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.

While cardio may make a small contribution to a fat loss program, it is highly overrated, and of minimal importance compared to calorie restriction. Contrary to the wishful thinking of the crowds that flock to the treadmills, stairmasters and elliptical machines on Monday night after a weekend of overeating and excessive alcohol consumption, no amount of cardio will make up for poor eating habits. In fact, if calorie intake is not being measured and recorded, cardio will probably make almost no difference at all because it will increase appetite.

The most effective approach for the majority of people is a combination of high intensity strength training and reduced calorie intake. The reduced calorie intake creates the deficit necessary to force the body to use its fat stores for energy, while the high intensity strength training prevents loss of muscle mass.

I currently have one personal training client who lost over seventy pounds of fat in nine months, and another who lost one hundred and ten pounds of fat in a little over a year. Both perform high intensity strength training and keep close track of their calorie intake, but do no cardio. Numerous clients of mine have achieved similar results over the past fifteen years with the same approach. I once reduced my bodyfat to the low single digits for a bodybuilding competition with no cardio, proving one can become as lean as possible with high intensity strength training and strict diet alone.

This 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.

A great deal of the misunderstanding of the function of the cardiovascular system arises from the use of the word “aerobics” to describe a particular exercise protocol. The term aerobic denotes a metabolic pathway within the body which yields energy through the oxidation of fat and carbohydrate. Literally, aerobic means: “with oxygen”. Most of us have been taught that to exercise aerobically is to perform long duration steady-state activities which produce an elevated heart rate. Note that said participation of the heart and lungs is entirely dependent on muscular activity. Such low intensity activity is said to primarily stress the aerobic metabolic pathway and allow the body to use primarily fat as a fuel source. Additionally, “aerobics” is thought to provide an increase in endurance and provide a protective effect against coronary artery disease. While I will certainly agree that there are some marginal benefits to the cardiovascular system from a program of such activity, the reality is simply that these effects could be achieved in a safer and more efficient manner through the use of high-intensity strength training.

Many bodybuilders that I have spoken to believe that the inclusion of some type of “aerobic” activity in their program is necessary to achieve optimum leanness. I point out to them that from a bodybuilding standpoint, the issues at hand are both the amount of fat that you don’t have and the amount of muscle that you do. Since it is very easy to overtrain by including too many exercises or too much additional activity, it seems that any slight fat loss achieved through steady state activity could be more than offset by compromising the ability to build (or even maintain) muscle as a result of overtraining. In fact, research on fat loss performed by Ellington Darden Ph.D. (and duplicated by Ideal Exercise) showed best results with the combination of high-intensity strength training with a reduced calorie diet and the total exclusion of steady state activities. As Mike Mentzer has pointed out, the body only has a limited amount of adaptation energy. It is not as if you have 100 units of adaptation energy for building muscle and 100 units available for increasing endurance; you have 100 units, period!

The following is a reprint of an article which we hand out to all of our new clients at Ideal Exercise…

Why not aerobics…?

“Aerobic” activity is not the most effective form of exercise for fat-loss. Steady state activities such as running, cycling, dancing, etc. do not burn a significant number of calories! One pound of fat can fuel the body for up to 10 hours of continuous activity. “Aerobic” activity is simply inefficient for this purpose!

The most important contribution that exercise makes to a fat-loss program is the maintenance of muscle tissue while fat is lost. Strength training is the only reliable method of maintaining muscle tissue. Aerobics can actually cause you to lose muscle tissue!

Some supposed “experts” have suggested that the important effect of aerobics is that of increasing metabolic rate. Our question is this: If “aerobic” activities burn few calories while you are doing them, then how many calories will they burn (calories burned = metabolic rate) when you are not doing them? The answer to that question is: very few…

On the subject of metabolic rate: Every pound of muscle added to the body of an adult female will require an additional 75-100 calories per day just to keep it alive. The average person, through a program of proper strength training can add enough muscle to burn an additional 3500 calories per week (1 lb. of fat = 3500 calories). The amount of strength training required to effect such a change is less than one hour per week.

“Aerobic” activities are dangerous! Running is an extremely high-force activity that is damaging to knees, hips, and back. Aerobic dance is probably worse. And so-called “low impact” classes or activities like stationary cycling are not necessarily low-force. Don’t be fooled by the genetic exceptions who protest that they have never been injured– overuse injuries are cumulative and we are often not aware that we have them until it is too late. In time, the enthusiastic aerobic-dance participant or jogger will probably pay the price for all that “healthy” activity. If that price is a decrease or loss of mobility in one’s later years, then “aerobics” have effectively shortened the individual’s life-span. Loss of mobility is often the first step toward loss of all biological competence.

Don’t I need some form of aerobics to insure good health? What about my heart?

Remember: The function of the cardiovascular system is to support the muscular system – not the other way around. If the human body is logical (and we assume that it is) then increases in muscular strength (from a proper strength-training program) will correlate to improvements in cardiovascular function.

You will notice that the word “aerobic” has been set off in quotation marks when it refers to an activity performed for exercise. There is a good reason for this emphasis: There is no such thing as aerobic exercise! We have all heard that activities such as jogging and cycling are “aerobic” while those such as weight training and sprinting are “anaerobic”. These distinctions are not 100% correct. The words aerobic and anaerobic refer to metabolic pathways which operate continuously at all times and in all activities. You cannot “turn off” either of these pathways by merely increasing or decreasing the intensity of an activity.

A word on intensity: Few of the “experts” who promote aerobics will debate our last statement. What they do say, however, is that gentle low-intensity activities use the aerobic pathway to a greater degree than they use the anaerobic pathway. We agree with this statement completely and feel that it should be taken to its logical conclusion: The most “aerobic” activity that a human being can engage in is sleeping!

Consider this: Dr. Kenneth Cooper (author of Aerobics, The New Aerobics, Aerobics for Women), the US. Air Force Cardiologist who coined the term “aerobics” (meaning a form of exercise) and has promoted their use for over 25 years now admits that he was wrong! According to Dr. Cooper, further research has shown that there is no correlation between aerobic endurance performance and health, longevity, or protection against heart-disease. He will admit, however, that such activities do carry with them a great risk of injury. Further, he admits that gross-overuse activities such as running may be so damaging to the body as to be considered carcinogenic.

Irving Dardik, MD, former vascular surgeon, contends that: “The basic concept of aerobics conditioning is wrong.” He also contends that the best way to train the vascular system is to build flexibility into its response by using short bouts of elevation followed by sudden recovery, then demanding activity again.

Elevated heart rate is not an indicator of exercise intensity, exercise effect, or exercise value. It is quite possible to experience an elevated pulse, labored breathing, and profuse sweating without achieving valuable exercise. Intense emotional experiences commonly cause these symptoms without a shred of exercise benefit.

Even if an elevated pulse is necessary for cardiovascular conditioning (we do not doubt that pulse elevation may be necessary, but we do not believe that it should be the emphasis of a conditioning program) remember that some of the highest heart-rates on record were achieved during Nautilus research performed at West Point. The West Point cadets commonly experienced heart rates in excess of 220 beats per minute during Nautilus exercise. These pulse rates were maintained for periods of 20-35 minutes.

What about endurance? Won’t my athletic performance suffer if I don’t do aerobics?

Endurance for athletics and recreational activities is primarily a result of three factors: skill, muscular strength, and genetics. Heritable factors (genetics) are considered to be non-trainable or, in other words, you cannot do much about them. Increasing one’s skill in an activity is a result of practicing that activity. For long-distance runners skills such as stride length and efficiency can be trained through practice (practice on a treadmill doesn’t serve this purpose as it is not the same as road-running). Muscular strength is the single most trainable factor in endurance performance. It is the muscles that actually perform work. When strength increases, the relative intensity of any given task decreases.

Athletes often talk about training their “wind”. Actually our bodies’ ability to use oxygen is not as trainable as once believed. Consider that in a resting state the lungs can saturate with oxygen the blood moving through them during the first one-third of the total transit time. At maximal exertion, saturation speed might slow to one-half of the total transit time. Even with some compromise of pulmonary function (illness, injury, etc.) the lungs can usually perform their job quite adequately. It is the muscle’s ability to use the nutrients delivered to it that needs training. This is most efficiently addressed by strength-training.

More on the subject of “wind”: Most exercise physiologists refer to the phenomenon of “wind” as maximal oxygen uptake. One Canadian researcher has determined that maximal oxygen uptake is 95.9% genetically determined.

A 1991 study at the University of Maryland showed that strength training produced improvements in cycling endurance performance independent of changes in oxygen consumption.

Covert Bailey, author of Fit or Fat and advocate of “gentle aerobic exercise” now recommends wind sprints to those seeking to become maximally fit. Why wind sprints? Because sprinting is a much more intense muscular activity than jogging. Why not wind sprints? Because as with other running, the risk of injury is just too great! Pulled hamstrings, sprained ankles, and damaged knees are too high of a price for a marginal increase in fitness. Strength training greatly increases the intensity of muscular activity (much more so than sprinting) and greatly reduces the risk of injury!

Ideal Exercise possesses signed testimonials from members who have improved their endurance performance for running, skiing, and other activities while following a program of high intensity strength training and following this policy:

Aerobics… Just Say No!

(Many thanks to Matt Hedman for his invaluable assistance in preparing this material. – Greg)

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.

By contrast, many people who claim to have difficulty gaining muscle often overestimate the amount of calories they consume, and fail to gain simply because they are not consuming enough quality food to support muscle growth.

The solution for both is to accurately weigh or measure and record calorie intake. Everything that goes in your mouth, food and drink, gets weighed or measured and written down along with the amount of calories. If you are not doing this or have not done this consistently for a long period of time then you can not make any claims with regards to how much you are or are not eating because you do not know.

While some people do have slower metabolic rates due to hypothyroidism or other conditions, this is rare, and while some people may have genes that predispose them to gain fat more easily than others, these genes do not cause the fat gain. Read that last sentence again. Some people may have genes that make it easier for them to gain fat than others, but these genes do not cause the fat gain. The fat gain is caused by a person’s behavior – mostly their eating habits but also their activity level. As a species, we have not changed much over the past quarter million years, much less the past hundred, so genetics is not an excuse. What has changed? The availability of inexpensive, high-calorie food and drinks and and increase in labor-saving devices has made it incredibly easy to consume far more calories while expending far fewer. However, this doesn’t mean we have to eat more calories or be less active, nobody is forcing people to overeat or be lazy. It just means we have to be more conscientious about the choices we make about what we put in our mouthes and what we do with our time.

Question:

What does metabolic conditioning mean? Is it necessary? Does high intensity training provide it?

Answer:

When most people think of training to improve endurance, they think of conditioning the cardiovascular system to improve transport of blood to the working muscles. Metabolic conditioning is the other side of the coin – conditioning the muscles to better use what’s being delivered to them by improving the efficiency of the different metabolic pathways involved.

When strength training is performed with a high level of intensity and short rest intervals between exercises, the cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning benefits equal or exceed what can be achieved with more traditional “cardio” activities. This was proven during Nautilus research at West Point Military Academy back in the mid 1970’s. In an article about the study in the Athletic Journal, Vol. 56, Sept. 1975, Dr. James Patterson said the following,

“Contrary to most commonly held beliefs on the subject of strength training, the training also significantly improved the cardiovascular condition of the subjects. By maintaining the intensity of the workouts at a high level and by limiting the amount of rest between exercises, the training resulted in improvement on each of 60 separate measures of cardiovascular fitness. Contrary to widespread opinion, not only will a properly conducted program of strength training produce increases in muscular strength but will also significantly improve an individual’s level of cardiovascular condition. The data suggests that some of these cardiovascular benefits apparently cannot be achieved by any other type of training.”

More recently, a six-month study conducted at Philipps University in Marburg Germany in 2003 demonstrated similar results. (Maisch B, Baum E, Grimm W. Die Auswirkungen dynamischen Krafttrainings nach dem Nautilus-Prinzip auf kardiozirkulatorische Parameter und Ausdauerleistungsfähigkeit (The effects of resistance training according to the Nautilus principles on cardiocirculatory parameters and endurance). Angenommen vom Fachbereich Humanmedizin der Philipps-Universität Marburg am 11. Dezember 2003). The following is a quote about the study from a Feb 2005 article in Internal Medicine News,

“A 6-month structured Nautilus weightlifting program resulted in improvements in cardiocirculatory fitness to a degree traditionally considered obtainable only through endurance exercises such as running, bicycling, and swimming, said Dr. Baum, a family physician at Philipps University, Marburg, Germany.

“This opens up new possibilities for cardiopulmonary-oriented exercise besides the traditional stamina sports,” she noted. New exercise options are desirable because some patients just don’t care for endurance exercise, which doesn’t do much to improve muscular strength and stabilization.”

While they use the terms cardiovascular and cardiocirculatory in reference to the results, a large part of the improvements occurred in the skeletal muscles.

While some more bodybuilding-oriented methods of high intensity training do not emphasize metabolic conditioning, some degree is unavoidable with any kind of demanding exercise. For examples of high intensity training routines emphasizing metabolic conditioning along with whole-body strength, check out the 3×3 article.

Since the original CrossFit post I’ve received several requests for CrossFit routines modified to be more consistent with high intensity training principles. The difference between these and more bodybuilding-oriented HIT routines is a greater emphasis on metabolic conditioning and incorporation of more bodyweight and gymnastic exercises like chin ups and parallel bar dips. While there may be no positive transfer of skill from bodyweight or gymnastic movements to different movements, regular performance may improve general kinesthetic sense and proprioception as well as awareness of and confidence in one’s physical abilities.

CrossFit’s Greg Glassman has described the method as “constantly varied functional movement executed at high intensity” . Although an exercise is commonly considered to be “functional” if it mimics a movement of daily living, work or sport, since only the strength gained from an exercise will transfer to other movements and not any specific skill, any exercise that effectively strengthens the body and contributes to improvements in other general aspects of fitness could be considered functional. By replacing the Olympic lifts and certain other movements with exercises involving the same muscle groups you do not sacrifice any functional benefit. It is unnecessary to move fast during exercise to develop speed and power in other activities and there is no transfer of skill from an exercise to a different movement. For example, the skill of performing power cleans will not positively transfer to the different although superficially similar movement of a football lineman exploding off the line any more than the skill acquired performing football blocking drills will positively transfer to swimming.

While balance, coordination, agility, etc. are not general abilities but posture or movement specific skills, if a person performs enough variety of movements that challenge these abilities it may provide a foundation for better learning more specific skills. This would be a strong argument for regularly performing bodyweight and gymnastic exercises. However, if one wishes to become highly skilled in a specific type of movement, deliberate, specific practice is necessary.

The following are several CrossFit named or benchmark workouts, along with the modified versions and a brief explanation of the changes made. Most changes consist of substituting exercises and adjusting the rep ranges accordingly, or adjusting the number of rounds to maintain a consistent time frame while using more controlled repetition speeds.

CrossFit’s “Angie” Workout

1. 100 Kipping pull-ups
2. 100 Push-ups
3. 100 Sit-ups
4. 100 Bodyweight squats

Performed for time.

Modified HIT Version

1. 50 Strict pull-ups or chin-ups
2. 100 Push-ups
3. 100 Crunches
4. 100 Bodyweight squats

Performed for time.

Strict pull-ups or chin-ups are substituted for kipping pull-ups and crunches for sit-ups. The repetitions are reduced from 100 to 50 for the pull-ups or chin-ups to account for the increased difficulty. Although the routine should be performed for time, the reduction in time should come from moving more quickly between reps and exercises, not during. The repetitions should only be performed as fast as possible while maintaining strict form, and sloppy reps should not be counted. The same for all other workouts listed as being for time or where as many circuits or rounds as possible are performed within a particular time limit.

I took a break from writing this to perform the modified HIT version. At a weight of 194 pounds I was able to finish in 22:36. The chin ups were definitely the hardest part. After the first fourteen I had to pause for a few seconds between groups of reps, then the pauses grew longer and the reps fewer until I was resting about ten seconds between each rep to get to fifty. After the chin-ups the rest of it wasn’t so bad, and the bodyweight squats actually felt like a break until I got closer to the end. I rarely perform more than twenty reps of any exercise, and usually between six and eight, so this was quite a bit different than I’m used to.

Some people may want to scale this down at first, starting with fifty percent of the reps.

CrossFit’s “Cindy” Workout

1. 5 Kipping pull-ups
2. 10 Push-ups
3. 15 Bodyweight squats

As many rounds as possible in 20 minutes.

Modified HIT Version

1. 5 Strict pull-ups or chin-ups
2. 10 Push-ups
3. 15 Bodyweight squats

As many rounds as possible in 20 minutes.

Strict pull-ups or chin-ups are substituted for kipping pull-ups. I recommend using a weight vest to increase the difficulty if you are able to complete 12 rounds, rather than attempting to increase rounds by moving more quickly.

CrossFit’s “Elizabeth” Workout

1. Clean 135 pounds
2. Ring dips

Performed for three circuits of 21, 15 and 9 reps, for time.

Modified HIT Version

1. Deadlift 21RM weight
2. Ring or parallel bar dips

Performed for three circuits of 21, 15 and 9 reps, for time.

The first set of deadlifts should be performed with an approximate 21RM – the weight should be heavy enough that you can just barely complete the 21st rep in good form. If you do not have access to rings, which is probably the case if you train at a typical gym, substitute parallel bar dips.

CrossFit’s “Linda” Workout (AKA “3 Bars of Death”)

1. Deadlift 1-1/2 bodyweight
2. Bench press bodyweight
3. Clean 3/4 bodyweight

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 rep rounds for time

Modified HIT Version

1. Deadlift 1-1/2 bodyweight
2. Bench press bodyweight
3. Row 3/4 bodyweight

10, 8, 6, 4, 2 rep rounds for time

The number of rounds has been halved from ten to five, reducing the reps for each exercise from fifty five to thirty to account for the use of a more controlled rep speed. If the positive and negative are each performed over an average of 2 to 3 seconds the total time under tension would be greater even with the reduced work. While the CrossFit people might argue that this lower power output would reduce the effectiveness of the workout, I think the overall metabolic demand would be comparable, while the more controlled repetition speed and fewer reps would be easier on the joints.

CrossFit’s “Mary” Workout

1. 5 Handstand push-ups
2. 10 One-legged squats, alternating legs
3. 15 Kipping pull-ups

As many rounds as possible in 20 minutes.

Modified HIT Version

1. 5 Handstand or 10 shoulder push-ups (similar to “dive bomber” push ups)
2. 10 One-legged squats, alternating legs
3. 8 Strict pull-ups or chin-ups

As many rounds as possible in 20 minutes.

As in the modified version of Cindy above, strict pull-ups or chin-ups are substituted for kipping pull-ups. I recommend using a weight vest to increase the difficulty if you are able to complete 12 rounds, rather than attempting to increase rounds by moving more quickly.

If you are unable to perform handstand push-ups, substitute standing presses with your 10RM. It’ll feel heavy enough after the first few rounds. If you are unable to perform one-legged squats, substitute 20 bodyweight squats.

CrossFit’s “Lynne” Workout

1. Bench press body weight
2. Kipping pull-ups

5 rounds for max reps.

Modified HIT Version

1. Bench press body weight
2. Strict pull-ups or chin ups

5 rounds for max reps.

Strict pull-ups or chin-ups are substituted for kipping pull-ups, otherwise no change. Dips may be substituted for bench press. While some HITers may argue there is no point to multiple sets, keep in mind the emphasis is on metabolic conditioning rather than strength or hypertrophy. While most research shows no significant difference between single and multiple sets for increasing muscular strength or size, volume is an important factor where metabolic conditioning is concerned. At ten sets the total volume of the workout is not excessive for this purpose.

Ellington Darden’s Metabolic Conditioning Routine

Before hardcore HITers start accusing me of going off the deep end by posting CrossFit-influenced workouts, I’d like to point out that Dr. Darden himself, former director of research for Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries, the man who coined the term high intensity training and who has probably written and published more books and articles about it than anyone else alive, wrote about a similar routine in his last book The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results. Chapter 25, Metabolic Conditioning for Football: Part A, included the following routine:

1. 10 Strict chin-ups
2. Sprint 100 yards
3. 10 Dips
4. Sprint 100 yards

6 rounds for time.

Dr. Darden recommended a target time of about twelve minutes. If ten chin ups or dips can not be completed substituted negative-only reps. Can be performed indoors by substituting cycling for twenty seconds for the sprints.

Please post your comments after trying any of the above routines as well as your own variations of them.

A few months ago I was reading the DeLorme and Watkins 1951 book Progressive Resistance Exercise as historical research for the book I’m working on, and found the following statement about single versus multiple sets:

Pages 27-28

“Three sets of exercise in which the resistance is increased after each set offers the advantage of warming up the muscle but probably does not contribute toward increasing the muscle strength. By doing 10 repetitions only with the 10-RM strength increases would be approximately the same as when three sets are performed. In fact, if it were not important to set the physiological stage preparatory to a maximum exertion, only one set of 10 repetitions would suffice. This has been demonstrated time and again in the clinic in the treatment of injuries in young athletes. The validity is also attested to by the fact that many of the strongest strength athletes never perform more than 10 repetitions for any one exercise. Incredible as it may seem, many athletes have developed great power and yet have never employed more than five repetitions in a single exercise.”

According to Bill Hinbern, David Willoughby said nobody used “sets” prior to World War II, although it was common to perform two or three different exercises per muscle group. Decades of research and in-the-gym experience show the single-set approach is just as valid today as it was back when our grandfathers and great grandfathers might have started lifting weights.

Our home gym has a small but respectable collection of grip tools. A few Iron Mind Captains of Crush grippers, an Iron Mind Rolling Thunder revolving deadlift handle, pinch-gripping block and 15″ loading pin, and my favorite, the Ivanko Super Gripper. While all of them have their place, if I could only keep one it would be the Ivanko.

The biggest advantage of the Ivanko over spring grippers is the ability to adjust the resistance from about 45 up to 345 pounds in over 50 steps. This exceeds the range of the first nine Captains of Crush grippers, from the 60 pound Sport to the 322 pound number 3.5. Only the Captains of Crush number 4 is harder to close than the Ivanko at it’s hardest setting, requiring a massive 365 pounds of force. This should be of little practical concern to most people, however, since only five people have ever officially closed the number 4

The Ivanko Super Gripper’s handle geometry provides a more optimal range of motion for all the fingers than spring grippers which pivot on the side of and close to the index finger (and the handle length helps when assisting little grip enthusiasts in their workouts).

While not as compact or portable as other spring grippers, the Ivanko still fits easily in a gym bag, and since it is made of aluminum it won’t rust. At around $30, it also costs far less than the number of spring grippers you would have to buy for less than 1/5th the resistance levels. For more money some companies sell a variation with a knurled grip attachment with a feel similar to Captains of Crush grippers, but I’ve never had any problem with slipping on the one I have.

The grip and forearm muscles receive considerable work during compound pulling movements, but if you want the strongest grip possible I recommend incorporating direct grip work in your workouts. If you do, make sure to always perform grip exercises at the end of your workout so fatigue doesn’t limit your ability to grip during other exercises.

A 3×3 is a high intensity strength training workout consisting of three circuits or rounds of three compound (multi-joint) exercises performed non-stop to emphasize cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning. Each of the three exercises targets different muscle groups, usually starting with the hips and thighs, followed by upper body pushing and pulling movements, to work all of the major muscle groups and allow for little or no rest between exercises.

A higher number of repetitions is usually performed for the first circuit, with the repetitions dropping for the second and third circuits. A typical repetition scheme for a 3×3 routine is 20, 15 and 10 for the hip and thigh exercise, and 12, 10, and 8 for the upper body pushing and pulling exercises when performed at typical repetition speeds. For example:

1. Deadlifts 1×20
2. Dips 1×12
3. Chin-ups 1×12
4. Deadlifts 1×15
5. Dips 1×10
6. Chin-ups 1×10
7. Deadlifts 1×10
8. Dips 1×8
9. Chin-ups 1×8

While the same conditioning effect could be achieved performing one set of nine different exercises addressing the same muscle groups, the advantage of a 3×3 is that it allows shorter rest periods since the bars or machines only need to be set up once. In most gyms it can be difficult to move quickly between different exercises during peak hours. Most 3×3 routines can be performed with minimal equipment in a single spot, without waiting for equipment or people getting in your way even if the gym is packed. The above routine is unlikely to be interrupted if you perform your deadlifts directly in front of the chin/dip station. A 3×3 consisting of front squats, standing presses and rows can be performed with a single barbell without switching weight and with no rest at all between exercises, although the reps for front squats may need to be much higher depending on how much weight you can press and row.

The following are just a few variations of the 3×3. Many more are possible depending on your capabilities and the available equipment.

1. Barbell or trap bar deadlift
2. Standing Press
3. Chin-ups

1. Squat
2. Chin Up
3. Push Up

1. Squat
2. Dip
3. Row

1. Bodyweight squats or alternating one-legged bodyweight squats
2. Handstand, incline or pike push-ups or dips
3. Chin-ups or front lever pull-ups

1. Leg press machine
2. Shoulder or chest press machine
3. Pull-down or rowing machine

Some people may want to follow these with calf, grip or neck work, but I would not recommend performing any additional exercises for larger muscle groups. In fact, if you are capable of any additional multi-joint exercises afterwards you probably didn’t push yourself hard enough.

If performed regularly with a high level of effort and little or no rest between exercises these routines will produce a tremendous level of general cardiovascular/metabolic conditioning while also building a good degree of strength. Give them a try and post your feedback here, along with your own 3×3 routines.

Fred Fornicola, B.A., is the President and exclusive personal trainer of Premiere Personal Fitness in Asbury Park, New Jersey. In addition, he serves as a fitness equipment consultant for schools and corporations for Fitness Lifestyles, Inc. as well as the fitness professional who oversees Newberry Fitness (also of Asbury Park). Fred has been involved in the field of strength and fitness for nearly 30 years. He has authored more than 75 articles on strength and fitness while maintaining several regular columns on nutrition and training for numerous Internet websites. Also, Fred is the Editor-in-Chief of the High Performance Training newsletter and has been published in periodicals such as Master Trainer and Hardgainer. In addition, he’s a contributing author of the book Get Fit New Jersey! Fred serves as a resource member of the New Jersey Council on Physical Fitness and Sports.

Fred and Matt Brzycki recently wrote the book Dumbbell Training for Strength and Fitness, due to be released soon. Fred was gracious enough to take a few minutes out of his busy training and writing schedule to answer a few questions about the new book for baye.com.

Drew Baye: Every time I visit a book store I check out their fitness section, and every time it’s more of the same crap – a small handful of good titles and a whole lot of faddish nonsense. I always pull out a couple of the good ones and place them over the featured titles hoping the next person that comes along checks out something sensible like Maximize Your Training or The New High Intensity Training instead of something ridiculous like Joe Weider’s Ultimate Bodybuilding or the recent Muscle Logic. Your’s and Matt’s book Dumbbell Training for Strength and Fitness is the kind of book I’ll pull out and put where people will see it. Why do you think common sense info on safe and productive training is so uncommon in the bookstores these days?

Fred Fornicola: First, I have to say “safe & productive” are subjective terms and viewed differently by many people so I don’t think those who publish or adhere to the recommeded information view their style of training to be unsafe or non-productive. With that said, there is a lot of information floating around these days based on the latest trends and fads with little thought to using practical applications to get stronger and more fit. I think most people just buy into these crazy ideas (I’m still trying to understand how standing on an unsecure object and trying to perform an exercise can be beneficial to anyone ) with the hopes of finding the elusive magic bullet. It’s still a very simple equation of working hard and choosing non-contraindicated exercises performed in a controlled manner on an infrequent basis.

Drew Baye: With so many informercials hyping “high-tech” exercise gadgets and various self-proclaimed fitness gurus concocting and promoting needlessly complex training methods, do you think people need to be reminded they can get great results with very basic equipment and routines?

Fred Fornicola: Absolutely. There’s no doubt the marketing whores out there are preying on unsuspecting, or slightly confused individuals who are coerced into buying useless gadgets and complicated programs with the hopes of obtaining some unrealistic goal.

Over my 30 years in the field of strength and fitness I have seen numerous gadgets, gurus and various training programs that only seem to make matters worse by preaching or selling something useless and dangerous. I tell my friends and clients all the time that I’ll never be rich from personal training because I have nothing exotic or off the wall to “sell”. I just take a straight forward approach of using basic exercises and hard work. That is why we wrote this book. We wanted to simplify the process and highlight the versatility and effectiveness of using dumbbells to become stronger and more fit. How much more basic can you get then using a set of dumbbells and a handful of muscle stimulating exercises with a straightforward approach? Don’t get me wrong, we have a few twists and turns to make training more productive and mentally stimulating but it’s all based on a solid foundation of safe, effective and efficient training.

Drew Baye: What kind of twists and turns?

Fred Fornicola: We actually have a chapter called “Workouts With A Twist” containing numerous workouts that involve a slight “twist” and are designed to place exceptionally high demands on your musculoskeletal and cardiorespiratory systems. The chapter has workouts for those who prefer to “split” their body parts or specialize in a body part or exercise as well. We also cover aspects of variety to help push past plateaus and avoid the doldrums that can be experienced in training. I have a workout in chapter 11 called The One-Weight Workout that is especially challenging on the cardiovascular system and grip so if you give it a shot, leave your ego checked at the door because it isn’t easy.

Drew Baye: I noticed Matt Brzycki’s 3×3 workout in there as well, which is also a serious challenge for even the best conditioned. In fact, there are quite a few workouts in the book from an impressive list of contributors. Are there any workouts in particular you’ve tried that really stand out?

Fred Fornicola: There’s a huge variety of workouts and all are challenging and productive in their own way. Matt’s 3×3’s (three by three) are always nasty to do and his two dumbbell versions are no less difficult. One particular workout submitted by Dr. Ken Leistner is a real bear. He jokingly advised that we should attach a warning label on it because it’s so brutal – and he wasn’t kidding. It was the first workout I tried and it’s an ass kicker for sure. There are other workouts from Coach Ken Mannie from MSU, Coach Tom Kelso from Saint Louis University, Jeff Friday from the Baltimore Ravens and some guy named Drew Baye even supplied a workout for us. What’s cool about the routines is none are the same and they range from full body workouts, splits, specialization programs, finisher routines and more. If memory serves me correctly there are 48 different routines to choose from.

Drew Baye: Considering the low cost and space requirements, dumbbell training is ideal for those who want to work out at home but don’t have the money or space for a lot of equipment. It’s also a great option for personal trainers who work with clients in their homes since they can easily travel with a set of Select Tech or Power Block adjustable dumbbells. Do you think interest in home training has increased over the past few years, and was that a factor in deciding to write Dumbbell Training for Strength and Fitness?

Fred Fornicola: Yes, I think you’re right that home training is becoming more and more popular and that was certainly a strong consideration in writing this book. People are so pressed for time now and gym memberships can be a bit costly as well, but I think the reason you’re finding more and more home dwellers is due to the environment in most health clubs and gyms.

Over the years, a lot of facilities have increasingly become over saturated with personal trainers, group classes, guys using the power racks to do curls and the notorious “I have 15 sets of benches, come back in an hour” kind of guys. For the most part, I think the people who gravitate to training at home aren’t worried about the latest and greatest technology in machines or taking a core class, they just want to workout. Matt had the foresight two years ago when he started working on his last book The Essential Guide To At Home Training to address the need to put something more formal together for those who opted to train at home in their basement, garage, living room, wherever. While he was writing “At Home” we discussed the concept of an all dumbbell book and I’ll be honest, I wasn’t sure there was enough we could write about and if there’d be enough interest in the topic. So I decided to take a look at my own training and spoke with my peers to get their perspective on the topic. The common theme was that we all like to train with a high level of intensity, prefer to move quickly through the workout, like to work hard, don’t want to be bothered while training and certainly don’t want to have to wait for a piece of equipment. After evaluating these aspects the ideas just started to flow and as Matt and I evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of using dumbbells (which we cover extensively in chapter 1) whether in the gym or at home, it just made perfect sense. It’s amazing when you break it down that an area of about an 8×8 room, a set of dumbbells and an adjustable bench can give you an awesome workout with a minimal investment.

Drew Baye: No doubt. I’ve been training in a small corner of the garage for the past couple months using just barbells and dumbbells and it’s been working very well. I just purchased a lighter set of dumbbells for Emma to train with to get back in shape after the birth of our son, and the space efficiency is a huge advantage since we barely have room to move with all the baby stuff here. We’re going to be using routines out of the book for her training. How about a sample workout for the readers?

Fred Fornicola: Sure Drew. Here’s one I recently used for one of my clients that isn’t in the book. All the exercises are done using dumbbells, of course, and were done to momentary muscular fatigue.

1. Deadlift 1×20
2. 60 Degree Incline Press 1×12
3. 30 Degree Chest Supported Row 1×12
4. 45 Degree Incline Press 1×12
5. Romanian Deadlift 1×20
6. Curl 1×12
7. Deadlift 1×30
8. Crunch 1×20

This workout took about 15 minutes to complete.

Drew Baye: Looks like a solid routine. I’ll have to work that into her routine rotation. Speaking of women and training, what are your thoughts on the increasing popularity of resistance training among women?

Fred Fornicola: First of all, I’m really glad to see more and more women implementing a serious resistance training program. For years men lifted weights and women just did machines to “tone up” or only performed cardiovascular activities, but now there are a greater number of women HITting the weights hard. I think a lot of women today realize the benefit of becoming stronger, whether it’s to support their athletic career, to becoming leaner, help prevent osteoporosis or just to improve overall health and a lot of these women are performing more free weight movements. The problem is some women feel intimidated going in to a crowded gym and taking up a squat rack or bench press and usually gravitate over to the unoccupied dumbbell section of the gym. Fortunately, manufacturers have developed very light dumbbells in small incremental increases to satisfy anyone’s strength level which is a big plus in my opinion. For those who prefer privacy, dumbbells can be purchased relatively cheaply and for those who don’t like commercial gyms or have a new baby at home and have little time to train. Most individuals can knock out a solid workout in 15 to 20 minutes in the privacy of their own home. My wife, Lori has been training in the garage with a handful of dumbbells an adjustable bench for about 8 years now. She likes the convenience (she trains at 6 AM) and the efficiency of training just with dumbbells.

Drew Baye: I receive a lot of e-mail from guys asking for advice on getting their girlfriends or wives to work out with them, and often their problem is overcoming misconceptions about how strength training will affect their bodies and how women should strength train. A lot of women still believe the myths about strength training making them bulky, or that they have to use very light weights and high reps for “toning” and other such nonsense. What advice would you give them?

Fred Fornicola: It’s amazing that in today’s day and age women still believe strength training will make them bulky. I tell all the women I train, “You have two choices, you can either have fat or muscle – so which would you like?” Usually they just stare at me for a moment as they let the comment seep in and most say “Well, I’d like to have muscle if those are my only two choices.” I also explain to them that if they were capable of gaining a large amount of muscle they’d already have the foundation for “overdeveloping” their muscles. That’s what most women are afraid of – you know, looking like one of those freaky chicks in the muscle magazines. As far as using high reps for toning, well, we know this to be wrong. I prefer using higher repetition ranges for most of my clients for many reasons, but if a set is taken to failure an individual can definately become stronger and more fit. That means the guys too.

Getting a wife or girlfriend to train is like getting anyone else to take a solid resistance training program. Explain the benefits, expel the myths and make the process enjoyable. I train my 11 year old daughter twice a week and she usually does three multi joint exercises. Standing dumbbell overhead presses, dumbbells deadlifts or modified Hindu squats and a bench supported dumbbell row or pulldown. A well rounded program with a minimum amount of work is a good way to introduce someone to training because it’s short, sweet and beneficial. At worst case most people can convince someone to muster up the energy to do three exercises a couple times per week.

Drew Baye: Fred, it seems your outlook on training has changed a bit since your earlier years, care to elaborate?

Fred Fornicola: An astute observation Drew. Over the last few years – and especially over the last 6 month’s, my thinking has been more and more geared towards overall health and fitness rather than purely focusing on aesthetics and how much pounding my body could take. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a better physique or working hard but a lot of times individuals who are striving for particular goals such as becoming stronger or muscularly larger can lose sight of the overall balance that is needed for ones health. Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting a better body or setting new personal bests but when the scale becomes tilted to one side for too long then overall health can be compromised. I’m not suggesting someone go out and get fat or not have goals – quite the contrary, I’m suggesting they move toward a slightly different method that enables them to have a more well-rounded approach.

Drew Baye: Define “balance”…

Fred Fornicola: When I refer to balance I am speaking about not being one-sided in thinking and application and considering more things than just having a good squat or big arms. There are many trainees who will do anything to become stronger (and I don’t mean illegally with steroids). There are a lot of people who will focus so much on their quest that they miss out on other aspects of what a healthy, fit lifestyle offers. How many people have you met who won’t go out for a leisurely bike ride or go hiking or even go for a walk because tomorrow they’re training “legs” and they don’t want to fatigue themselves. Balance is about being physically fit – i.e. strong, flexible, cardiovascularly, mentally and emotionally healthy. Balancing your training puts balance in your life and that will take you a long, long way.

Drew Baye: In closing, is there any advice you’d give someone who’s read the book and is looking to pick up some equipment to start training at home?

Fred Fornicola: If you train at home, a big advantage of dumbbells is that they take up very little space. This is especially true of high-tech, self-contained systems such as the PowerBlock®, Stamina Versa-Bell™ and Bowflex® SelectTech™ Dumbbells. Consider this: One “set” of the PowerBlock can be adjusted from 5 – 45 pounds in five-pound increments. In effect, then, it has nine pairs of dumbbells that would provide a combined weight of 450 pounds. Yet, the set only takes up three square feet of space. Perhaps the best feature of all – at least for those who train in the comfort of their homes – is that dumbbells are quite affordable. The price of dumbbells can range anywhere from $0.30 per pound for used ones to about $1.50 per pound for new, depending on the style and brand. So for the most part, outfitting a home gym with a nice set of dumbbells can be done for a few hundred dollars. Along with a quality adjustable bench an individual can be on his or her way to becoming stronger and more fit.

Drew Baye: Fred, thanks again for taking the time to do this interview.

Fred Fornicola: Drew, thanks so much for the opportunity to do this interview. It was certainly a pleasure.

Click here to order Dumbbell Training for Strength and Fitness by Matt Brzycki and Fred Fornicola