JP: Do You Support This?

[Symbolic]

JP,

Because this is your fitness site, I'll ask you to comment on the following interview excerpt with Allwyn Cosgrove. Every so often I stir this debate when I come across what I consider the most extreme, foolish and ultimately unhealthy advice by so-called fitness experts. I know you sing the praises of Alwyn (or at least many of the other fitness professionals who post here frequently do).


From www.alwyncosgrove.com

CB: And another debated topic is "cardio" training. How effective is this for fat loss in your opinion? Are there more effective alternatives?

AC: Aerobic training is useless. Take a look at aerobics instructors. They are fat. Sprinters (20 seconds or less of cardio work) are leaner than marathoners (2 hours plus). If more is not better, and in fact in the example I gave less is actually better, why do more?

I've always felt that the core problem with aerobic training has always been the prescription. As there is an upper limit to the aerobic state, the only way to further increase the participants fitness is to do anaerobic work (which they have yet to do any training in that state) or to increase the duration.

Doing aerobic training will not prepare you for anaerobic training -- so we have a problem. And just doing more and more and more at each stage is just dumb.

As for the fat burning zone -- the ridiculous idea that we somehow burn less fat if we work too hard ... PLEASE! If that logic were true -- and we burn less fat (I know it's true as a percentage but it's not true as a whole) at lower intensities -- then the best exercise for fat loss must be sitting on the couch right?

The only cardio training I recommend is short rest intervals in the weight room and some kind of interval training. I never recommend aerobics. A total waste of time.

I understand that we need to train at varying intensities and with different types of exercise. I also understand, as Lou Schuler frequently states, any exercise is better than none at all. However, from what I understand, cardiac muscle is different than other types of muscle in that it responds quite favorably to steady state or aerobic exercise at a moderate intensity. Moreover, the heart, to be in optimum condition, requires such a protocol. Yes, the heart also benefits from exercise at varying intensities and durations.

Bottom line, JP: Can you let this statement go undisputed? Would you recommend your clients to follow it?

Thanks.

[russ]

Alwyn posts here with some frequency, so it might be more appropriate to address to the question to him. It's a bit of a loaded question which would put JP in an uncomfortable position.

[Newlife]

"Take a look at aerobics instructors. They are fat. Sprinters (20 seconds or less of cardio work) are leaner than marathoners (2 hours plus). If more is not better, and in fact in the example I gave less is actually better, why do more?"

I don't disagree with what is said above.

[dos]

My question to Symbolic is this "What are YOUR goals?". Bottom line at the end of just about anybody's 'cardio' session is 'how many calories did I burn today?' right? This being the case, we already know that interval training is superior to steady state training (for BOTH total calories and total fat!). Also, why spend 45 min. on the treadmill when I get more bang for my buck with 20 min. of interval training?!

From an athletic conditioning standpoint Alwyn is 100% correct. Unless you are training an aerobic athlete (actually even 5 and 10 K runners should be including intervals in their training from a speed standpoint...), you should basically NEVER do steady state aerobic-style conditioning...EVER. Steady state cardio (i.e. jogging) makes joggers out of jumpers and I for one am not willing to compromise all of my power athletes' hard work by having them jog or spend 45 min. on the stairmaster reading a book.

Ok, so what's my whole point? here it is. You give me a goal i.e fat loss, weight loss, body shaping, improving recovery, decreasing working heart rate, improving recovery heart rate blah, blah, blah and I will come up with a better workout than any steady state session (using interval style training). I have been teaching spin for 6 years now and I for one can say that I NEVER do steady state training....I will beat ass for 55 minutes using intervals the whole way through. Why? 1. because it gets people to work harder 2. It's more effective from a work standpoint and 3. Bottom line is that people crawl out of that room getting the most bang for their buck. I would put my spin sessions up against any of our other 'steady state' instructors anyday.

Lastly, symbolic posted...

Every so often I stir this debate when I come across what I consider the most extreme, foolish and ultimately unhealthy advice by so-called fitness experts.

What is so extreme and foolish about someone layout the fact that steady state training is overrated? Alwyn is just saying that the myth of 'fat burning intensities' is just that..a MYTH. Alwyn is not saying don't do anything, rather, he is saying that people should train smarter. I think it's smarter to get more out of your training sessions don't you?

[wingsfan]

Originally posted by dos:
I would put my spin sessions up against any of our other 'steady state' instructors anyday.

man dos, you sound like a boxer giving some trash talk right before a fight...."i pity da fool!!!!!!!" [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Symbolic]

Dos, I understand the sports performance argument from the standpoint of power athletes. I'm particularly shocked by the last paragraph that I quoted as it pertains to health.

"The only cardio training I recommend is short rest intervals in the weight room and some kind of interval training. I never recommend aerobics. A total waste of time."


Dos, what about my statement regarding the benefits of steady state exercise for cardiac muscle? Isn't there a unique benefit that intervals don't provide. I would even suggest that for slow twitch dominated individuals, steady state might have a greater fat burning potential. Even Lou Schuler once suggested that this needs to be better understood.

[dinabol]

Questions in the fitness industry are complex to answer because it always "depends". It depends on a number of things including genetics, diet, training state, fitness level,motivation, psychology, pain tolerance etc. etc.

Although science has quantafied many questions this area is still perplexing to say the least because exercise physiology, kinesiology, body building etc. is not just science it is also an art. And how can you quantify art, you can't, not precisely anyway.

People will try and quantify everything and probably sound quite impressive. however,when they answer questions sometimes they tend to look at things rather myopically and tend to neglect the art side. however, the art side
is what makes this area so interesting. for this reason it's almost an inexact science. it's very similar to psychology. They have come a long way, but many questions still remain.

[poopy pants]

Hey slick, why don't you just email or PM Alwyn rather than posting this here?

[Alwyn]

Symbolic,

We've had this discussion before and I'm getting tired of it. This will be my last comment on this.

The original question was as regards aerobic training for fat loss:
"How effective is this for fat loss in your opinion? Are there more effective alternatives?"

The article relates ONLY to fat loss. It is not about health, it is not about cardiac heart disease, cholesterol reduction,stress releief or anything other than fat loss.

So I stand by what I said. For fat loss purposes - anaerobic training and interval training are always superior. This has been proven. As Dos already said "we already know that interval training is superior to steady state training (for BOTH total calories and total fat!). "


AC

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by dos:
I have been teaching spin for 6 years now and I for one can say that I NEVER do steady state training....I will beat ass for 55 minutes using intervals the whole way through. Why? 1. because it gets people to work harder 2. It's more effective from a work standpoint and 3. Bottom line is that people crawl out of that room getting the most bang for their buck. I would put my spin sessions up against any of our other 'steady state' instructors anyday.

Man, if I am ever in CA, I am there! Sounds like a good time. I've been taking spin for 7 years and ride outdoors like a fiend. I pretty much can kick most spin instructors' asses here (it's fun to see an instructor look at you kicking the rpm in a rapid spin out of the saddle interval and then try to get their intensity up).

I love intense interval riding. Having said that, all the interval training in the world over the winter doesn't seem to prepare me for 4 hour rides in the summer. Only steady state riding can do that. To channel Bill Hartman, 'If you wanna ride long, the only way is to ride long.' Or the great rider Eddie Merckx: "If you want to be a better rider, ride, ride, ride." An example of sports-specific adaptation if I've ever seen one.

[poopy pants]

I guess he's hard of hearing:

The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.
The article relates ONLY to fat loss.

[Alwyn]

But Tony,

You forgot to mention this article relates ONLY to fat loss. And that's really my whole point. [img]smile.gif[/img]

AC

[dinabol]

I will concure for fat loss alone anerobic high intensity is probably the way to go. however, aerobics should not be neglected. aerobic training to increase maximum oxygen consumption and hence the body's ability to transport and use oxygen is dependent upon both a central component involving adaptations in the cardiopulmonary system and a peripheral component involving adaptations in muscle tissues.

Central and peripheral adaptations are, in turn, dependent upon different mechanisms. It does appear that the higher the intensity of the stimulus used to increase maximum oxygen consumption (e.g., high intensity interval training), the greater the increase in oxygen consumption.

However, the location of the adaptation to aerobic training may shift depending upon the intensity of the stimulus.

At lower levels of intensity, it appears that most of the adaptations occur centrally. With higher intensity training, more adaptations occur peripherally.

research suggests that training at between 70% to 80% of VO2max (70% to 80% of heart rate reserve; about 80% to 85% of maximum heart rate; just slightly below the anaerobic threshold) results in maximal contractile force in the heart and thus maximizes central adaptations important for health benefits.


If you're using aerobic training to favorably influence your health through central adaptations, there may be no reason to train at levels that will result in more peripheral adaptations.

The ability to perform at higher levels (e.g., run, bike, or swim very fast) does require training at high levels of intensity and specific peripheral adaptations, but such performance levels are not the goal of most people. I know that's not one of my goals.

[poopy pants]

Originally posted by Alwyn:
But Tony,

You forgot to mention this article relates ONLY to fat loss. And that's really my whole point. [img]smile.gif[/img]

AC

What's your point again? Fat loss?

Reading comprehension can be a tough skill to master.

Seems to ask the same thing over and over again just to yank cranks.

http://forums.menshealth.com/profile.jspa?userID=8674

[dos]

I am not sure if the suggestion that slow-twitch individuals would actually burn more fat dong steady-state exercise would be on the right track. We do know, however, that as exercise intensity increases, so does our caloric expenditure. This in turn equates to more TOTAL fat loss (not % of fat burned at the lower calorie amount). Also, by intervals I do mean either very high intensity intervals with no activity rest periods and also higher intensity intervals with lower intensity recovery periods (i.e. fartleks).

I think that Alwyn is passionate about the science behind his statements. We are basically seeing more effectiveness from interval style training from a caloric expenditure standpoint and this is great news. This means that we don't need to spend endless hours doing cardio and as trainers and coaches, we are able to do more with our often precious, limited time.

[dos]

kaiser posted...

Man, if I am ever in CA, I am there! Sounds like a good time. I've been taking spin for 7 years and ride outdoors like a fiend. I pretty much can kick most spin instructors' asses here (it's fun to see an instructor look at you kicking the rpm in a rapid spin out of the saddle interval and then try to get their intensity up).

I love intense interval riding. Having said that, all the interval training in the world over the winter doesn't seem to prepare me for 4 hour rides in the summer. Only steady state riding can do that. To channel Bill Hartman, 'If you wanna ride long, the only way is to ride long.' Or the great rider Eddie Merckx: "If you want to be a better rider, ride, ride, ride." An example of sports-specific adaptation if I've ever seen one.

Kaiser just let me know if you're ever out my way [img]tongue.gif[/img] ! Anyway, I figure it this way, I have so many avid road cylcists who come to my class to 'supplement' their training. For me to do some steady state s$@t for an hour would be worthless for them. These are folks that spend hours and hours on the road. My goal is to challenge them by constantly tweaking their intensity and perhaps taking them to some level of discomfort that they rarely encounter [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Some of these instructors actually think it's tough to get out of the saddle and do their patented 'jog' against virtually no reistance in an upright position for 5 minutes.....good one. As I always say to my clases...TURN THE KNOB!!!!

As far as the regular old gym goers go, they too can reap the benefits of getting the most out of their hour with me! They're gonna burn a buttload of kcals! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Viva La Spin intervals!!!

[Tin Man]

Was that fat loss? or Fat Loss?