Drew Baye’s High Intensity Training

The American Council on Exercise has now also released a statement about the Time magazine article, and are just as mistaken in most of their points as the American College of Sports Medicine in their response. The following is their editorial (inset) along with my comments:

Editorial: Why Time Magazine’s Article on Exercise and Weight Loss Could Be Harmful to Your Health

By Cedric X. Bryant, Ph.D., F.A.C.S.M., Chief Science Officer, American Council on Exercise

The cover story of the August 9, 2009, issue of Time magazine featured an article entitled, “Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin.” In this piece, author John Cloud made several inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims regarding the value of exercise, particularly as it relates to weight loss. What follows is a summary of some of the most misleading assertions made in this highly publicized article, as well as the American Council on Exercise’s response to these assertions:

• First and foremost, the article categorically implies that exercise has no meaningful role in weight loss. Such a conclusion is as false as it is reckless. The author’s “evidence” is the fact that he has “gut fat that hangs over his belt when he sits,” despite maintaining a regular exercise habit. In all likelihood, his unwanted abdominal girth is probably a by-product of genetics and/or consuming more calories than he expends.

First off, I should clarify most people’s goal is not indiscriminate weight loss, but improved body composition. This means improving the ratio of muscle to fat, and in most people’s case requiring a significant reduction in fat while minimally maintaining muscle mass. If a person lost 10 pounds of muscle they’d have lost weight, but would look worse and be weaker and less fit. So while ACE use the term weight loss, I’m going to write fat loss, because that’s what people really want.

Second, while genetics plays a role, with a few very rare exceptions it is not an excuse for being fat. Being fat is almost entirely a matter of overeating, and not, as Bryan partly implies in the phrase “…consuming more calories than he expends” that low expenditure is the problem.

I got ripped for a bodybuilding competition doing one high intensity strength training workout per week consisting of only one set each of a few exercises, and lasting around 15 to 20 minutes. Other than that, I was training clients, attending classes or labs, or studying, and actually went out of my way to be less active, as part of the point of entering the contest was to demonstrate it could be done without “cardio”. Clients who follow my nutritional advice consistently lose bodyfat without doing any exercise or increasing their activity levels beyond the one or two weekly workouts they do with me. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss

Fitness and weight loss “experts” like to recommend finding ways to incorporate more physical activity into daily life, usually exchanging efficiency or convenience for increased physical exertion, based on the mistaken belief that doing so makes a meaningful contribution to health, fitness, or fat loss. They claim these little changes add up to a lot of calories burned over the course of a week, however this is not the case. If hour-long “cardio” sessions barely burn enough calories to be worth doing for that purpose, a few minutes walking up the stairs or across a parking lot are hardly going to amount to any calories burned, while reducing your time and productivity.

Unless you enjoy these activities for their own sake, doing them to burn calories is not worth your time. You could accomplish as much of negative calorie balance in a single day with a few dietary changes as the typical recommendations for increases in activity would amount to over several weeks, without it costing a minute of your time.

In a recent post I mentioned a study from the 2009 European Congress on Obesity (Swinburn BA, et al “Increased energy intake alone virtually explains all the increase in body weight in the United States from 1970s to the 2000s” ECO 2009.) which showed a lack of activity is not the problem. Overeating is. If you want to lose fat, forget about spending a few extra minutes walking an extra block to work; you’ll barely burn the amount of calories contained in a few french fries. Instead, save yourself a few minutes and skip the french fries to begin with.

The following are just a few suggestions for dietary improvements that will make a much bigger difference in fat loss than adding a few minutes of extra activity throughout your day:

• Eliminate or minimize intake of grains and other refined carbohydrates.
• Replace them with a variety of fresh vegetables and fruits, especially leafy vegetables and berries.
• Choose leaner sources of protein – some fats are healthy in moderate amounts but fat is very calorie dense.
• Substitute water or other non-caloric beverages like tea for sodas and fruit juices.

This is not to say I believe people should be inactive. There are other benefits to getting up and moving around. However, doing so makes little or no positive difference in body composition.

The only worthwhile exercise for improving body composition is strength training. High intensity strength training in particular provides the greatest physical benefits relative to the time invested, including all of the cardiovascular and metabolic benefits of aerobics or “cardio”. Strength training directly improves body composition by increasing muscle mass and by preventing loss of muscle mass while fat is lost in people restricting calorie intake, and indirectly because more muscle mass equals a higher basal metabolic rate and more storage space for glucose (as glycogen). High intensity strength training also depletes muscle glycogen levels, so more of the carbohydrate consumed is stored as glycogen in the muscles than as triglycerides in the fat cells.

So, if you’re in a hurry to get to work or have better things to do with your time, go ahead and take the elevator or park in the closest spot – you’re not missing out on any kind of major calorie-burning or conditioning benefits. If you need to lose fat, focus on improving your diet instead.

Drew Baye Fat Loss

My friend Anthony Semone informed me the ACSM have posted a press release titled “Experts Debunk Myth About Exercise, Weight Loss” in response to the Time Magazine article covered in my previous post. The following is the full text of their press release (inset) along with my comments:

EXPERTS DEBUNK MYTH ABOUT EXERCISE, WEIGHT LOSS
Research proves value of exercise, nutrition

According to John Jakicic, Ph.D., FACSM, “There is strong evidence from the majority of the scientific literature that physical activity is an important component for initial weight loss.”

INDIANAPOLIS – Leading experts in exercise and weight management have taken strong exception to assertions that exercise can inhibit weight loss by over-stimulating the appetite.

The “experts” can take exception all they like, but it does not change the fact increased activity stimulates appetite and if a person is not measuring and restricting calorie intake they are more likely to end up with a positive energy balance, resulting in an increase in body fat. While exercise burns very few calories, hardly enough to be worth doing for that purpose, a large amount of calories is very easy to consume.

General physical activity and the types of exercise commonly recommended for fat loss contribute relatively little to a fat loss program, and will make either no difference at all or even make things worse if diet is not being controlled. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss

The August 17, 2009 issue of Time Magazine contains an article that is going to piss off a lot of people in the fitness industry, because it challenges one of the biggest myths that have been lining the pockets of gyms, trainers, and equipment companies for years: that exercise will make you lose weight.

The article by John Cloud, Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin, explains how exercise, which does not burn a significant amount of calories to begin with, stimulates an increase in appetite and compensatory eating. According to one study, this compensatory eating may exceed the calories burned during the activity by as much as 100 – enough to cause a fat gain of over 10 pounds per year. One study mentioned showed no difference in fat loss between three exercising groups and a non-exercising control. This is bad news for aerobics instructors and trainers selling various types of “cardio” classes as an effective method of fat loss.

Actually, this is not news at all. I’ve been telling people this for years, and the people at Nautilus were saying the same thing way back in the ’70s. No activity burns enough calories to be worth doing solely for that purpose. The biggest contribution exercise makes to a fat loss program is the preservation of lean body mass while fat is lost. Any contribution to increased calorie expenditure, either as a direct result of the workout or indirectly as a result of increased muscle mass, is minor compared to the role of diet. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss

I receive daily alerts from Google whenever high intensity training is mentioned on a new web page, blog entry, or news article, and over the past several months more and more of these have been about high intensity interval training, rather than high intensity strength training. Every personal trainer and fitness “expert” out there with a web site seems to feel the need to put their 2 cents in, typically comparing the effectiveness of the two for fat loss. What nobody seems to be challenging is the belief that these things are relatively effective for fat loss at all.

Which is better for fat loss, high intensity interval training or higher volume, lower intensity steady-state training?

The answer is neither – both are a waste of time. While high intensity interval training wastes less of your time than higher volume, lower intensity aerobics, neither burn enough calories to be worth doing for that purpose. At most, the net calorie expenditure for either might be as high as one or two hundred, but probably much less (net calorie expenditure equals total calories expended during the activity minus resting energy expenditure – the amount you would have  burned had you been relaxing with a good book instead). Some “experts” claim high intensity interval training is better because of the additional calories burned post exercise due to excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), however this amounts to very little. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss

The very same assholes who’s site I wrote about in Bullshit Fat Loss Claims tried to comment spam that post. They wrote,

“Hi, thanks for sharing that post. I have just found your site and You have a new subscriber(me). By the way I’ve been blogging about my own weight loss and
weight loss diet plan
I would really apprectiate it if you could check out my blog and let me know what you think about it.
Thanks,
Joan”

The words “weight loss diet plan” – good keywords if someone is trying to improve their search engine ranking – were linked to the site. Of course, I removed the link. Although I’m sure the average baye.com reader wouldn’t buy into the bullshit they’re promoting, any links to their site would improve their search engine placement and increase the likelihood of others finding it and possibly being suckered. I’m not about to help these assholes dupe anyone. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss, Nutrition

Over the past couple of weeks there have been a few attempts to comment spam some of the articles on this site with links to a web site claiming you can lose “30 pounds in 30 days without diet or exercise” by taking products they sell. Of course, this is complete and utter bullshit.

For starters, the math does not add up. Assuming the claim refers to fat loss, and not loss of water or other tissues, this is impossible. A pound of fat contains 3,500 calories of energy.To lose a pound of fat one would have to expend 3,500 more calories per day than they consume. Many people do not even burn this many calories per day. No supplement is going to cause you to burn this many more calories per day, which would require more than a doubling of metabolic rate for many people, something that would probably also result in enough of an increase in body temperature to kill you.

There is a limit to the rate at which energy can be obtained from fat stores, the average being about 30 calories per day per pound of fat. A person would have to have over 116 pounds of body fat to begin with to lose a pound of it per day, assuming they were able to create a 3,500 calorie deficit. This is highly unlikely. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss, Nutrition

Over the past 16 years I’ve trained hundreds of people one-on-one and have probably advised thousands through phone and internet discussions. Regardless of the goal, one factor that has consistently made a huge difference in results has been whether the client kept accurate records of their daily food intake, and if they were a long-distance client their workouts.

Studies using double labeled water have shown most people who are overweight significantly underestimate the amount of calories they consume, and people who are underweight tend to overestimate their calorie consumption. If you are not weighing or measuring and writing down what you are eating and drinking, you do not know how many calories or grams of different macronutrients you are consuming. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss, Nutrition

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. Read more…

Drew Baye Fat Loss, Training

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.

Drew Baye Fat Loss, Nutrition