or cycle or do anything intensely) for 20, 30 or 40 seconds at a time all out, and do this once or twice a week.

If you are willing to try this new approach, but haven’t sprinted for a while, you may want to ease into it. Start with maybe three or four the first time, resting two minutes in between and, after a few weeks of doing this, work your way up to a workout that includes six or eight all-out sprints after a brief warm-up. An easy few minutes of stretching afterwards and you’ve done more in less time than you could ever accomplish in a typical “80-85% Max Heart Rate” cardio” workout. That’s exactly type of the plan I do myself and that I give all of my trainees now.

Let’s recap:

The benefits of low level aerobic work (walking, hiking, cycling, swimming):
- increases capillary network (blood vessels that supply the muscle cells with fuel and oxygen)
- increases muscle mitochondria
- increases production of fat-burning and fat-transporting enzymes
- more fun, because you can talk with a partner while doing it

The benefits of interval training (sprinting in short intense bursts)
- increases muscle fiber strength
- increases aerobic capacity (work ability)
- increases muscle mitochondria (the main energy production center in muscle)
- increases insulin sensitivity
- increases natural growth hormone production

The costs of chronic (repetitious) mid- and high-level aerobic work
- requires large amounts of dietary carbohydrates (SUGAR)
- decreases efficient fat metabolism
- increases stress hormone cortisol
- increases systemic inflammation
- increases oxidative damage (free radical production)
- boring!

To read the full article and comments, click here.

MORE CHRONIC CARDIO TALK - MARK SISSON - MARK'S DAILY APPLE

From Mark Sisson of Mark's Daily Apple:

Why wouldn’t anyone want to hear that real exercise doesn’t mean endless hours on that torturously boring treadmill? News like this is like sunlight bursting in, choirs of children singing, shackles collapsing open and crashing to the ground. Hordes of celebratory folk parade through the gym, penny whistles and fiddles playing, ale mugs in hand, goats and cows in the merry mix. Get off that treadmill and join us, for the love!

Truly, how many people give you great news like this on a random Tuesday– permission to leave the life of chronic cardio for the promise of less time, more muscle, better health? Of course, I’m certainly not advocating giving up all training – just that certain problematic, unnecessary type. I’d encourage you to reread all of the discussion and great comments offered up. Here’s a sampling of my contribution to that post conversation.

It all comes down to this: fat loss depends 80% on what and how you eat. Retrain your energy systems to burn fat and not glucose. Cutting out all simple carbs is the key. It’s about insulin management. If you can readjust the diet to encourage the body to burn fats, you won’t need to replenish lost glycogen every day. You’ll always burn fats and you’ll always have energy. The low level aerobic stuff becomes “filler”…so you only do it if it’s fun, like a hike or walk with friends or golf or mountain biking. The real muscle growth will come from the short anaerobic bursts like sprints, intervals or weight-training. I’ll do a piece on this later, but check out my friends at http://www.crossfit.com . They get more done in 20-30 minutes than most of the gym rats doing 90 minute weight sessions. And because it’s a “circuit training” concept, they get plenty of heart-training (cardio) as well. And growth hormone release and insulin sensitivity, and….you get the point.

In our cardio addicted culture, it can sound too good – too simple – to be true. But the science and the research is there, folks. Short “interval” exercise, like sprints or strength training, can offer the same fitness benefits (and then some) compared with traditional endurance training. Take this study via Science Daily via McMaster University. In the context of six training sessions during a two week study period, half of the college aged subjects did 90-120 minutes per session of a continuous moderate-intensity cycling routine while the other half did between four and six 30-second intensive cycling bursts. At the end of the two week study period, the endurance cycling subjects had each invested 10.5 hours. The intensive interval subjects had invested just 2.5 hours. Yet, the improvements in fitness performance and muscle parameters were the same.

Interested in hearing more?

A study (PDF) from the University of New South Wales followed the fitness and body composition changes in 45 overweight women in a 15-week period. The women were divided into two groups and assigned interval or continuous cycling routines. The interval “sprint” cycling group performed twenty minutes of exercise, which repeated eight seconds of “all out” cycling and then twelve seconds of light exercise. The continuous group exercised for 40 minutes at a consistent rate. At the end of the study, the women in the interval group had lost three times the body fat as the women in the continuous exercise group. (An interesting note: the interval group’s loss in body fat came mostly from the legs and buttocks area.)

The study’s organizers, in their presentations to the Heart Foundation and American College of Sports Medicine, discussed the role of sprinting in metabolic response. Intense interval training, they said, results in higher levels of catecholamines, a compound related to fat oxidation.

More yet?

Another collaborative study organized by universities and health institutes in Denmark and Japan highlighted the same distinction in fat oxidation between prolonged, continuous exercise and shorter, intense interval routines. In addition to additional fat oxidation, the study’s results linked interval exercise with lower plasma glucose, increased epinephrine response, lower insulin concentration and increased fat oxidation during the recovery period.

Don’t you just love this stuff?  Folks, this is ground breaking stuff. Now I just scratch my head at why we keep running ourselves ragged!  The message is out there, but it’s not reaching people.

To read the full article and comments, click here.

CHRONIC CARDIO - MARK SISSON - MARK'S DAILY APPLE

From Mark Sisson of Mark's Daily Apple:

Dear Mark,
I’m still having a hard time understanding what “chronic high level training” is, exactly. How much is too much? Is there a heart rate zone you guys can give me? A time limit? Am I overthinking this?

Thanks, Charlotte, for posting this question last week. As is so often the case, another MDA reader (hats off to you, Mike OD!) offered great advice. We thought the question was well worth revisiting. First off, let’s investigate the concept of chronic cardio. Intense cardio as we commonly think of it today means long stretches at a sustained heart rate in the 80+% range.

The fact is, our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn’t ramp up their heart rates significantly for over an hour every day, and I don’t think we should either. They walked at a very low level of exertion, burning almost entirely stored fats. Once you get into the zones where less fat is burned and where there’s a big dependency on glucose to fuel muscles, your body goes into a less efficient mode of fuel oxidation. There are biochemical costs associated with this shift. Your muscles and liver can only hold 500-600 grams of precious glycogen (stored glucose) at any one time, which means about 2 hours’ worth for the best trained individuals and less for most people. That means that to come back and work out hard the next day requires at least 600 more grams of carbs every day. That’s just too much glucose and insulin to deal with every day.

I don’t recommend pushing this limit or even approaching it. Why bother? This kind of training (and diet) raises cortisol levels, increases oxidative damage, systemic inflammation, depresses the immune system and decreases fat metabolism. About the only thing good it does is improve cardiac muscle strength – and even then you get too the point of diminishing returns fairly quickly.

As you know, I recommend a different approach that more accurately mirrors what we evolved doing. In those simpler (but not really “good old”), primal times, we spent several hours a day engaged in low level activity. A few times a week, caveman/woman life required brief spurts in high intensity anaerobic mode to run from various predators, hunt down dinner, engage in “play” etc. Each of these modes resulted in its own unique and very positive growth response.

This pattern, for most of us, isn’t easily replicated as a result of our busy lives. Instead, I suggest anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour of low to moderate level aerobic movement such as walking briskly, hiking, cycling, etc. It doesn’t need to be every day, but at least a few times a week is important. The goal during these sessions is to maintain the zone that burns mostly fat. For very fit people, this could be as high as 70-80% of your maximum heart rate, but we’re really talking 60-70% for most people. The benefits of exercising at this zone are numerous and the risks minimal. It’s the ideal level of activity for decreasing body fat, increasing the capillary network, and for lowering blood pressure and reducing risk for degenerative diseases, including heart disease.

Add to this routine a few anaerobic, “interval” workouts once or twice a week. Weight-bearing, anaerobic bursts are the best training for building muscle, and lean muscle mass is critical to health. It also increases your aerobic capacity, natural growth hormone production and insulin sensitivity.

Traditional running sprints are one option, but we presented several others last month for your perusal. Put your all into it for 20-40 seconds and then rest for two minutes or so between “sets.” You can start out with three or four bursts and work your way up to as much as eight. As always, get in some warm up time and stretches afterward. It’s no fun pulling a muscle.

Finally, working all muscle groups through dynamic strength-training sessions (ie: lifting weights) a few times a week helps further build and maintain muscle mass, insulin sensitivity and growth hormone release.

Finally, let me add that I’m not trying to squash anyone’s passion for competing. As a former competitor myself, I totally “get” the drive to compete. Do I think that mode of existence is healthy, particularly in the long run? Not really, but I still understand what brings people to it. I simply want to convey that certain and sometimes significant health compromises are inherent to competition training. If anti-aging, longevity and robust excellent health are your primary goals, high-level training isn’t the best way to achieve them.

Now, for those who aren’t into the competition mission, you have the advantage of making your fitness routine and health about ideal balance. And I’m a true believer in achieving the balance that allows people to live the longest, healthiest lives possible. Thanks for your questions, and keep them coming!

To read the entire article and comments, click here.

IF YOU'RE SMART, YOU'LL SKIP THE CARDIO AND LIFT WEIGHTS

5 FITNESS HABITS YOU SHOULD STEAL FROM HIM - FITBIE

The secret to losing weight like a man: Work out like one. Pick up these gym lessons from the guys and watch the pounds melt away.

By Emily G. W. Chau

Lose Weight Like a Guy

When a guy decides to get back in shape, it takes just a few gym sessions before he sprouts muscles Hulk-style beneath his t-shirt. At least that’s what it feels like to us as we women sweat through daily spin classes without seeing a shred of difference.

The solution: Man up, and take your workout to the next level. Mother Nature may have given men the advantage when it comes to muscle-building and weight loss-promoting testosterone levels, but don’t chalk it all up to biology. Guys hit the gym harder and more frequently than women, says Jennifer Widerstrom, NASM-C.P.T., who trains celebrities at Pulse Fitness Studios in Los Angeles. Plus, they’re typically better at setting aside time and making physical fitness a priority.

To tip the scales in your favor, try adopting these five fitness habits of the opposite sex as your own. These “guy behaviors” will help rev up your metabolism, burn more calories, and get rid of those love handles for good.
 .
1.  Your Exercise Obsession

He: Beefs up only what he can see from waist up.
You: Are a leg curl away from fitting into your skinny jeans.

While guys load their workouts with exercises that’ll make their pecs pop, women tend to focus solely on ones that’ll get them a tight butt and toned legs, says Widerstrom. Men may overdo it in their single-minded quests for chiseled chests and rock-hard abs, but it pays to take a piece of this obsession. Focusing more attention to your abs will help you build a stronger core; mimicking his desire for big biceps will help get rid of arm flab. Plus, working your upper body will give you a sense of balance and proportion. Exercises that target your shoulders, back, and chest will help you stand taller and make your waist appear slimmer, so you’ll look more trim from head to toe.

2.  Your Cardio M.O.

He: Makes a mad dash and sprints mid-run.
You: Take it slow and steady for an hour.

Before you break out the celeb glossy and cycle on autopilot for an hour, consider adding intervals to your cardio session. “Guys include sprinting cardio in their program more often than women do,” observes Todd Durkin, owner of Fitness Quest 10 in San Diego and author of The IMPACT! Body Plan. “And women are missing out on all of the metabolism-boosting benefits.” Interval training—alternating between short bursts of intense activity and slower recovery periods—is one of the most efficient forms of exercise. Research shows that including as little as 10 minutes of interval training each time you work out helps increase your endurance and burns more calories than jogging at a more moderate clip. The takeaway: You’ll be out of the gym faster and see better results.

3.  Your Exercise Mindset

He: Will try to break his personal record if it’s the last thing he does.
You: Consider it a win if you’re on time to Pilates class.

Take a page from the boys’ book and put on your game face while you work out. “Men are better at tuning into the athlete within them, and they’re more likely to try new exercises,” says Widerstrom. “Women, on the other hand, often don’t give themselves credit for what they are capable of doing, and could really benefit from tapping into their competitive spirit.” Try tackling new a challenge by signing up for a boot camp class or a kettlebell workout. Instead of measuring your fitness success by the amount of time that you spend breaking a sweat, establish clear and measurable goals, such as improving your mile time or completing five chin-ups. Exercising with a partner or in a group can also motivate you to keep up with the Joneses in the gym.

4.  Your First Stop at the Gym

He: Hits the weight room to pump iron.
You: Pedal on the elliptical like there’s no tomorrow.

Look around any fitness center and you’ll see the weight and cardio rooms are as divided as a junior high dance. However, if you want to sculpt a tight and toned body, you’re going to have to venture off the treadmill. “One of the best exercise habits women could learn from men has got to be to lift heavy,” says Durkin. Women simply don’t have enough testosterone in their bodies to pack on large amounts of muscle that quickly, so picking up a barbell will help you get buff, not bulky. What’s more, lifting weights also helps fight against osteoporosis.

If you’re already enrolled in a resistance-training program, challenge yourself to increase your load. “If you can do 30 repetitions with a 15-pound weight, you’re probably wasting your time,” says Durkin. “You want to use a weight where you can do 8 to 15 repetitions, and really be challenged by the last 3 to 5 reps.” 

5.  Your Weekend Schedule

He: Brushes off the mounting laundry list of chores to get in a run.
You: Are never sitting on your bum, let alone have time to tone it.

Channel the male one-track mind when it comes to fitting in physical fitness. “Women, especially moms, have the tendency to put other things and people ahead of going to the gym, whereas men are far better at putting time aside for exercise and sticking to it,” says Widerstrom. However, your caretaking instincts can wind up inflicting major self-sabotage. It’s trite but true: You can’t take care of others if you don’t look after yourself first, so carve out a little “me-time” to boost energy and de-stress with regular physical activity. Treat exercise as you would any other commitment—pencil it into your planner and inform your family in advance that you have an appointment you can’t get out of. If that doesn’t work, get an exercise buddy or hire a trainer for a few sessions. Sometimes the knowledge that someone is depending on you is enough to prevent you from backing out.

Click here to read the full article.

DOES CARDIO BURN FAT? - CRAIG BALLANTYNE, TURBULENCE TRAINING

This from Craig Ballantyne, author of Turbulence Training, the program I am currently using:

A lot of people make a big mistake with cardio, and funny enough, this conversation came up over and over again at a wedding on Saturday night.

And this "theme" really makes me roll my eyes and shake my head.

I can't remember how many times I heard someone say, "Oh, I'm going to have to hit the gym extra hard on Monday to burn this off!"

I find it ridiculous...because first, it's not healthy thinking, and second, it is not accurate thinking.

Seriously, let's look at this for a second.

The wedding meal would EASILY result in over 2400 calories.

And how long would it take you to burn that many calories doing your average cardio workout?

You'd need to do cardio for just a little less time than it would take you to run a marathon.

So 3 hours for the fittest people, 4-5 hours for the average people, and more than 6-8 hours for beginners.

Does that sound like a "regular cardio session" to you?

Heck no!

So FORGET the "I'm going to burn off this big meal with cardio" mentality.

It's WRONG thinking.

Plus, as I've mentioned time and time again, research shows that regular cardio doesn't really help with fat loss.

1) One study showed interval training was better than cardio at burning belly fat (and cut the workout time in half) - more about interval training research, right click here.

2) A second study found that 300 hours of cardio per year helped men lose only 6 pounds (and women lost only 4 pounds). So that's about 50 hours of cardio per pound of weight lost - at BEST!

(Obesity 15:1496-1512 (2007). Exercise Effect on Weight and Body Fat in Men and Women. Anne McTiernan*, et al.)

3) A third study found SOME folks start eating MORE when they start a cardio program. These folks end up gaining weight on aerobics.

(Reference: International Journal of Obesity 32: 177-184, 2008).

So if long, slow, boring cardio doesn't work, what's left for to burn fat?

Well first, I will acknowledge that high-intensity cardio seems to work better. In one study, subjects who burned 400 calories doing high-intensity cardio ended up losing fat while subjects who did only low-intensity cardio did not lose ANY fat at all!

(Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Oct 8. Effect of Exercise Training Intensity on Abdominal Visceral Fat and Body Composition.)

But the best way, the fastest way, and the most enjoyable way to burn fat is with interval training.

If you haven't read my interval training report on how to lose fat with this scientifically proven exercise secret, please right click here and get your free report:

And soon I'll be revealing over 31 different interval training methods for fat loss. And it won't just be sprinting on a treadmill for 1 minute straight. Trust me, there are a lot of unique ways to burn fat with interval training.

In the meantime, FORGET about slow, boring cardio. It is a generally a big waste of time for fat loss. Sure, it's good for running marathons, but not for busy people who only have 2-3 hours per week to burn fat.

More interval training secrets coming soon!

Stay strong,

Craig Ballantyne, CSCS, MS
Author, Turbulence Training

PS - If you don't have access to any equipment for intervals, you can get started burning fat faster than with traditional slow cardio by using my "Bodyweight Cardio 3" circuits. You'll discover muscles you didn't even know you had with this program!

Right click here to try it out.

I challenge you to try the 5-round fat loss program in Workout B and tell me that isn't 10x's better than slow cardio.

STEP AWAY FROM THE TREADMILL!

Here is a short video on High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT).  You may have heard that, to burn fat, you have to do aerobic exercise, keeping your heart rate at a high, steady rate for 20 minutes.  New research shows that HIIT is a better way to go:

RELATED POST:

THE NEW RULES OF LIFTING FOR WOMEN