Why? "the post workout period that results in metabolic disturbance, elevating EPOC,

Transcription

1 Q: What do you look for when designing a fat loss training program? Do you look at what people have done in the gyms before, or do you read the research and then try to recreate that? A: The primary goals of an exercise routine for fat loss are burn calories, maintain or promote muscle mass and try to increase resting metabolism somehow. Surprisingly there is very little science on the use of weight training solely for fat loss -its something that seemed to come from the gyms and go back to the labs. And even then the programs used in these studies were usually fairly standard. Similar to a lot of trainers, I noticed that clients who focused on resistance training seemed to lose more fat than clients that focused on cardio. When we opened Results Fitness in 2000, we were able to track this more closely, and in every case - resistance training always won. I can also state categorically that we have more clients in our gym on any specific fat loss program than pretty much any published study on training for fat loss. Yes, it's not a controlled lab - but we see subjects (our clients) that are given a specific intervention (our programs) and we track the results. That's pretty much what research is though - but we're trying to create a result - not just observe what happens - so we do change stuff ongoing. And over the years, we have tracked those results, and adjusted the programs to develop the best fat loss/body composition training program that we can which is essentially a resistance training interval training hybrid. Resistance training - specifically what we call "metabolic" resistance training, always - always - outperforms other forms of exercise in terms of real world fat loss - even when calories burned during training are similar. Why? Well, it's either muscle gains from the resistance training that increase metabolism., or some sort of post-workout effect. But the fat loss is far bigger even in the short term - before any muscle would have been built. So it's some type of post-workout change to the metabolism that we've coined the "afterburn" effect. Which we describe as "the post workout period that results in metabolic disturbance, elevating EPOC,

2 fat burning enzyme activity and total body fat oxidation to maximize caloric burn for the other 23+ hours per day". I got s disputing EPOC etc, after last week's article on the afterburn effect, saying that it's only a few calories, and the actual numbers don't add up to much. I agree. When you look at the research. EPOC in the research is often a small number. Why then is there such a big difference in real world results when compared to other forms of exercise? From our experience - exercise routines that generate the highest EPOC - even if it's only a few calories more - always seem to result in more real world fat loss. But it's true the actual EPOC numbers don't explain it. It doesn't add up. We've seen interval training studies that show more total fat loss than aerobic programs that burn the same calories during the exercise session? Why? It must be a post workout effect. We've seen weight training studies show more total fat loss than cardio programs that burn the same calories during the exercise session? Why? Same deal. It's not just the calories burned during training that make the difference. So we have to go after programs that result in some type of change to the metabolism post workout. I propose that there is an accumulative effect of the post workout increase in metabolism. Most of the studies look at single isolated workouts and the corresponding short term metabolism changes. But that's not real world. Real world fat loss is several workouts, increasing in volume and intensity over a longer period of time. What happens when you look at multiple workouts - over weeks or months? There are several studies showing that two separate shorter sessions in a given time period have a higher total EPOC than a single longer session - even at the same intensity. It makes sense to me that if metabolism is elevated as a result of the first workout, then exercising again will elevate that already elevated metabolism further. The evidence is clear on that. What we don't know is how long that "between workouts" period is - some studies suggest a few hours, some as long as 38 hours. But it's not a stretch to think that a small percent increase, on a small percent increase could compound over time... I'll confess though, I don't think we really know what causes the end difference. But we know what works - and we should just use that as our model and let the researchers try to figure out why.

3 Our programs So before you say "But you quote research!!!" - Let me explain how we evolve and upgrade our programs at Results Fitness. First - we see what works in the gym - in reality. Then we talk to fellow gym owners and coaches as to what they see working in their facilities and share what we see. We adjust certain things and see if it works better or not. Then we look at the research to explain the why. So - it's our own experience and observations. Then it's the experience and observations of some of our colleagues. And then it's the research. So when I quote research here in my newsletter or blog, it!s actually step three. I'm not looking at research for methods - I'm looking for further explanation as to the mechanisms behind what we see on a daily basis at our facility. Charlie Francis once mentioned that he felt training research was at least five years behind what coaches and practitioners are doing. Maybe that!s not too far off. So, we don't ignore the research. But we also don't look for research to tell us what to do -- We're looking for research to explain why what we do works. Sometimes we find those studies- sometimes we don't. But we keep training people in our own little "research lab". I don't think any research paper has ever changed what we do in practice too much. A question I get asked a lot from seminar attendees and interviewers is " Is there any new information/research that has you reconsidering any of your current views on training? " Quite honestly-that rarely happens. While I read a lot of research, I don't think that good coaches and trainers ever change their minds on training based on new research. A good coach is already seeing what works with his or her athletes on a regular basis. In fact it's not uncommon to see studies that are investigating what coaches, nutritionists and trainers are doing and looking to explain them. Our facility sees a couple of hundred clients who train on a regular basis. We have been open for close to ten years, and have the records of every single workout ever performed in our facility, in addition to body composition and other performance data that we regularly assess (for fat loss clients we assess body composition weekly). Over the years we have recorded and observed a plethora of data and correlations. If you contrast that with the fact that most studies tend to run for a matter of weeks, and use perhaps 9-10 participants in each group -- it's fair to say that we have collected more real world training data than most peer-reviewed studies have. So when a "new finding" appears

4 that doesn't gel with what we've observed, then I tend to ignore it, despite any media coverage. (The recent TIME article suggesting that exercise doesn't help with weight loss is a good example). Again - it's not that I ignore the training research -- it's that I put more faith in what I've personally observed with large groups of people, and what my colleagues have observed, before accepting the findings of a single study. Fat Loss Training Studies However here are a few studies that have helped explain to us what we see in the gym and influence some of our adjustments: A 1999 study compared a resistance training and aerobic training program with a very low-calorie liquid diet and looked at it!s effects on lean muscle and resting metabolism. Both groups lost the same amount of weight but the resistance training group lost significantly more fat and did not lose any lean muscle. Additionally, the resistance training group actually increased metabolism compared to the aerobic group which decreased metabolism. Another study from the same year assigned overweight subjects to three groups: Diet Only, Diet plus aerobics or Diet plus aerobics plus weight training The Diet-only group lost 14 lbs of fat in 12 weeks but when they added in the aerobic program - that group lost only one more pound than the diet group.however the Weight Training group lost 21 lbs of fat in the same time frame. A 1992 paper compared 40 mins of high intensity aerobic training, a circuit-training routine and a heavy weight-training routine. The heavy weight training and circuit routines both burned more calories post workout than the aerobic routine. Another group of researchers compared the short term EPOC effect of two resistance training modalities: A standard weight training program using 80% of RM (3 x 6, six exercises, two minutes rest between sets) and a circuit based weight training program using 50% RM (3 x reps, six exercises 30s between sets). The total work volume was similar. However the circuit training group had a bigger EPOC effect. Basically there were more calories burned with the shorter, lighter workout - probably because minute for minute the actual workload (or density)

5 was higher in the circuit group. A paper from 1994 showed that resistance training resulted in a higher post workout metabolic increase than aerobic exercise. A study published in 2005 compared a treadmill workout and circuit weight training at the same intensity and found a higher increase in calories burned post workout with the circuit group. In other words - despite working at the exact same effort level - a circuit training model burned more calories overall than treadmill exercise. A 1997 study looked at two groups over 8 weeks a strength training group and an aerobic training group (both workouts were designed to burn the exact same amount of calories Both groups followed the same diet and lost the same total amount of weight 19.8lbs However the strength training group lost significantly more fat and maintained more muscle than the aerobic group. A 2003 review from Norway noted that "Little is known about the mechanisms underlying EPOC after resistance exercise." "The relationships between the intensity and duration of resistance exercise and the magnitude and duration of EPOC have not been determined, but a more prolonged and substantial EPOC has been found after hard versus moderate resistance exercise basically there is a longer, bigger post-workout elevation with heavier training And a 2007 study from the Human Performance Center at Anderson University, on caloric burn in weight training using the same loads but different lifting tempos: This study compared explosive training and slow training both using 4 sets x 8 60%RM. The explosive group actually burned 13% more calories during training and 7% more in the post exercise period despite using the exact same loads as the slow training group. The researchers summarized - "by using explosive contractions and moderate exercise intensity, experienced recreational exercisers can increase their energy expenditure during and after resistance exercise, and this could enhance weight-loss adaptations." But here's the one thing that you don't really find in the research - programs that need to work or the researchers don!t get paid! That!s the difference between their world and ours! All these studies are essentially observations to see what happens. None of the studies are trying to get real people to lose fat as quickly as possible, which is what we are paid to do with our clients. Compound that with the fact that we work in the real world - our clients can often only give us 2-3 hours total workout time per week - you can see that every minute counts in training.

6 What I can tell you is that in our facility when we combine all of the above findings into a program - there is some synergy. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Now, I don't know which research study is the best or the most applicable. And we can argue all day about sample sizes, flawed research etc, and I'm sure that you can find studies that literally contradict each other. All I know is: our clients get leaner faster than the "numbers" say is possible our clients do metabolic resistance training our clients get better results than most gym goers One of our clients wore the body bugg (a device that measures how many calories you burn) when she started with us, getting a baseline daily calorie burn including her workouts and then spent a year performing metabolic resistance training consistently 2-3 days a week. Wearing the device again 1 year later, she was burning an average of 20% more calories per day. Summary So in our facility we are constantly reviewing our programming to maximize client results. And over time we have found the best fat loss training characteristics to be: Metabolic Resistance Training - big movements Heavy resistance (go as heavy as possible within the set) However use a time under tension in the 45s area (so this may be a slightly longer set than traditional weight training) Shorter rest periods than traditional weight training The use of explosive reps at times The use of alternating sets/mini-circuits to maximize work density and minimize local fatigue Basically the routines are designed to burn more calories during the workout using many different methods, and increase post workout caloric burn to maximize overall fat loss. -- AC PS - you can pick up a copy of our Afterburn Training program here (which still reflects the basics of our current fat loss programs at Results Fitness), and also a DVD of some Metabolic Acceleration Training (alternatives to cardio) techniques. AlwynCosgrove.com Walnut street Newhall, CA US