Alwyn's AFTERBURN - from the newsletter

[Q.]

I know Alwyn doesn't want to debate this any further so don't go there (you know who you are!) but I wanted to post this from his newsletter. I think it's a good read... again.

AFTERBURN

Energy System Training For Fat Loss – by Alwyn Cosgrove

The difference between cardio training and aerobic training



This is important to understand. Cardio refers to any exercise in which the heart and lungs are involved. This could be jogging, running, sprinting, swimming, circuit training etc. Quite simply – if you are elevating your heart rate and respiration rate, you are doing some form of cardiovascular work.

Aerobic training refers to a state in which the cardiovascular work is performed. Aerobic literally means ‘with oxygen’. It is a relatively low intensity state of exercise that can be maintained almost indefinitely (as long as oxygen is being supplied to the working muscles, in the required amounts – the exercise can be continued. This is aerobic training.

All aerobic training is cardiovascular training. Not all cardiovascular training is aerobic. Hopefully that makes sense.



Steady State Aerobics – why it hasn’t worked



Let’s think of all the reasons steady state aerobic training is supposed to burn fat.



1) It burns calories. Good. I’ll buy that. How does it burn calories? Because the muscles are hard at work and demand extra oxygen to help them continue working. Hmmm. There are a ton of activities such as weight training, sprinting, sleeping, talking watching TV that ALSO burn calories by requiring work from the muscles. So no extra points for aerobic training.



2) The fat burning zone. Nope. Sorry – it doesn’t exist. The fat burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities. This is a misinterpretation. It’s true that the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities, but taking this to its logical conclusion – the body will burn a greater amount of fat as a percentage lying on the couch than doing anything else right? And we know how good lying on the couch works for fat loss. It’s the “as a percentage” lin e. At lower intensities the body may burn 50% of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35% of calories from fat. BUT at higher intensities you burn way more total calories, and more fat calories overall than you do at lower intensities. Think about a real world example – are sprinters (running 10-20s) fatter than marathon runners (2-2.5 hours of running). No. Actually sprinters carry less body fat than distance runners due to their muscle mass.



3) Aerobics makes your body an “efficient fat burning machine”. True but this isn’t a desirable response. The ONLY tissue that burns fat in the body is muscle. Yes – aerobic training does demand work from the muscles, but not as much as other activities. Aerobic training doesn’t require the muscle tissue to stay around either. Aerobic training makes muscles more efficient at using fat (don’t get excited – if your car became more efficient at burning gas – you’d be using less of it).
So if muscle is the only tissue that burns fat, and aerobic training makes it smaller and more effi cient at burning fat, then essentially you are creating a smaller, more efficient fat burning machine. That’s not effective.



4) Aerobic training raises your metabolism. I’ll cover this in more detail later but the short answer is no it doesn’t. Metabolism is largely a function of how much muscle you carry. As aerobics does nothing to even maintain muscle, never mind build muscle, it will do nothing to contribute to raising your metabolism at rest. Sure, you’ll burn calories while you’re doing it, but will you burn any more at rest as a result of doing aerobics? No. And as you’ll find out later, you may actually burn less.



The adaptation conundrum



The body literally adapts to anything we attempt to do by responding in the reverse manner. Don’t drink any water? Your body tries to retain water. Does weight training build muscle? No it doesn’t. What actually occurs is a breakdown of muscle tissue and the body ADAPTS by building muscle.

So if you burn a ton of calories doing aerobic training, that same body adapts to aerobic exercise by slowing your metabolism and allowing your body to store more fat. Same body – same system.

The biggest problem with aerobic training is that you get better at it. In weight training, as you get better, you add more weight or more reps and there is literally no finish line. In aerobic training, the work required to run 5 miles will become less and less as you get fitter. So to continue to improve you either go further (do more work for the same amount of calories) or you run it faster. Going further kind of defeats the purpose. Is there much joy in running 40 mins to burn the calories you once burned in 30 mins? And going faster involves the same problem. Eventually, the new speed becomes too easy for you and you have to go more intense to get the same benefits. Now as I mentioned, there is no end point with weight training. However there is an end point with aerobic training. You will reach an intensity eventually that will be the end of the a erobic zone. Quite simply going any harder will send your body into the anaerobic zone. So at some point you’re not doing aerobics any more. So, if you have to stop doing it at some point to get the benefits you seek why not do anaerobic work to begin with?



Metabolism

Your metabolism or your metabolic rate is what determines how many calories you burn each day – or more importantly for the purposes of this book – how many you need to maintain your current weight. Your metabolism is quite simply how many calories you burn in a typical day. It is affected and controlled by your thyroid, and is largely a factor of your muscle mass. To break it down further – every pound of muscle you put on requires approximately 50 calories per day to maintain. This doesn’t take into account the calories burned in training to develop that muscle, or the calories burned in training to keep that muscle – these 50 calories are just the amount needed by that muscle to just sit there.

So, one pound of muscle on your body requires approximately 50 calories per day. This equates to 18,250 calories per year or the equivalent of a little over 5lbs of fat. So you can see that gaining and maintaining even five pounds of muscle in your training program, will assist in burning off over 26lbs of fat over the coming year.

SO in order to really get the athletic look we want to develop, the key is not just how many calories we can burn during exercise, it’s how many calories we can force the body to burn all the time. Raising your metabolism is the real key in long term fat loss and physique change.





Caloric expenditure



In order to lose fat, you must burn off more calories than you consume. Despite the proliferation of diets- low carbohydrate, low fat, high protein, high carbohydrate etc this simple rule remains. I don’t want to talk about nutrition here as this is more than adequately covered in another chapter in this book, but suffice to say the caloric balance is still important.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard people say “I barely eat anything – I eat like a bird and I still gain weight”. Oh really. You are eating fewer calories than you need and your body is gaining weight? Impossible. This violates the law of thermodynamics. Usually it’s a case of not really being aware of how much you are actually eating. Because let’s face it – if your body was capable of producing body weight from nothing, then we better get you sent over to NASA or UNICEF immediately – with magical genes like yours, we might just be able to solve the Third World’s hunger problem.

Fat loss is all about caloric expenditure. We must burn more calories than we take in, and the real key to doing this, as mentioned before, is not aerobic training, which will burn calories while you are doing it, its anaerobic training, which burns calories while you are doing it AND increases the calories burned for hours afterwards. In the case of weight training, if we build muscle and keep it, that burns calories forever more. Even when you sleep!



The key with anaerobic training is what is known as EPOC. Anaerobic exercise burns a ton of calories while you are performing it. However, the metabolism remains elevated following this type exercise. This was, at one time, referred to as the oxygen debt, but is now referred to as the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). The recovery of the metabolic rate back to pre-exercise levels can require several minutes for light exercise (aerobic training), several hours for very heavy exercise (anaerobic cardio training), and up to 12 to 24 hours or even longer for prolonged, exhaustive exercise (interval training or circuit weight training).



The EPOC can add up to a substantial energy expenditure when totaled over the entire period of recovery. If the oxygen consumption following exercise remains elevated by an average of only 50 ml/min or 0.05 liter/min, this will amount to approximately 0.25 kcal/min or 15 kcal/hr. If the metabolism remains elevated for five hours, this would amount to an additional expenditure of 75 kcal that would not normally be included in the calculated total energy expenditure for that particular activity. This major source of energy expenditure, which occurs during recovery, but is directly the result of the exercise bout, is frequently ignored in most calculations of the energy cost of various activities. If the individual in this example exercised five days per week, he or she would have expended 375 kcal, or lost the equivalent of approximately 0.1 pounds of fat in one week, or 1.0 pounds in 10 weeks, just from the additional caloric expenditure during the recovery period alone. This is the key to maximizing the return on your exercise investment.

The next obvious idea is – if you trained the next day while your metabolism is still elevated, will we have an even higher return – is the effect accumulative? Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?

Science has yet to give us an answer, however in the real world, I think so. I have seen amazing results with my clients using this exact protocol.





Interval training



So is there a better way of performing cardio workouts to prevent these adaptations, and rapidly improve fat loss results? Yes. The key is to perform what is known as interval training.



Interval training simply refers to a series of intense activity separated with short rest periods. Through using interval training you are able to exercise at a higher intensity without getting tired. In other words – because we alternate the periods of high intensity work, with periods of lower intensity work – you are able to do much more work in the same time period than you were before.



The beauty of this is as you improve, the work intervals can get harder and harder, and the recovery intervals can be shortened, or performed at a higher speed. In fact, there is no end in site, and no downside to interval training (other than it is really hard).








The AFTERBURN ENERGY SYSTEM Routine



This can be performed using any cardiovascular machine, and I suggest that you use them all. Multi-mode cardio (where you change the machine or type of activity regularly) has been shown in the research to be another more effective factor. So as a general guideline, don’t use the same cardio machine two workouts in a row.



The Routine:



Warm up for five minutes



Round: Perform 1 minute as fast as you can (a level 9 or 10 intensity – on a scale of 1-10).

Recover at a moderate pace for two minutes (a level 6-7 intensity).

That’s one “round” – and it lasts three minutes



Cool down for five minutes



Now alongside the weight training and nutrition program included in this e-book – I also want you to perform the Afterburn Energy System Routine several times each week. These workouts can be done after your weight training workouts, later the same day or on separate days. What I don’t want you to do is to perform these routines BEFORE weight training. This will reduce the effectiveness of your program.



· Weeks One to Four: Perform three rounds, three times per week.

The total cardio time will be 19 mins per workout including warm up and cool down.



· Weeks Five to Eight: Perform four rounds, four times per week.

The total cardio time will be 22 mins per workout including warm up and cool down.



· Weeks Nine to Twelve: Perform five rounds, four times per week.

The total cardio time will be 25 mins per workout including warm up and cool down.



· Weeks Thirteen to Sixteen: Perform six rounds, five times per week.

The total cardio time will be 28 mins per workout including warm up and cool down.





This type of cardio training performed as prescribed, typically results in a 1-2lb fat loss per week. So over a sixteen week period, depending on your dedication to nutrition, supplementation and your weight training routine, we are looking at a possible loss of at least 16-30 plus lbs of fat.



This is a chapter from AFTERBURN – Extreme Fat Loss Training – available at www.alwyncosgrove.com

[Symbolic]

Aerobics vs. Resistance Training: Is This the Battle of the Fitness Titans?
Len Kravitz, Ph.D.

For years the virtues and values of aerobic exercise have been extolled and celebrated while the benefits of resistance training have been minimized to that of building muscles and improving sports performance. More recently, the traditional perception of resistance training has undergone a revitalization due to scientific evidence suggesting powerful health status betterment. In fact, for those of you spending many a moment on the Internet, there are a lot of voices out there in the ‘World Wide Web’ now chanting that resistance training is the superior and only form of exercise you need. How the pendulum has changed! The good news is that the evidence supports remarkable claims for aerobics and resistance training for improvement in health. This battle of the ‘fitness titans‘ is attributable, unfortunately, to a blaring cluster of uninformed individuals. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide scientific evidence how resistance training and aerobic exercise are key constituents of health, fitness and longevity [summarized in Table 1], and bring to realization that including both of them in our physical activity programs allows our students and clients to be the biggest winners.

Bone Mineral Density
Physical activities that stimulate bone growth need to include progressive overload, variation of load, and specificity of loading [Conroy, Kraemer, Maresh, & Dalsky, 1992] . Specificity of
loading refers to exercises that directly place a load on a certain region of the skeleton. With osteoporosis, a degenerative disease characterized by a loss of bone mineral density resulting in a susceptibility to bone fractures and health problems, it appears resistance training and aerobic exercise may provide the needed stimulus for bone formation [Rubin & Lanyon, 1984] .

Progressive overload is necessary so the bone and associated connective tissue do not exceed the critical level that would place them at risk. In an eight-month study of premenopausal women doing resistance exercise or jogging, bone mineral density improved in both groups with no difference between groups [Snow-Harter, Going, & Pamenter, 1995] . It appears that increases of bone mineral density are site-specific. Hamdy et al [1994] reported greater increases in bone tissue in the upper arm of resistance trained subjects as compared to runners, although both groups showed similar changes in the lower body. Exercise programs to increase bone growth should be full-body in nature, including exercises such as squats and lunges which direct the forces through the axial skeleton and allow greater loads to be utilized [Conroy & Earle, 1994] . In addition, evidence does suggest that moderate weight-bearing activity, such as brisk walking done regularly, and for a long-term basis, is effective in averting age-related bone loss [Vuori, 1995]

Hypertension
Hypertension is a major health problem. Elevated systolic and diastolic blood pressure is associated with a higher risk of developing coronary artery disease [CAD], congestive heart
failure, stroke, and kidney failure. There is a onefold increase in developing these diseases when blood pressure is 140/90 mmHg [Bouchard & Despres, 1995] . It is necessary for the fitness
professional to also educate clients that reducing weight and lowering alcohol and salt intake may help reduce elevated blood pressure in many cases. Intervention studies have shown that regular aerobic activity can reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure by approximately 10 mmHg [Hagberg, 1990] . Also, moderate-intensity exercise [40%-70% of VO2max] tends to produce greater decreases in resting blood pressure than higher intensity exercise. Although regular aerobic exercise will not likely affect normotensive individuals, habitual aerobic exercise may be protective against the increase in blood pressure commonly seen with increasing age [Blair, Goodyear, Gibbons, & Cooper, 1984] .

During resistance exercise, systolic and diastolic blood pressures may show steep increases, which indicates that caution should be observed with persons with known cardiovascular
disease or risk factors [Stone, Fleck, Triplett, & Kramer, 1991] . These increases in blood pressure are dependent on the intensity of the contraction, the length of time the contraction is held, and the amount of muscle mass involved in the contraction [Fleck, 1988] . More dynamic forms of resistance training, such as circuit training, that involve moderate resistance and
high repetitions with short rests are associated with reductions in blood pressure. Studies have shown decreases in diastolic blood pressure [Harris & Holly, 1987] , no change in blood pressure [Blumenthal, Siegel, & Appelbaum, 1991] , and decreases in systolic blood pressure [Hagberg et al., 1984; Hurley, Hagberg, & Goldberg, 1988] . More research is necessary to clearly understand the role of resistance training in blood pressure management.

Resting Heart Rate
In terms of chronic adaptations, there appears to be a reduction in heart rate from resistance training, which is considered favorable [Stone et al., 1991] . Long term adaptations observed in the research show from no change up to a 11% decrease in heart rate, which may be explained by the differences in intensity, volume, rest between sets, use of small vs. large muscle mass,
duration of study and fitness level of the subjects.

Regular participation in aerobic exercise often results in a decrease in resting heart rate by 5 to 25 beats per minute. The lowered resting heart rate from exercise training is proposed to be due primarily to an increase in the parasympathetic nervous activity with a minor decrease in sympathetic nervous discharge [Katona, McLean, Dighton, & Guz, 1982; Smith, Hudson, Graitzer, & Raven, 1989] .

Blood Lipids and Lipoproteins
It is well-established that low plasma triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels, as well as elevated high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C] levels, are associated with a lowered CAD risk. Regular aerobic exercise has been shown to lower blood triglycerides in individuals with initially high levels, with no influence on persons with normal concentrations. All intensity [low, medium, high] levels of aerobic exercise have shown increases in HDL-C, particularly the HDL2 subfraction, as well as favorably altering total cholesterol and LDL-C [Bouchard & Despres, 1995] . The commonality seen in endurance exercise programs that positively affects blood lipid profiles is that the training creates a substantial negative energy balance [Despres & Lamarche, 1994] .Although several studies have shown favorable impact of resistance training on blood lipids, several others have reported no change. It has been suggested that the resistance programs that best modify blood lipid profiles incorporate larger muscle mass, multi-segment exercises with a high total volume [reps x sets x load] prescription [Stone et al., 1991] . Additional research needs to be conducted which controls for body composition changes, day-to-day variations in lipoproteins, dietary factors, and possible other training adaptations to provide a more credible summary of the effect of resistance training on blood lipids and lipoproteins.

Glucose Metabolism
Elevated insulin and blood glucose levels are characteristic features involved in the development of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, which develops primarily in adult women and men who are overweight and have excess abdominal fat tissue. One of the benefits of aerobic exercise is the improvement of the sensitivity of liver, skeletal muscle and adipose tissues to insulin action. A decrease in blood plasma glucose in hyperglycemic individuals is also see with chronic aerobic activity. There is very persuasive evidence, from three large studies, that regular aerobic activity actually plays a substantial role in maintaining normoglycemia and insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic individuals [Bouchard & Despres, 1995] .

Improvements in glucose metabolism with strength training, independent of alterations in aerobic capacity or percent body fat, have also been shown [Hurley et al., 1988; Smutok, Reece, & Kokkinos, 1993] . Smutok et al. [1993] concluded that strength training and aerobic training improved glucose tolerance and reduced insulin responses to oral glucose [in men] similarly. It appears that both resistance training and aerobic exercise offer a strong protective role in the prevention of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

Cardiorespiratory Fitness
Numerous controlled training studies have tested for the effects of intensity, duration and frequency of aerobic exercise on maximal oxygen uptake [VO2max]. A minimum of 20 minutes of aerobic exercise at 50% or more of the individual’s VO2max, on three or more days per week, will produce a 10% to 20% increase in VO2max in most sedentary persons [ACSM, 1995] . The literature thoroughly supports the evidence that exercise intensity is directly related to the change in VO2max [Gossard et al., 1986] . Higher doses of aerobic exercise produces greater increases in VO2max, although these improvements are not proportionately greater.

Traditional resistance training that employs sets followed by 1 to 2 minutes of rest has not shown an increase in VO2max. Studies have shown little to mild improvement in aerobic capacity [5% to 9.5%] from participation in circuit weight training [Kass & Castriotta, 1994; Peterson, Miller, Quinney, & Wenger, 1988] . Kass and Castriotta suggest that the mild increases in aerobic capacity are due primarily to increases in fat-free mass from the circuit weight training, and not changes from the main factors affecting aerobic capacity: cardiac output [heart rate x stroke volume] or arterial-venous oxygen difference [exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide at the cellular level].

Body Composition
A negative energy balance generated by cardiorespiratory activity, instead of reduced caloric intake, and sustained for several months has been shown to result in weight loss that is predominantly attributable to a loss of body fat [Bouchard & Despres, 1995] . In contrast, when the negative energy balance is caused by lower energy intake [through diet alone], one also loses a significant amount of lean tissues, which may be as much as 50% of the total weight loss [Tremblay, Despres, & Bouchard, 1985] .

Resistance training and circuit training studies have shown decreases in body weight and fat mass with comparable increases in fat-free mass [Gettman & Pollock, 1981] . One of the noteworthy benefits of resistance exercise, as it relates to weight loss, is the positive impact of increasing energy expenditure during the exercise session and on maintaining, or increasing, fat-free body mass while encouraging the loss of fat body weight [Young & Steinhard, 1995] . An impressive finding to highlight with resistance training is that the energy expenditure following higher total volume workouts appears to be elevated, with an increase in fat utilization [due to a lower respiratory exchange ratio] during this period [Melby, Scholl, Edwards, & Bullough, 1993] . The evidence unequivocally supports the combined use of aerobic exercise and resistance training for optimal changes in body composition to successfully attain weight management goals.

Resting Metabolic Rate
The largest single source of energy expenditure is the resting metabolic rate, which is defined as the energy necessary to maintain the body’s physiological systems at rest. It is accountable for 60% to 75% of the daily energy expenditure and closely associated to the fat-free body mass. Some researchers have shown that resting metabolic rate may be influenced by aerobic exercise training while others have failed to show a difference. Tremblay et al [1985] measured resting metabolic rate in untrained, moderately trained [6-10 hrs of vigorous exercise weekly] and highly trained [12-16 hours of vigorous] young males. Results showed that the relative resting metabolic rate was significantly increased in the highly trained subjects, while no difference was seen between the moderately trained and untrained subjects. It has been suggested that this increased resting metabolic rate, observed in high-intensity aerobic endurance training, may be a result of an increased energy intake and expenditure [high caloric turnover] and other accumulative factors due to intensity, duration and frequency affecting post-exercise energy expenditure [Van Zant, 1992] .Several studies, with adult men and women of various ages, have demonstrated significant increases in lean body mass which has been shown to increase resting metabolic rate [Pratley et al., 1994]. The key factor seen in the training programs appears to be the total volume of training using the major muscle masses of the body [Stone et al., 1991].

Musculoskeletal Health
Muscle mass, strength, power and endurance are all important for the prevention of several diseases, injuries and the improvement of movement capabilities. Although these components of musculoskeletal health show substantial decreases with age, it has been suggested that this is due largely to a decrease in physical activity, and not solely age [Bassey & Harries, 1993] . This decrease in strength is linked to decreased mobility and increased risk of falling, which has been identified as the most frequent cause of injury related to mortality [Pollock, Vincent, Corbin, & Pangrazi, 1996] . Substantial improvement in all of the components of musculoskeletal health, as a result of resistance training, have been shown in sedentary, disabled, young, physically active, and very old frail individuals [Vuori, 1995] .

Functional Capabilities
Functional capabilities can be defined as the ability to perform basic physical actions such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, stooping, bending and grasping, which are fundamental components of daily living. Experimental and observational research show that aerobic exercise and resistance training contribute to the maintenance of functional capabilities during aging [Buchner, Beresford, Larson, LaCroix, & Wagner, 1992; Wagner & Lacroix, 1992] . Also, comprehensive programs for the improvement of low back health include aerobic exercise and muscular fitness exercises [Plowman, 1992] .

Longevity
Estimates of the extension of life comparing men who expended&Mac179;2,000 kilocalories per week in physical activity, including walking, recreational activities and stair climbing, to men who expended <500 kilocalories per week in similar activities, for over 16 years, found the active men to live upwards of two years longer [Paffenbarger & Lee, 1996] . This difference held after controlling for cigarette smoking, body weight, hypertension, and age. Similarly, with regular walking, cycling and cross-country skiing as the activity variables of interest [and then standarizing for age, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, and body mass], researchers in Eastern Finland showed that active men live an extra 2.1 years when compared to their inactive counterparts, during a 20-year study [Paffenbarger & Lee, 1996] . Indeed, a convincing relationship exists between moderate-intensity physical activity and longevity.

Directions for the Future
Numerous health and fitness benefits have been documented for both resistance training and aerobic exercise. If health and fitness professionals prescribe to the new expanding model of ‘physical activity for the enhancement of health,’ it is clear that program prescriptions need to include resistance training and aerobic exercise. With the merging of the computer and communication technologies, broad access to the Internet and World Wide Web will be more available and affordable. This presents new opportunities and challenges for health professionals. More education and information about health, fitness and longevity will be easier to disseminate to an interested, growing audience. However, one impact is clear, with more time spent on a computer, people may find it harder to find time for physical activity. Instead of debating the pros and cons of aerobic vs. resistance training, perhaps we as a profession should focus now on how to best design optimal workout programs for the demands of the next century.

References:
ACSM. [1995]. Guidelines for graded exercise testing and prescription [5th ed]. Baltimore, MD: Lea & Febiger.
Bassey, E. J., & Harries, U. J. [1993]. Normal values for hand grip strength in 920 men and women aged 65 years, and longitudinal changes over 4 years in 620 survivors. Clinical Science, 82, 331-337.
Blair, S. N., Goodyear, N. N., Gibbons, L. W., & Cooper, K. N. [1984]. Physical fitness and incidence of hypertension in healthy normotensive men and women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 487-490.
Blumenthal, J. A., Siegel, W. C., & Appelbaum, M. [1991]. Failure of exercise to reduce blood pressure in patients with mild hypertension. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266,
2098-2104.
Bouchard, C., & Despres, J.-P. [1995]. Physical activity and health: Atherosclerotic, metabolic, and hypertensive disease. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 268-275.
Buchner, D. M., Beresford, S. A. A., Larson, E. B., LaCroix, A., & Wagner, E. H. [1992]. Effects of physical activity on health status in older adults II: Intervention studies. Annual Review of
Public Health, 13, 469-488.
Conroy, B. P., & Earle, R. W. [1994]. Bone, muscle and connective tissue adaptations to physical activity. In T. R. Baechle [Ed.], Essentials of strength training and conditioning [pp. 51-66]. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Conroy, B. P., Kraemer, W. J., Maresh, C. M., & Dalsky, G. P. [1992]. Adaptive responses of bone to physical activity. Medicine Exercise Nutrition Health, 1, 64-74.
Despres, J.-P., & Lamarche, B. [1994]. Low-intensity endurance training, plasma lipoproteins, and the risk of coronary heart disease. Journal of Internal Medicine, 236, 7-22.
Fleck, S. J. [1988]. Cardiovascular adaptations to resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20 [Suppl.], S146-S151.
Gettman, L. R., & Pollock, M. L. [1981]. Circuit weight training: A critical review of its physiological benefits. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 9[1], 44-60.
Gossard, D., Haskell, W. L., Taylor, B., Mueller, J. R., Rogers, F., Chandler, M., Ahn, D. K., Miller, N. H., & Debusk, R. F. [1986]. Effects of low-and high-intensity home-based exercise
training on functional capacity in healthy middle-age men. American Journal of Cardiology, 57, 446-449.
Hagberg, J. M. [1990]. Exercise, fitness and hypertension. In C. Bouchard, R. J. Shephard, T. Stephens, J. R. Sutton, & B. D. McPherson [Eds.], Exercise, fitness and health: A consensus of
current knowledge [pp. 455-466]. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Hagberg, J. M., Ehsani, A. A., Goldring, O., Hernandez, A., Sinacore, D. R., & Holloszy, J. O. [1984]. Effect of weight training on blood pressure and hemodynamics in hypertensive adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, 19, 147-151.
Hamdy, R., Anderson, J., Whalen, K., & Harvill, L. [1994]. Regional differences in bone density of young men involved in different exercises. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 150-154.
Harris, K. A., & Holly, R. G. [1987]. Physiological response to circuit weight training in borderline hypertensive subjects. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19, 246-252.
Hurley, B. F., Hagberg, J. M., & Goldberg, A. P. [1988]. Resistive training can reduce coronary risk factors without altering VO2max or percent body fat. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 20, 150-154.
Kass, J. E., & Castriotta, R. J. [1994]. The effect of circuit weight training on cardiovascular function in healthy sedentary males. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, 14, 378-383.
Katona, P. G., McLean, M., Dighton, D. H., & Guz, A. [1982]. Sympathetic and parasympathetic cardiac control in athletes and nonathletes at rest. Journal of Applied Physiology, 52, 1652-1657.
Melby, C., Scholl, C., Edwards, G., & Bullough, R. [1993]. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate. Journal of Applied Physiology, 75, 1847-1853.
Paffenbarger, R. S., & Lee, I.-M. [1996]. Physical activity and fitness for health and longevity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, S11-S28.
Peterson, S. R., Miller, G. D., Quinney, H. A., & Wenger, H. A. [1988]. The influence of high-velocity resistance circuit training on aerobic power. Journal of Orthopedic and Sports Physical
Therapy, 9, 339-344.
Plowman, S. A. [1992]. Physical activity, physical fitness, and low back pain. In J. O. Holloszy [Ed.], Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews [Vol. 20, pp. 221-242]. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Pollock, M. L., Vincent, K. R., Corbin, C., & Pangrazi, B. [1996]. Resistance training for health. The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest, 2, 1-6.
Pratley, R., Nicklas, B., Rubin, M., Miller, J., Smith, A., Smith, M. Hurley, B., & Goldberg, A. [1994]. Strength training increases resting metabolic rate and norepinephrine levels in healthy 50- to 65-yr-old men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 76, 133-137.
Rubin, C. T., & Lanyon, L. E. [1984]. Regulation of bone formation by applied dynamic loads. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery, 66, 397-402.
Smith, M. L., Hudson, D. L., Graitzer, H. M., & Raven, P. B. [1989]. Exercise training bradycardia: the role of autonomic balance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 40-44.
Smutok, M. A., Reece, C., & Kokkinos, P. F. [1993]. Aerobic vs. strength training for risk factor intervention in middle-aged men at high risk for coronary heart disease. Metabolism, 42, 177-184.
Snow-Harter, C., Going, S., & Pamenter, R. [1995]. Effects of resistance training on regional and total bone mineral density in premenopausal women: a randomized prospective study. Journal of Bone Mineral Research, 10, 1015-1024.
Stone, M. H., Fleck, S. J., Triplett, N. T., & Kramer, W. J. [1991]. Health- and performance-related potential of resistance training. Sports Medicine, 11, 210-231.
Tremblay, A., Despres, J.-P., & Bouchard, C. [1985]. The effects of exercise training on energy balance and adipose tissue morphology and metabolism. Sports Medicine, 2[223-233].
Tremblay, A., Fontaine, E., & Nadeau, A. [1985]. Contribution of postexercise increment in glucose storage to variations in glucose-induced thermogenesis in endurance athletes. Canadian
Journal of Physiological Pharmacology, 63, 1165-1169.
Van Zant, R. S. [1992]. Influence of diet and exercise on energy expenditure-a review. International Journal of Sport Nutrition, 2, 1-19.
Vuori, I. [1995]. Exercise and physical health: Musculoskeletal health and functional capabilities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 276-285.
Wagner, E. H., & Lacroix, A. Z. [1992]. Effects of physical activity on health status in older adults I: Observational studies. Annual Review of Public Health, 13, 451-468.
Young, D. R., & Steinhard, M. A. [1995]. The importance of physical fitness for the reduction of coronary artery disease risk factors. Sports Medicine, 19, 303-310.

[Symbolic]

Alwyn's sweeping rejection of aerobic exercise for fat loss (let alone health) is simply not supported by research. This is just one easy to assimilate review. To all that are interested, do the research yourselves.

[Alwyn]

Symbolic,

I truly respect your passion on this topic - and I mean that sincerely. However you are perhaps the single most repetitive person on the planet, and you continue to ignore EVERYTHING I've said. You STILL don't get it.

Once again Symbolic, this is an article on FAT LOSS, FAT LOSS and ONLY FAT LOSS.

Now here's a test:

What was that article about ? My "sweeping rejection" of the health benefits of aerobics ?

Nope - it was ONLY about FAT LOSS - you missed it again.

In my profession, purely for FAT LOSS purposes I don't use Aerobic training. There are FAR better alternatives (including resistance training as mentioned in Dr Kravitz article), largely due to the effect of certain exercise on increasing metabolism (also mentioned in Dr Kravitz article) and the classic "how many calories burned" (refer to Dos' posting of Tom Storer's comparison of calories burned AND fat burned in the other monotonous thread). Does that mean i don't use aerobic training ? Or does it mean what I said - that I don't use it as my primary fat loss tool ?

I have NEVER even mentioned health, V02 max, glucose metabolism or any thing that you repeatedly bring up. Yet you seem to have come to your own conclusions as regards my position.
Not once do I reject the health benefits of ANY type of exercise.

The article at Craig's site was ONLY about Fat Loss. The article above is ONLY about Fat Loss. It's an ebook on fat loss. You seem unable to grasp that simple fact. Again.

If I was asked to write an article about increasing squat strength - that's what I'd talk about. I'd discuss the methods I have found over the years to be the most superior. I wouldn't talk about health - that's a separate article. This is the same idea - for FAT LOSS.

To get a client as lean as possible, methods other than steady state aerobic training work better and faster. the question is not about a client's V02 max, cardiovascular health - it is about FAT LOSS. Are you getting it yet ?

You have to understand that and get that into your head. Otherwise it's a totally pointless debate. You're raising points that I've NEVER debated or even mentioned.

I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can tell me my position on aerobic training for anything other than fat loss - because by your comments, you seem to think you know what it is. While you're at it - what's my favorite color ?

The research clearly supports the superiority of anaerobic training (be it interval training or resistance work) over steady state aerobic training for fat loss. I have several studies that I hand out at seminars to support this. But that doesn't concern me -- what concerns me is my clients results - athletes and non-athletes. And that's what I get paid for.

I've taken several clients down over 100lbs in weight - and I haven't used steady state aerobics to do it.

Remember - this is how I make a living. If I felt I could get a better FAT LOSS result with aerobic training then that's what I'd do.

AC


Ps - This time I'm done.

For everyone else - here's a reader friendly article by Paul Chek (love him or loathe him - the man gets results) on this same subject. This was published shortly after IDEA presented research that professional aerobic instructors (4+ hours of steady state aerobics per day) had an average bodyfat percentage of 21%.


Chunky Syndrome
By Paul Chek, M.S.S., H.H.P., N.M.T


--------------------------------------------------

Have you ever gone to the gym and noticed that the same people seem to be exercising on the same machines, week after week? Have you noticed that these same people's physique never seems to change despite their dedication? The million-dollar question is WHY? Quite simply, the body is a very conservative machine. During human evolution, food supplies were unreliable and to survive in a feast or famine environment our physiology learned to become very efficient. This efficiency carries over to modern life particularly whenever you participate in an exercise regime based upon cyclical motions (rowing, swimming, cycling, running, or using a step machine). The body quickly becomes calorie conscious, progressively accomplishing the same amount of work with less energy expenditure.

Charles Poliquin and colleagues have identified The Chunky Aerobic Instructor Syndrome. Poliquin found that aerobics instructors quickly adapted to the workload of teaching classes, often performing three hours of exercise a day. Despite the fact that this is the equivalent training level of a professional athlete, the instructors still maintained disproportionately high body fat levels. You can verify Poliquin's findings by simply observing the bodies of people who perform a lot of cyclical cardiovascular activity; there is no question many of them are pudgier than you would expect!

Resistance training is the key to breaking away from the Chunky Aerobics Instructor Syndrome. First of all, lifting weights in the intensity zone of 8-12 reps coupled with short rest periods has been shown beneficial for releasing the androgenic hormone testosterone and growth hormone. These important hormones encourage development of lean muscle mass, which is a metabolically active tissue consuming calories 24 hours a day. Fat, on the other hand is just along for the ride! Aerobic exercise has been linked with the release of the catabolic hormone cortisol, which is antagonistic to the development of lean muscle mass. Cortisol also promotes conservation of glucose and encourages the use of fat. This might sound good on the surface, but you also become as efficient as a Honda Civic running for 80 kilometers on one gallon of gas. Then you are just like those people going for hours at a time on machines, only to utilize miniscule amounts of fat!

The Formula for Changes

Alternate between cardiovascular exercise and resistance training.
Use resistance exercises requiring multiple muscles; squats, lunges, rows, lat pull downs, and Swiss Ball weight lifting exercises. Swiss Ball weight lifting exercises consume large amounts of calories because staying on top of the ball requires activation of hundreds of muscles as stabilizers, plus the prime movers of the exercise you have chosen. My video program Strong or Stable gives you about 60 exercise options.
Keep loads between 8-12 reps per set and perform five exercises in a row without rest (mini circuit).
Keep your rest periods between circuits under 1:30 minute, reducing to 1 minute as your body adapts to the development of lactic acid. Just two days of resistance training and two days of cardiovascular exercise a week will do a lot more for your shape than camping out on the stepper. After all, the leanest bodies in the world belong to sprinters, who despise the thought of aerobic exercise!

[quaribc]

i'll 2nd the notion that resistence training is absolutely the best method for fast FAT LOSS than aerobic training.

i lost 30lbs over 3 months due to resistence only training and a good diet. the result...muscle mass, strength increase and oh yeah...i can run faster than i did before and have more energy.

i am a true believer in using resistence training for fat loss and aerobic training is not necessary nor required.

[Symbolic]

Alwyn,

It's your call whether or not to bow out, but, in case you're interested, notice that Dr. Kravitz indicates that combining resistance AND aerobic exercise results in the best fat burning result.

Most importantly, why, as a fitness professional, would you discourage clients from doing a form of exercise that has more research supporting its health benefits than any other type? Sure, I work out for strength and vanity. But, the most important reason is to improve health. While you're at it, why not recommend steroid use, liposuction, and lots of other methods for reducing body fat if health isn't a concern?

You constantly defend your stance by claiming it's only about fat loss. However, your statements about aerobic exericse are not qualified. You flat out reject it. Just reread your article above. To equate aerobic exercise with sitting on a couch is absurd. There are others points to quible out. For instance, the research on EPOC in response to resistance training suggests that there's very little benefit; sprinters don't have lower body fat than distance runners (search the NCSA archives for research on body fat percentages among types of athletes); etc., etc., etc..

While I don't doubt your success with clients, I could go on all day regarding the lack of clinical control. There are all sorts of reasons why people get results. As Lou Schuler likes to point out, any exercise will bring results.

Hey, I'll use myself as an experiment. Design me a program. If it reduces my body fat while maintaining other indications of health (e.g., resting pulse, blood pressure, energy levels, etc.), I'll make a public mea culpa as well as pay your fee!

Meanwhile, you do the same. Add some steady state aerobic exercise to your routine. See what it does?

[Alwyn]

Once again I bite !!!! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Symbolic:
Alwyn,

It's your call whether or not to bow out, but, in case you're interested, notice that Dr. Kravitz indicates that combining resistance AND aerobic exercise results in the best fat burning result.

But perhaps resistance training and interval training would produce a more effective result [img]smile.gif[/img]

Most importantly, why, as a fitness professional, would you discourage clients from doing a form of exercise that has more research supporting its health benefits than any other type?

Where do I discourage it ? I don't. I just don't use it for FAT LOSS.

Sure, I work out for strength and vanity. But, the most important reason is to improve health. While you're at it, why not recommend steroid use, liposuction, and lots of other methods for reducing body fat if health isn't a concern?

A bit of a jump there. But I see your point. However health is ALWAYS a concern. But my articles that you have attacked are only about FAT LOSS - or I suppose optimal training for fat loss.

Just reread your article above. To equate aerobic exercise with sitting on a couch is absurd.

Come on. I didn't say that. I equated the logic of the fat burning zone (i.e. lower intensity is more effective)and took it to an extreme. You burn most fat at rest - therefore rest would be the best fat loss activity according to the fat loss zone.

There are others points to quible out. For instance, the research on EPOC in response to resistance training suggests that there's very little benefit;.

But benefit nonetheless. And as I've stated - my real world experience is what matters more to me. If i can increase results by 5% - that may not be statistically significant - but you'd still like it right ?

sprinters don't have lower body fat than distance runners (search the NCSA archives for research on body fat percentages among types of athletes); etc., etc., etc...

I don't actually like this quote because of massive variations so I don't want to debate it too long, as I'm sure you could find research to support and refute this.

Physiological tests for elite athletes
Australian Sports Commission 2000.
Male national teams 1987-1992
Sum of seven skinfolds for sprint athletes : 46.8mm (mean)
long distance : 50.1 (mean)
(lowest skinfolds incidentally were the high and long jumpers).

My point is that if a sprinter (20s of anaerobic work) can carry close to or less FAT than a marathon runner (2 hours of aerobic/anaerobic threshold work) then how can aerobic training be the key for fat loss.

But just LOOK at the Olympians. Tell me who looks leaner.(yes I know that's unscientific)

While I don't doubt your success with clients, I could go on all day regarding the lack of clinical control. There are all sorts of reasons why people get results. As Lou Schuler likes to point out, any exercise will bring results.

Agreed. And after all the most important thing is results - however you get them.

Hey, I'll use myself as an experiment. Design me a program. If it reduces my body fat while maintaining other indications of health (e.g., resting pulse, blood pressure, energy levels, etc.), I'll make a public mea culpa as well as pay your fee!

I appreciate your offer. Honestly this is not a cop-out but I really don't have time. And if your goal was primarily health (as you've stated before) - I'd probably put in some steady state work!

Meanwhile, you do the same. Add some steady state aerobic exercise to your routine. See what it does?

You'd be shocked to find out how much steady state aerobic training I do (albeit at a high intensity). It's probably more than most. A LOT more. But not for fat loss
Because I enjoy it. Wanna guess ?

AC

[Lou Schuler]

Originally posted by Symbolic:
As Lou Schuler likes to point out, any exercise will bring results.

But, to back up Alwyn's point, when I say that I'm talking about health benefits, particularly in reducing heart disease and increasing lifespan.

The biggest health benefits come when someone goes from doing nothing to doing something. Further increases occur when people go from moderately fit to highly fit, but those are nothing like the jump from sedentary to mildly fit.

I don't know if you guys saw this article:

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2004/...ice/index.html

It's worth a read. The upshot is that scientists found that a single genetic alteration gave mice not only increased endurance, but also more slow-twitch muscle fibers, at the expense of fast-twitch fibers. It made them invulnerable to weight gain.

Here's what I think that means:

People who're genetically predisposed to have a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers will not only be better at endurance activities, they'll be leaner, since the slow-twitch fibers are better at using fat for energy than the fast-twitch fibers.

People who're fast-twitch-dominant probably pack on fat more easily. So if you want to help people like that take fat off, you have to trick their metabolisms into speeding up and burning more calories at rest.

There are two good ways to do that: One is to build more muscle mass, which fast-twitch people can do more easily than slow-twitchers, and thus increase resting metabolism.

The second is to do exactly what Alwyn said: Burn a lot of glycogen during high-intensity exercise, and then let your body burn more fat afterwards, when your metabolism is revved and your body is desperately trying to restore the burned-off carbohydrate energy.

I've probably mangled the science here (and I know the muscle-fiber argument is very hard to prove, especially when you consider that most people are closer to 50-50 than unbalanced in one direction or the other), but I think my point holds, at least anecdotally:

People who're good at endurance exercise tend to get the most benefit from it, including fat loss. But these are the people least likely to put on a lot of fat in the first place.

People who aren't good at endurance exercise are generally handicapped when they try to use it for fat loss--they can't go long enough or hard enough to make it work for them.

For those people (a group that includes me--I have no endurance at all), it makes a lot more sense to approach fat loss as a metabolic issue, rather than simply trying to burn off more calories than you consume.

[Newlife]

I'll bet Alwyn's favorite color is Blue.


Alwyn, The only good that came of this is I am very interested in AFTERBURN now. Might have to purchase this soon!

[raymond3]

I just have one question, Im doing TT training now, which calls for the intervals afterwards. Right now, Im doing them 30 sec sprint, 1 min jog...would it be more beneficial to do them like you said in this post... 1 min sprint, 2 min jog?