Fat Loss
Ripped Abs
Contrary to the idiotic recommendations of most current ab training books, courses and group class instructors, it is neither necessary nor beneficial to perform dozens of high rep sets of a wide variety of abdominal exercises. You also don’t need different exercises for your lower and upper abs, and you don’t need stability balls, special slings, benches, or any other gimmicky crap. In fact, you don’t need any direct abdominal exercise at all to get ripped abs. All that is necessary is to reduce body fat to very low levels, and that has far more to do with diet than exercise.
Drew Baye
Regardless of the strength or development of your superficial abdominal muscles, if your body fat level is low enough they will show good separation due to the muscle being divided into distinct “blocks” by lines of connective tissue. I performed no direct abdominal exercise for over half a year prior to the photo to the left being taken, yet had extremely good abdominal definition simply due to having reduced my body fat to the low single digits. My routine during that time was very basic, especially compared to the kind of unnecessarily complex routines being promoted by the internet ripped abs “experts”. It consisted of of only one set each of stiff-legged deadlifts, leg presses, pulldowns, chest presses, rows, and calf raises, along with occasional barbell curls and cable tricep press-downs. No crunches, sit ups, leg raises, knee raises, planks, twists or bends of any kind.
Indirect Effect
If you regularly perform chin-ups, pull-ups (especially with additional weight), heavy pull-downs, pullovers, standing presses or even just very heavy cable tricep press-downs, your abdominal muscles receive quite a bit of indirect work stabilizing the body during those exercises. Little additional abdominal work is necessary, and the primary benefit of any additional direct abdominal work is improved trunk strength for being able to better handle weight in those other movements and for protecting the back, not the appearance of your abs. Abdominal muscle development makes absolutely no difference at all if body fat levels are not low enough. Your primary purpose for training abs should be performance and spine health, and not appearance. › Continue reading
Recent Study Shows Low Carb Diets More Effective Than Low Fat Diets Long Term
A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed better fat loss over the long run with low-carb and “Mediterranean” diets than a low-fat diet (Shai I, Schwarzfuchs D, Henkin Y, Shahar DR, Witkow S, Greenberg I, Golan R, Fraser D, Bolotin A, Vardi H, Tangi-Rozental O, Zuk-Ramot R, Sarusi B, Brickner D, Schwartz Z, Sheiner E, Marko R, Katorza E, Thiery J, Fiedler GM, Blüher M, Stumvoll M, Stampfer MJ. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 17;359(3):229-41.)
ABSTRACT
Background Trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of weight-loss diets are frequently limited by short follow-up times and high dropout rates.
Methods In this 2-year trial, we randomly assigned 322 moderately obese subjects (mean age, 52 years; mean body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters],31; male sex, 86%) to one of three diets: low-fat, restricted-calorie; Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie.
Results The rate of adherence to a study diet was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years. The Mediterranean-diet group consumed the largest amounts of dietary fiber and had the highest ratio of monounsaturated to saturated fat (P<0.05 for all comparisons among treatment groups). The low-carbohydrate group consumed the smallest amount of carbohydrates and the largest amounts of fat, protein, and cholesterol and had the highest percentage of participants with detectable urinary ketones (P<0.05 for all comparisons among treatment groups). The mean weight loss was 2.9 kg for the low-fat group, 4.4 kg for the Mediterranean-diet group, and 4.7 kg for the low-carbohydrate group (P<0.001 for the interaction between diet group and time); among the 272 participants who completed the intervention, the mean weight losses were 3.3 kg, 4.6 kg, and 5.5 kg, respectively. The relative reduction in the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 20% in the low-carbohydrate group and 12% in the low-fat group (P=0.01). Among the 36 subjects with diabetes, changes in fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels were more favorable among those assigned to the Mediterranean diet than among those assigned to the low-fat diet (P<0.001 for the interaction among diabetes and Mediterranean diet and time with respect to fasting glucose levels).
Conclusions Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets. The more favorable effects on lipids (with the low-carbohydrate diet) and on glycemic control (with the Mediterranean diet) suggest that personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions.
What’s most interesting about this is, despite the low-carb group not being restricted to a specific daily calorie intake like the Mediterranean and low-fat groups (1,800 calories per day for men, 1,500 for women), but rather limiting carbohydrates to 20 grams per day for the first two months followed by 120 grams per day, and despite being advised to choose vegetarian sources of protein, which are generally lower quality than animal sources, they had the greatest weight loss. Additionally, the low-carb group had the greatest increases in HDL and greatest decreases in triglyceride levels. The low-carb group also had the greatest decrease in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, nearly twice that of the low-fat group (20% versus 12%).
I am surprised the weight loss for each of the groups was so low based on the calorie and carbohydrate intake guidelines, and strongly suspect poor compliance, very sedentary subjects, or both. If the subjects were actually following the guidelines I expect the weight loss would have been far greater for all groups.
I am also disappointed the dietitians advised the low-carb group to choose vegetarian sources of protein, as I suspect better weight loss and at least equal improvements in lipid profiles had animal sources been chosen.
In any case, it is further proof of the benefits of a higher-protein, lower-carbohydrate diet and it’s viability as an alternative to high-carb, low-fat diets. I have consistently seen better results in my own training and with my personal training clients with higher-protein and lower-carbohydrate intakes.
Fat Loss Myths Part 2: Cardio Is Necessary For Fat Loss
Myth: It is necessary to perform cardio on a regular basis to lose fat.
Truth: Cardio is not necessary for fat loss, and contributes relatively little to a fat loss program compared to high intensity strength training.
To lose fat it is necessary to create a calorie deficit - you must consume fewer calories than you expend so the body obtains the difference from your fat stores. While overall activity level has an effect on daily calorie expenditure, additional “cardio” (steady state or interval training) burns relatively few calories even if performed for an hour or more at moderate intensity daily. A greater calorie deficit can be achieved by simply restricting calorie intake, with little time investment other than the few minutes required for planning and recording meals.
The most important benefit of exercise to a fat loss program is not the calories expended during workouts, but the maintenance of muscle tissue while fat is lost. This requires strength training. There is a direct relationship between lean body mass, particularly muscle mass, and metabolic rate - more muscle equals a higher metabolic rate. If calorie intake is reduced significantly without regular, consistent strength training, muscle tends to be lost along with fat resulting in a reduced metabolic rate. Cardio does nothing to prevent muscle loss and may even accelerate it. › Continue reading
High Intensity Strength Training: More Aerobic Than “Aerobics”
The following article is published here with the permission of the author, Greg Anderson, owner of Seattle’s home for high intensity training, Ideal Exercise.
The most common question asked by our new personal training clients at Ideal Exercise is: “Where are the treadmills and stationary bicycles?”. Most have never heard that great benefits to the cardiovascular system, commonly referred to as “aerobic fitness”, can be had through a program of high intensity strength training with no additional steady-state activity. And while I do certainly spend a great deal of my time explaining why such benefits are certainly possible (and more desirable as it is much more efficient to achieve muscular and cardiovascular benefits in a single program) it usually takes a few workouts before the client understands the depth and magnitude of cardiovascular involvement possible from strength training. As one of my trainees remarked recently (after a set of squats to complete failure followed by 20 seconds of effort against the bar in the bottom position): “My God! (gasp, gasp…) this is more aerobic than aerobics…”
Although (as I shall explain) the statement that high intensity strength training is “more aerobic than aerobics” is not entirely correct, such an observation on the trainee’s part does underscore the profound effect of intense muscular contractions on the cardiovascular system. The current mania for “aerobics” in the fitness industry stems from a misunderstanding of two factors: The function of the cardiovascular system, and the identification of skeletal muscle as the window through which optimum loading of the entire metabolic system(s) - including the cardiovascular system - takes place. › Continue reading
Fat Loss Myths Part 1: Overweight People Have Slow Metabolism
Myth: People who are overweight have slower metabolic rates.
Truth: With rare exceptions, people who are overweight have metabolic rates similar to or higher than lean people.
Studies comparing the resting energy expenditure of overweight people and lean people show little difference in basal metabolic rates. The ones that do show a difference show overweight people have higher metabolic rates.
Thielecke, J. Möseneder, A. Kroke, K. Klipstein-Grobusch, H. Boeing and R. Noack. Determination of total energy expenditure, resting metabolic rate and physical activity in lean and overweight people. Zeitschrift für Ernährungswissenschaft Vol. 36, No. 4, December 1997 P310-312
Summary: A new2H/1H and18O/16O equilibration device was tested, standardized and employed for the determination of total energy expenditure. It was shown that overweight men and women have increased resting metabolic rate as well as increased total energy expenditure when compared to their lean counterparts. The physical activity level (PAL)index was slightly decreased which possibly suggests a decreased physical activity in obese people.
I have measured the resting energy expenditure of a large number of overweight people using the Korr ReeVue, and almost all of them were shocked when told their metabolic rate was average or above. Almost all were convinced they had slow metabolisms and claimed they ate very little. Once they started accurately weighing, measuring and recording their daily calorie intake, it became obvious the real problem was excessive calorie intake. They grossly underestimated the amount of calories they consumed daily. Studies using double-labelled water have also shown many overweight people underestimate their calorie intake, or in some cases are simply under-reporting it to researchers. › Continue reading
Q&A: SuperSlow and Fat Loss
Drew,
First, thank you for your response in advance.
I am embarking on a 2 week trial of superslow. The trainer is roughly doing 10/10 with a 2 minute maximum w/no rest between the 8 exercises(I failed at approx. 1:45 on all exercises). The workout took about 25 minutes. He wants me to train only 1x week. My goal is to lose fat around my midsection (I have some fat due to inactivity after a car accident in which I was hit by a drunk driver as well as poor eating habits) and get stronger/more fit. I am 47 yrs old, 5? 8” tall and weigh 170lbs. with approx. 10% BF.
I thought of doing something close to Darden’s “a.s.a.p.” (1500 cal diet w/SS work). Do you have advice that might help me get the best result I can achieve?
BTW, I feel very tired after my 1st SS workout today. The studio has all Med Ex machines.
Thanks again and I appreciate your contributions and I look forward to your response.
If your body fat was accurately measured at 10% you should have very little fat around your midsection to lose. At 10% body fat most men’s abdominal muscles are starting to show fairly good definition. My first advice would be to have your body composition re-measured.
Assuming you actually are 10% body fat at 170 pounds, and are still relatively inactive, a rough estimate of your daily calorie expenditure would be around 2,300. If you start working out more than once weekly and become more physically active on a day to day basis this number would increase. An estimate of your daily calorie deficit for near maximum fat loss would be around 500 - your body can get roughly 30 calories per day from each pound of stored fat - so I recommend starting at 1,800 calories. If you eat less than that and your daily calorie deficit exceeds the amount of energy you can get from your fat stores the difference is going to have to come from other tissues, which could mean a reduction in muscle mass. › Continue reading
Calculating the Daily Calorie Deficit For Maximum Fat Loss
In books and articles on fat loss it is common to see arbitrary recommendations for daily calorie intake or deficit, such as 1,200 calories per day for women and 1,500 calories per day for men, or a deficit of 500 to 1000 calories per day to lose 1 to 2 pounds of fat per week. The problem with arbitrary calorie intakes is obvious - not everybody has the same daily calorie expenditure so the resulting deficit will vary significantly between people. Apparently the problem with arbitrary deficits is not so obvious - many personal trainers and health professionals routinely recommend a daily calorie deficit of 500 to 1000 calories for everybody - a range that is too low for some and too high for others. › Continue reading
Estimating Daily Calorie Expenditure
Whether you’re trying to maintain your current bodyweight, gain muscle or lose fat, it is necessary to estimate daily calorie expenditure as a starting point for determining the calorie intake appropriate to your goals. The key words here are estimate and starting point. No formula or method of measurement is perfect. No matter how good something looks on paper, what ultimately matters is practical results. Whatever your initial estimate, you will need to keep records of calorie intake and goal-relevant measurements and adjust your intake accordingly. › Continue reading
Basic Guidelines for Fat Loss
This is meant as a set of basic guidelines for fat loss, and is nowhere near a complete discussion of the topic. More advanced, detailed guidelines will be posted in future articles as well as an upcoming book.
While numerous factors affect fat gain and loss, by far the most important is energy balance - calorie intake versus calorie expenditure. If you consume more calories than your body burns over a period of time, you will gain fat. If you want to lose fat, you must consume fewer calories than your body burns. There are three basic ways to accomplish this: › Continue reading
High Intensity Strength Training for Cardiovascular Conditioning and Fat Loss
Originally posted Sunday, April 26, 1998
Had a great workout today. Nauseous, dizzy and my heart is pounding. Usually, I couldn’t care less what my heart rate (HR) is. It’s not that important. Resting HR is not an indication of one’s state of health, and HR elevation during exercise is a secondary consideration, and not something one should use as an indication of an effective workout. But, as hard as it’s beating, it’s certainly got my attention. My average resting HR is in the low 50’s, so the approximately 120 BPM I’m experiencing right now (roughly 5 minutes after my workout) is over twice normal.
I spoke with Arthur Jones regarding the subject this morning. He stated, and I agree, “six weeks of proper strength training can improve one’s cardiovascular fitness to a degree that is impossible with any number of years of aerobics.” › Continue reading