We often go on about the importance of training hard. Of course, it is also important to give yourself time to recover and recuperate for adaptations to take place, but the underlying message is that in order to stimulate change, you need to train hard enough.
However, a recent study in Finland may well suggest that how hard you exercise and in particular how active your leisure time is, can have an impact on your future health. This study looked at the relationship between intensity of leisure time activity and development of cancer in men. You can find a link to the study HERE.
In the study they found that men who exercised in their leisure time at a level above 5.2 METS (Metabolic equivalents, where 1 MET is our resting energy expenditure and therefore 5.2 MET's means using 5.2 x the amount of energy used at rest - make sense?) showed significantly lower cancer mortality than those in the lowest quartile of below 3.7 METs. This was AFTER adjusting for age, alcohol and smoking, and other risk factors.
Now, 5.2 isn't particularly hard, for example, if you were to walk at 3.0 m.p.h then you would be working at 3.3 METs, whereas if you were running at 6.0 m.p.h then you would be up at around 10 METs. But the message here is clear that being active and including some higher intensity exercise into your leisure time - be that at the gym or out playing sport - can significantly lower your chances of cancer, in particular lung and gastrointestinal cancers and this should be of great consideration for us all. Although the study was carried out on men, similar studies have been carried out looking at women and breast cancer. It is no great surprise to see this trend echoed in the ladies, where an 11 year study in the U.S found a 20% reduction in post-menopausal women for breast cancer. Interestingly, this reduction was NOT seen in overweight and obese women.
Of course, when it comes to studies on exercise and cancer, the relationship is far from simple and different types of cancer show different relationships and responses to exercise both in risk and in treatment. However, it would seem that evidence is growing to suggest that exercise - in particular more vigourous exercise - can reduce your risk of several types of cancer, including the more common forms of breast, lung, and stomach cancer.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it - that's what gets results"
I am a self-confessed child of the eighties, a generation where Miami Vice was considered groundbreaking in TV cop drama and the highlight of my saturday night was watching Superstars with my dad. Oh, how things have changed, although spending a lot of my time living in Egypt as I currently am I still get to see Miami Vice and the A-Team on a regular basis, courtesy of the appropriately named 'MBC Action channel. Lucky old me.
Anyway, since well before the 80's, different methods and fads of exercise have come and gone. The latest craze in the PT world being a total abandonment of all aerobic type work and an almost evangelistic promotion of resistance training and strength work for the masses. Heck, I am mostly for it myself, and think that many people could benefit from adding resistance training to their workouts. I also believe that many people place too heavy a reliance on their jogging programme for weight loss. However, I don't believe that a total avoidance of 'aerobic' training is the way forward and don't subscribe to some of the arguments for this. Besides, if someone enjoys a jog round the park with their friend, then why not? The fact is that most people need to learn HOW to train, before they worry so much about WHAT to train. It doesn't matter whether you are running in the park, or doing the latest kettlebell routine, if the workout is done poorly, with insignificant volume or intensity to create a stimulus for change, then it simply won't be that effective. What is also true is that while aerobic training may not have been shown to be particularly effective in the research for weight loss, it has been shown to be a key factor in maintaining weight loss as well as improving several other markers of health, such as insulin sensitivity and mood. So before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, it is worth asking, is it what you are doing, or how you are doing it that needs to change?
In an effort to convey this message, I have gone back to the eighties. Where else? You see it isn't just about the type of exercise you do. Sure there are a ton of 'fat burning' workouts for sale on the internet, most of which are simply reinventing the wheel in terms of content. But, the fact is that none of them work if you don't pay attention to some underlying principles that apply no matter what you do. Indeed plenty of people do get results often with the most basic and sometimes terrible training programmes, so how do they do that?
It ain't what you do, it's how hard you do it
O.k so one of the biggest problems we see is that people often really don't train hard enough. They jog or bike at a level well below their lactate thresholds, which is no better than taking a weight you can press 20 times and only doing 10 reps with it. Whatever exercise programme you are doing, you have to train hard enough. That means training to a point close to (and sometimes beyond) fatigue with weights, and it means exercising for cardiovascular improvements at a level above that you can comfortably sustain, then using active recovery between bouts to raise fitness. In effect, we start to aerobic train a bit more like we weight train, working hard for a set, recovering, then repeating. When we look at the research it is clear, for both resistance training and cardiovascular exercise, higher intensities of work tend to bring an increased amount of benefits and improved markers of health in contrast to lower intensity work. So, remember, it ain't what you do, it is how hard you do it - that's what gets results.
It ain't what you do, it's how much you do it
O.k problem number two that we see a lot in health clubs all over the world, people simply don't do enough. Let's take for example the fat burning zone. This is sometimes called a myth and in some ways it is, although metabolic testing data will in fact tell you a heart rate and exercise intensity at which your body is primarily using fat for fuel, so it is a myth rooted in truth. However, the problem is that the actual total of fat calories expended at that level may be as low as 7 or 8 calories a minute. Now, when we take this a stage further, we can see that we would need to exercise for nearly 8 hours to burn through one pound of bodyfat. So, not exactly what you would call a particularly efficient method. Of course, we wouldn't typically do that in one go either, which means we would need to be doing essentially fasted sessions to do it that quickly. So, while it isn't so much a myth as a practical impossibility, you can probably start to see why your 5 minutes on the cross trainer, then 10 minutes on the treadmill, and 10 on the bike aren't going to make much of a dent in your fat loss efforts. Also, if you are one of those people who enjoys a sweet drink while you exercise then you will be raising insulin and preventing any of that fat burning taking place at all.
Now, of course the same in essence applies to resistance training. Insufficient volume of training will not exhaust enough muscle fibres to create improvements in muscle size and strength. Also, resistance training is a skill that needs to be developed and practiced and as such you have to spend time doing it. While the ACSM guidelines on resistance training (1 set of 8-12 repetitions) may be well-intended, they are not going to provide sufficient constant stress for adaptions to occur. Now, of course, there is a caveat here. Any training is designed to create a stimulus and is therefore reliant on sufficient recovery and adequate nutrition to allow that to happen. However, the research is clear, you need to be doing multiple sets of training to see continued improvements. So, if your own weights programme consists of one or two circuits of a few resistance machines then don't plan on seeing beach-buff pectorals any time soon. It's how much you do it, that's what gets results.
It ain't what you do, it's the way you progress it
The last section in our little homage to Banarama/Fun Boy Three, is to talk about progression. As we have already touched on, exercise creates a stimulus for change, recovery facilitates that change and consequently we become stronger and fitter. Essential to this is progression, yet we humans seem to have an affinity for repetition when it comes to workouts. I am not surprised, after all, learning HOW to exercise does not seem to be seen as a pre-requisite by anyone wanting to improve their health. However, like any other skill you need to improve your knowledge of it in order to progress and get better at it. Luckily, this is relatively simple with fitness training as in general it requires relatively little skill and therefore can be mastered by just about anyone.
The key to seeing ongoing changes is to ensure you are progressing your training. With cardiovascular work there are two main areas you can progress, you can either go harder or longer. Whereas weights offer a little more scope for progression, although altering volume and intensity are both principal methods. Adding an extra set for example would be increasing volume, whereas increasing weight for fewer reps would be increasing the intensity. Where weights allow for more progression is in the almost endless variety of exercises you can select to target a specific outcome.
Whichever it is remember, it ain't what you do, but the way you progress it, that's what gets results.
So, before you go abandoning your running or weights routine, ask yourself those three questions first. Are you training hard enough, are you doing enough of it, and are you progressing it with each workout?
Anyway, since well before the 80's, different methods and fads of exercise have come and gone. The latest craze in the PT world being a total abandonment of all aerobic type work and an almost evangelistic promotion of resistance training and strength work for the masses. Heck, I am mostly for it myself, and think that many people could benefit from adding resistance training to their workouts. I also believe that many people place too heavy a reliance on their jogging programme for weight loss. However, I don't believe that a total avoidance of 'aerobic' training is the way forward and don't subscribe to some of the arguments for this. Besides, if someone enjoys a jog round the park with their friend, then why not? The fact is that most people need to learn HOW to train, before they worry so much about WHAT to train. It doesn't matter whether you are running in the park, or doing the latest kettlebell routine, if the workout is done poorly, with insignificant volume or intensity to create a stimulus for change, then it simply won't be that effective. What is also true is that while aerobic training may not have been shown to be particularly effective in the research for weight loss, it has been shown to be a key factor in maintaining weight loss as well as improving several other markers of health, such as insulin sensitivity and mood. So before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, it is worth asking, is it what you are doing, or how you are doing it that needs to change?
In an effort to convey this message, I have gone back to the eighties. Where else? You see it isn't just about the type of exercise you do. Sure there are a ton of 'fat burning' workouts for sale on the internet, most of which are simply reinventing the wheel in terms of content. But, the fact is that none of them work if you don't pay attention to some underlying principles that apply no matter what you do. Indeed plenty of people do get results often with the most basic and sometimes terrible training programmes, so how do they do that?
It ain't what you do, it's how hard you do it
O.k so one of the biggest problems we see is that people often really don't train hard enough. They jog or bike at a level well below their lactate thresholds, which is no better than taking a weight you can press 20 times and only doing 10 reps with it. Whatever exercise programme you are doing, you have to train hard enough. That means training to a point close to (and sometimes beyond) fatigue with weights, and it means exercising for cardiovascular improvements at a level above that you can comfortably sustain, then using active recovery between bouts to raise fitness. In effect, we start to aerobic train a bit more like we weight train, working hard for a set, recovering, then repeating. When we look at the research it is clear, for both resistance training and cardiovascular exercise, higher intensities of work tend to bring an increased amount of benefits and improved markers of health in contrast to lower intensity work. So, remember, it ain't what you do, it is how hard you do it - that's what gets results.
It ain't what you do, it's how much you do it
O.k problem number two that we see a lot in health clubs all over the world, people simply don't do enough. Let's take for example the fat burning zone. This is sometimes called a myth and in some ways it is, although metabolic testing data will in fact tell you a heart rate and exercise intensity at which your body is primarily using fat for fuel, so it is a myth rooted in truth. However, the problem is that the actual total of fat calories expended at that level may be as low as 7 or 8 calories a minute. Now, when we take this a stage further, we can see that we would need to exercise for nearly 8 hours to burn through one pound of bodyfat. So, not exactly what you would call a particularly efficient method. Of course, we wouldn't typically do that in one go either, which means we would need to be doing essentially fasted sessions to do it that quickly. So, while it isn't so much a myth as a practical impossibility, you can probably start to see why your 5 minutes on the cross trainer, then 10 minutes on the treadmill, and 10 on the bike aren't going to make much of a dent in your fat loss efforts. Also, if you are one of those people who enjoys a sweet drink while you exercise then you will be raising insulin and preventing any of that fat burning taking place at all.
Now, of course the same in essence applies to resistance training. Insufficient volume of training will not exhaust enough muscle fibres to create improvements in muscle size and strength. Also, resistance training is a skill that needs to be developed and practiced and as such you have to spend time doing it. While the ACSM guidelines on resistance training (1 set of 8-12 repetitions) may be well-intended, they are not going to provide sufficient constant stress for adaptions to occur. Now, of course, there is a caveat here. Any training is designed to create a stimulus and is therefore reliant on sufficient recovery and adequate nutrition to allow that to happen. However, the research is clear, you need to be doing multiple sets of training to see continued improvements. So, if your own weights programme consists of one or two circuits of a few resistance machines then don't plan on seeing beach-buff pectorals any time soon. It's how much you do it, that's what gets results.
It ain't what you do, it's the way you progress it
The last section in our little homage to Banarama/Fun Boy Three, is to talk about progression. As we have already touched on, exercise creates a stimulus for change, recovery facilitates that change and consequently we become stronger and fitter. Essential to this is progression, yet we humans seem to have an affinity for repetition when it comes to workouts. I am not surprised, after all, learning HOW to exercise does not seem to be seen as a pre-requisite by anyone wanting to improve their health. However, like any other skill you need to improve your knowledge of it in order to progress and get better at it. Luckily, this is relatively simple with fitness training as in general it requires relatively little skill and therefore can be mastered by just about anyone.
The key to seeing ongoing changes is to ensure you are progressing your training. With cardiovascular work there are two main areas you can progress, you can either go harder or longer. Whereas weights offer a little more scope for progression, although altering volume and intensity are both principal methods. Adding an extra set for example would be increasing volume, whereas increasing weight for fewer reps would be increasing the intensity. Where weights allow for more progression is in the almost endless variety of exercises you can select to target a specific outcome.
Whichever it is remember, it ain't what you do, but the way you progress it, that's what gets results.
So, before you go abandoning your running or weights routine, ask yourself those three questions first. Are you training hard enough, are you doing enough of it, and are you progressing it with each workout?
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
A great blast from the past....
A friend of mine recently posted a couple of videos from the great Jack Lalanne on his Facebook page and at Aegis we have all tried to figure out how - if this chap knew all this great stuff all those years ago - it all went so wrong? How did the public impression of 'healthy eating' get so distorted over the years with people thinking that a bowl of high sugar cereal is a great breakfast or that eggs cause your arteries to clog up?
We will be posting a few more videos from Jack Lalanne, and you can get over to his website at www.jacklalanne.com to see a whole lot more.
We hope you like it and remember, just because it is black and white and it may be old, it doesn't make it wrong. Watch and learn. Simple but really true advice from a bit of a legend in the fitness industry.
We will be posting a few more videos from Jack Lalanne, and you can get over to his website at www.jacklalanne.com to see a whole lot more.
We hope you like it and remember, just because it is black and white and it may be old, it doesn't make it wrong. Watch and learn. Simple but really true advice from a bit of a legend in the fitness industry.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Can exercise make you thin? Or maybe it can make you fat....?
Well of course, this would seem an absurd question to most of us, but not so it seems to John Cloud from Time Magazine in the US whose latest article has garnered all kinds of attention for it's rather tilted stance on the use of exercise as an adjunct to weight loss. Now, if we tried to correct every oversight or technicality on the internet we would be here all day, every day, but we couldn't let this one slide and here is why.
This reply was inspired by a friends somewhat desperate email to me about the article that appeared recently in Time magazine entitled Why Exercise won't make you thin'. My friend was horrified, all of a sudden she was counting her 'wasted hours' at the gym and spiraling into despair about what the hell she is actually meant to do to lose weight. I don't blame her, frankly the sheer volume of information on the internet is so vast it is hard to actually comprehend. Therefore, if you want to get your piece noticed then you have to have an angle, and John Cloud the author of the Time magazine piece certainly picked a good angle.
However, while he picked a good angle, his piece is a prime example of how to cherry pick research with strong selection biases (while Mr Cloud references the excellent Gary Taubes, I believe he might have missed the earlier chapters of Taubes book describing these) and glaring technical errors - even the old 'turn fat into muscle ' slipped into it. Of course, as this piece isn't a literature review and rather a more direct rebuttal, I have done similar and shown how easy it is to find research strongly contradicting this article.
On the first page of Mr Clouds article he quotes Eric Ravussin, Chair of Diabetes and Metabolism at Lousiana State university who comes out with a corker stating 'in general for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless' - nice one doc, but allow me to issue a rebuttal to that rather non-academic statement. You see first of all, the interpretation of that statement for the general public is that if someone wants to lose weight or is indeed overweight, then they shouldn't bother exercising. I disagree and I think that a review of literature tends to contradict Dr (?) Ravussin's statement.
In an academic review of available literature carried out in 2005 and published in the peer reviewed International journal of Obesity, Curioni and Lurenco (2005) stated that "diet associated with exercise weight loss produced a 20% greater effect than diet alone and 20% greater sustained weight loss after 1 year". So, score one for exercise. However, there is a more disturbing trend as highlighted in research from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association who found that although dieting alone produced results comparable with diet and exercise over the course of a year, those who didn't exercise were highly likely to regain their weight. This trend seems to be so evident in the research that it is a wonder anyone could reach the astounding conclusion that exercise might actually make you fatter, as Mr Cloud ventures in his article. It would in fact be easy to write an entire book simply full of reasons why you should exercise, particularly if you are trying to lose weight. For example, research has also found that adding resistance training to a diet intervention, while it made no significant difference to weight loss (wait for it...) did make a significant impact on the amount of lean muscle lost (Bryner at al 1999, Geliebtner et al 1997). It also found that in women between 35-50 (presumably a target market for this kind of piece) that exercise and physical activity can make a significant impact on metabolic rate (the amount of calories you burn to keep everything in the body ticking over nicely) and fat free mass (Gilliat-Wimberly et al 2001). It isn't just the girls either, guys too need to keep training, as if they maintain activity as they age then they also are able to maintain their metabolic rate (Van Pelt et al 2001), so in fact NOT exercising as Mr Cloud suggests would seem to be a recipe for gaining fat as you age rather than losing it.
There is no secret to this research, you can find it yourself, go to Google Scholar and type in 'exercise, weight loss, review' as a search term and most of these studies are near the top of the page. Much like weight loss itself, this isn't a complex thing to undertake, but it requires effort, time, patience, and a modicom of knowledge on where to go to get the right information.
Looking at the research I find Ravussins comments even more surprising, particularly from a chair of diabetes, given the strong ties between diabetes and insulin resistance and the overwhelming evidence to support exercise as an intervention in Type 2 or non-insulin dependent diabetes. Here is what the International Journal of Sports Medicine have to say on the matter "we conclude that physical training plays an important if not essential role in the treatment and prevention of insulin sensitivity" (emphasis added by this author) they also outline that the regulation of hepatic glucose output is improved by physical training, which is of particular benefit to NIDDM (Borqhouts & Keiser 2000). I could go on and indeed I will as i am unsure of Ravussins motivations for his comments, however, I will let the data and evidence speak for itself. Here is paraphrased (I'd love to have quoted the entire abstract but space is becoming a consideration) what the University of Texas had to say on the topic "the protective effects of physical exercise are strongest for those at highest risk of developing NIDDM, there are several important adaptations to exercise training that may be beneficial in the prevention and treatment of insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, and NIDDM" (Ivy 1997). I am not sure that the rather dismissive absolutism with which Ravussin states that exercise is 'pretty useless' does justice to his rather magniloquent title. Is this the message that he is sending his undergraduate students before they go out into the wide world of working with people with insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and NIDDM? Let us hope not.
Now, this is turning into a long article, but there are a couple more points to be made. Firstly, in a literature review, such as those referenced above you provide a critique of the evidence for and against. This rarely happens in journalistic articles for two reasons namely 1) it makes for rather dry reading (as I am sure you are finding) and 2) it doesn't give the 'quick fix' hook that the public are looking for and that sells magazines. I don't want to get into a diatribe here about what you should and should not do to lose weight, but merely try and provide some balance to the original article. Secondly, as we are in rebuttal territory of some of the quoted research in the Time article, a central theme is that exercising will encourage you to eat more and indeed to choose worse food choices. Again, a look at the literature doesn't tend to support this conclusion as Bellisle (1999) states in the Journal of Public Health "there is no scientific evidence that exercise increases appetite, but very intense exercise may suppress it transitorily" in contradiction to Mr cloud who suggests that 'intense' exercise will cause you to eat more. Bellisle goes on to point out (along with several other studies on the topic) that our social, psychological, and emotional habits all play a more significant role in how we go about selecting our food after exercising and in general, a sentiment echoed recently by Booth et al (2009) in the Nutrition Review Journal.
So, what should the take home message be for those of you still a little confused about what you should and should not be doing?
Well firstly, the benefits of a structured, progressive programme of exercise - including resistance training, not simply aerobic work - are so wide ranging and obvious that everyone should be encouraged to do it. While research on the specific effects of exercise as a weight loss modality may have proved underwhelming in some of the research (generally adding aerobic training to diets) for creating a strong additional effect, it is VERY evident that exercise plays a large role in keeping weight loss permanent and in creating long-term success. Pavlou et al (1989) concluded that dietary treatment alone had no effect at 18 month or 36 month periods and that all NON-exercise groups regained weight lost, in stark contrast to the exercise intervention where those who stuck at it managed to maintain weight lost. This is strong evidence indeed of the importance of exercise as part of a weight loss programme and another pretty firm nail in the coffin for naysayers such as Mr Cloud of Time Magazine. There is also good evidence that resistance training for example can play a strong role in the maintenance of fat free mass both in relation to dieting and ageing.
Of course though, results don't come by accident, they come through effort, but unfortunately it seems that our current trend is to go in search of the next quick fix solution rather than face the hard truth about what we need to do. This would explain why the public would love to read an article telling them exercise is a waste of time, I cannot imagine an article saying "weight loss takes work" would be anywhere near as popular. However, it would be a more truthful sentiment. The notion that 'walking home with the groceries' is 'just as effective' is laughable and in fact against all the long-established truths that exercise must be progressive and overload the body if it is to be successful.
As for Mr Cloud himself who has 'never been overweight' apparently, yet by his own admission has a gut that hangs over his belt? Well according to his article, his own 'intense' regime doesn't even leave him with enough energy to shop or cook, leaving him no choice but to go to Pizza Hut and do nothing whatsoever for the rest of the day. Indeed, he states that perhaps if he didn't train so hard, he might have the energy to take the stairs more often! He must certainly train hard if that is the case, harder than anyone I know, or could it be his lack of energy is linked to something other than his exercise, such as a lack of effort or education in how to eat correctly? Einstein first said that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same exercise over and over and to expect different results, a lesson Mr Cloud has yet to learn it would seem
Sure, you can't compensate for a terrible diet through a few sessions a week in the gym - although you can lessen the effects and improve other markers of fitness aside from weight, such as improving insulin sensitivity, increasing strength, improving mobility, and alleviating the effects of depression, to name but a few. Underneath all the hyperbole, this is the message that the article is trying to convey- that weight loss begins with good nutritional practices and can be enhanced through increasing overall activity levels, although the effectiveness of different types of exercise can be widely variable depending on a huge number of factors. However, the overall benefits of a structured exercise programme far outweigh any of the possible negatives, and the evidence doesn't concur with the original authors skewed perspective on it, nor does it account for his own personal failure to achieve the physique we presume he is after. The fact is that rather like Mr Cloud, many people undermine their efforts either through a lack of education or a lack of effort, some just don't train hard enough or often enough, while others place too much stock in the effect that 20 minutes of slow jogging is going to have on their weight loss. While it is true that heavier people already burn more calories simply through their weight - this cannot be compared to expending energy in a form that will actually stimulate adaptation and change within the body. There is a fundamental difference.
It would certainly seem to be putting the cart well before the horse to try and suggest that exercise is of no use in the efforts to help obesity and may even make people eat worse and get fatter? Last time I checked the global obesity crisis was not caused by over-exercising or by an epidemic of overeating and inactivity brought on by intense physical exercise. While the notion that you shouldn't be doing any exercise apart from walking the odd flight of stairs or carrying the shopping home may appeal to modern societies quick-fix nature, everything else in our evolution and in our sports science would scream that this is nothing more than journalistic quackery and hyperbole. My advice, if you want to know the truth about getting in shape, start by listening to someone who is, rather than someone who by their own admittance isn't.
References:
Booth et al (2009) Environmental and Societal Factors Affect Food Choice and Physical Activity: Rationale, Influences, and Leverage Points. Nutrition Reviews Volume 59 Issue 3, Pages S21 - S36
Bellisle (1999) Food choice, appetite and physical activity. Public Health Nutrition: 2(3a), 357 – 361
Blair (1993) Evidence for Success of Exercise in Weight Loss and Control. Ann Int Med. 1 October 119(7): 2, 702-706
Borqhouts & Keizer (2000) Exercise and insulin sensitivity : A review. International journal of sports medicine. 2000, vol. 21, no1, pp. 1-12 (130 ref.)
Bryner at al (1999) Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr;18(2):115-21.
Curioni & Lourenco (2005) Long-term weight loss after diet and exercise: a systematic review. International Journal of Obesity 29, 1168–1174.
Garrow & Summerbell (1995) Meta-analysis: effect of exercise, with or without dieting, on the body composition of overweight subjects. Eur-J-Clin-Nutr. 1995 Jan; 49(1): 1-10
Geliebtner et al (1997) Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Sep;66(3):557-63.
Ivy (1997) Role of exercise training in the prevention and treatment of insulin resistance and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Sports Med. 1997 Nov;24(5):321-36.
Pavlou et al (1989) Exercise as an adjunct to weight loss and maintenance in moderately obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 49(5): 1115
Skender at al (1996) Comparison of 2-Year Weight Loss Trends in Behavioral Treatments of Obesity: Diet, Exercise, and Combination Interventions. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996; 96:342-346.
Van Pelt et al (2001) Age-related decline in RMR in physically active men: relation to exercise volume and energy intake. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Sep;281(3):E633-9
Wallberg-Henriksson et al (1998) Exercise in the management of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Sports Med. 1998 Jan;25(1):25-35.
This reply was inspired by a friends somewhat desperate email to me about the article that appeared recently in Time magazine entitled Why Exercise won't make you thin'. My friend was horrified, all of a sudden she was counting her 'wasted hours' at the gym and spiraling into despair about what the hell she is actually meant to do to lose weight. I don't blame her, frankly the sheer volume of information on the internet is so vast it is hard to actually comprehend. Therefore, if you want to get your piece noticed then you have to have an angle, and John Cloud the author of the Time magazine piece certainly picked a good angle.
However, while he picked a good angle, his piece is a prime example of how to cherry pick research with strong selection biases (while Mr Cloud references the excellent Gary Taubes, I believe he might have missed the earlier chapters of Taubes book describing these) and glaring technical errors - even the old 'turn fat into muscle ' slipped into it. Of course, as this piece isn't a literature review and rather a more direct rebuttal, I have done similar and shown how easy it is to find research strongly contradicting this article.
On the first page of Mr Clouds article he quotes Eric Ravussin, Chair of Diabetes and Metabolism at Lousiana State university who comes out with a corker stating 'in general for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless' - nice one doc, but allow me to issue a rebuttal to that rather non-academic statement. You see first of all, the interpretation of that statement for the general public is that if someone wants to lose weight or is indeed overweight, then they shouldn't bother exercising. I disagree and I think that a review of literature tends to contradict Dr (?) Ravussin's statement.
In an academic review of available literature carried out in 2005 and published in the peer reviewed International journal of Obesity, Curioni and Lurenco (2005) stated that "diet associated with exercise weight loss produced a 20% greater effect than diet alone and 20% greater sustained weight loss after 1 year". So, score one for exercise. However, there is a more disturbing trend as highlighted in research from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association who found that although dieting alone produced results comparable with diet and exercise over the course of a year, those who didn't exercise were highly likely to regain their weight. This trend seems to be so evident in the research that it is a wonder anyone could reach the astounding conclusion that exercise might actually make you fatter, as Mr Cloud ventures in his article. It would in fact be easy to write an entire book simply full of reasons why you should exercise, particularly if you are trying to lose weight. For example, research has also found that adding resistance training to a diet intervention, while it made no significant difference to weight loss (wait for it...) did make a significant impact on the amount of lean muscle lost (Bryner at al 1999, Geliebtner et al 1997). It also found that in women between 35-50 (presumably a target market for this kind of piece) that exercise and physical activity can make a significant impact on metabolic rate (the amount of calories you burn to keep everything in the body ticking over nicely) and fat free mass (Gilliat-Wimberly et al 2001). It isn't just the girls either, guys too need to keep training, as if they maintain activity as they age then they also are able to maintain their metabolic rate (Van Pelt et al 2001), so in fact NOT exercising as Mr Cloud suggests would seem to be a recipe for gaining fat as you age rather than losing it.
There is no secret to this research, you can find it yourself, go to Google Scholar and type in 'exercise, weight loss, review' as a search term and most of these studies are near the top of the page. Much like weight loss itself, this isn't a complex thing to undertake, but it requires effort, time, patience, and a modicom of knowledge on where to go to get the right information.
Looking at the research I find Ravussins comments even more surprising, particularly from a chair of diabetes, given the strong ties between diabetes and insulin resistance and the overwhelming evidence to support exercise as an intervention in Type 2 or non-insulin dependent diabetes. Here is what the International Journal of Sports Medicine have to say on the matter "we conclude that physical training plays an important if not essential role in the treatment and prevention of insulin sensitivity" (emphasis added by this author) they also outline that the regulation of hepatic glucose output is improved by physical training, which is of particular benefit to NIDDM (Borqhouts & Keiser 2000). I could go on and indeed I will as i am unsure of Ravussins motivations for his comments, however, I will let the data and evidence speak for itself. Here is paraphrased (I'd love to have quoted the entire abstract but space is becoming a consideration) what the University of Texas had to say on the topic "the protective effects of physical exercise are strongest for those at highest risk of developing NIDDM, there are several important adaptations to exercise training that may be beneficial in the prevention and treatment of insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, and NIDDM" (Ivy 1997). I am not sure that the rather dismissive absolutism with which Ravussin states that exercise is 'pretty useless' does justice to his rather magniloquent title. Is this the message that he is sending his undergraduate students before they go out into the wide world of working with people with insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and NIDDM? Let us hope not.
Now, this is turning into a long article, but there are a couple more points to be made. Firstly, in a literature review, such as those referenced above you provide a critique of the evidence for and against. This rarely happens in journalistic articles for two reasons namely 1) it makes for rather dry reading (as I am sure you are finding) and 2) it doesn't give the 'quick fix' hook that the public are looking for and that sells magazines. I don't want to get into a diatribe here about what you should and should not do to lose weight, but merely try and provide some balance to the original article. Secondly, as we are in rebuttal territory of some of the quoted research in the Time article, a central theme is that exercising will encourage you to eat more and indeed to choose worse food choices. Again, a look at the literature doesn't tend to support this conclusion as Bellisle (1999) states in the Journal of Public Health "there is no scientific evidence that exercise increases appetite, but very intense exercise may suppress it transitorily" in contradiction to Mr cloud who suggests that 'intense' exercise will cause you to eat more. Bellisle goes on to point out (along with several other studies on the topic) that our social, psychological, and emotional habits all play a more significant role in how we go about selecting our food after exercising and in general, a sentiment echoed recently by Booth et al (2009) in the Nutrition Review Journal.
So, what should the take home message be for those of you still a little confused about what you should and should not be doing?
Well firstly, the benefits of a structured, progressive programme of exercise - including resistance training, not simply aerobic work - are so wide ranging and obvious that everyone should be encouraged to do it. While research on the specific effects of exercise as a weight loss modality may have proved underwhelming in some of the research (generally adding aerobic training to diets) for creating a strong additional effect, it is VERY evident that exercise plays a large role in keeping weight loss permanent and in creating long-term success. Pavlou et al (1989) concluded that dietary treatment alone had no effect at 18 month or 36 month periods and that all NON-exercise groups regained weight lost, in stark contrast to the exercise intervention where those who stuck at it managed to maintain weight lost. This is strong evidence indeed of the importance of exercise as part of a weight loss programme and another pretty firm nail in the coffin for naysayers such as Mr Cloud of Time Magazine. There is also good evidence that resistance training for example can play a strong role in the maintenance of fat free mass both in relation to dieting and ageing.
Of course though, results don't come by accident, they come through effort, but unfortunately it seems that our current trend is to go in search of the next quick fix solution rather than face the hard truth about what we need to do. This would explain why the public would love to read an article telling them exercise is a waste of time, I cannot imagine an article saying "weight loss takes work" would be anywhere near as popular. However, it would be a more truthful sentiment. The notion that 'walking home with the groceries' is 'just as effective' is laughable and in fact against all the long-established truths that exercise must be progressive and overload the body if it is to be successful.
As for Mr Cloud himself who has 'never been overweight' apparently, yet by his own admission has a gut that hangs over his belt? Well according to his article, his own 'intense' regime doesn't even leave him with enough energy to shop or cook, leaving him no choice but to go to Pizza Hut and do nothing whatsoever for the rest of the day. Indeed, he states that perhaps if he didn't train so hard, he might have the energy to take the stairs more often! He must certainly train hard if that is the case, harder than anyone I know, or could it be his lack of energy is linked to something other than his exercise, such as a lack of effort or education in how to eat correctly? Einstein first said that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same exercise over and over and to expect different results, a lesson Mr Cloud has yet to learn it would seem
Sure, you can't compensate for a terrible diet through a few sessions a week in the gym - although you can lessen the effects and improve other markers of fitness aside from weight, such as improving insulin sensitivity, increasing strength, improving mobility, and alleviating the effects of depression, to name but a few. Underneath all the hyperbole, this is the message that the article is trying to convey- that weight loss begins with good nutritional practices and can be enhanced through increasing overall activity levels, although the effectiveness of different types of exercise can be widely variable depending on a huge number of factors. However, the overall benefits of a structured exercise programme far outweigh any of the possible negatives, and the evidence doesn't concur with the original authors skewed perspective on it, nor does it account for his own personal failure to achieve the physique we presume he is after. The fact is that rather like Mr Cloud, many people undermine their efforts either through a lack of education or a lack of effort, some just don't train hard enough or often enough, while others place too much stock in the effect that 20 minutes of slow jogging is going to have on their weight loss. While it is true that heavier people already burn more calories simply through their weight - this cannot be compared to expending energy in a form that will actually stimulate adaptation and change within the body. There is a fundamental difference.
It would certainly seem to be putting the cart well before the horse to try and suggest that exercise is of no use in the efforts to help obesity and may even make people eat worse and get fatter? Last time I checked the global obesity crisis was not caused by over-exercising or by an epidemic of overeating and inactivity brought on by intense physical exercise. While the notion that you shouldn't be doing any exercise apart from walking the odd flight of stairs or carrying the shopping home may appeal to modern societies quick-fix nature, everything else in our evolution and in our sports science would scream that this is nothing more than journalistic quackery and hyperbole. My advice, if you want to know the truth about getting in shape, start by listening to someone who is, rather than someone who by their own admittance isn't.
References:
Booth et al (2009) Environmental and Societal Factors Affect Food Choice and Physical Activity: Rationale, Influences, and Leverage Points. Nutrition Reviews Volume 59 Issue 3, Pages S21 - S36
Bellisle (1999) Food choice, appetite and physical activity. Public Health Nutrition: 2(3a), 357 – 361
Blair (1993) Evidence for Success of Exercise in Weight Loss and Control. Ann Int Med. 1 October 119(7): 2, 702-706
Borqhouts & Keizer (2000) Exercise and insulin sensitivity : A review. International journal of sports medicine. 2000, vol. 21, no1, pp. 1-12 (130 ref.)
Bryner at al (1999) Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr;18(2):115-21.
Curioni & Lourenco (2005) Long-term weight loss after diet and exercise: a systematic review. International Journal of Obesity 29, 1168–1174.
Garrow & Summerbell (1995) Meta-analysis: effect of exercise, with or without dieting, on the body composition of overweight subjects. Eur-J-Clin-Nutr. 1995 Jan; 49(1): 1-10
Geliebtner et al (1997) Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Sep;66(3):557-63.
Ivy (1997) Role of exercise training in the prevention and treatment of insulin resistance and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Sports Med. 1997 Nov;24(5):321-36.
Pavlou et al (1989) Exercise as an adjunct to weight loss and maintenance in moderately obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 49(5): 1115
Skender at al (1996) Comparison of 2-Year Weight Loss Trends in Behavioral Treatments of Obesity: Diet, Exercise, and Combination Interventions. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996; 96:342-346.
Van Pelt et al (2001) Age-related decline in RMR in physically active men: relation to exercise volume and energy intake. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Sep;281(3):E633-9
Wallberg-Henriksson et al (1998) Exercise in the management of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Sports Med. 1998 Jan;25(1):25-35.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Orthorexia
This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/16/orthorexia-mental-health-eating-disorder
It seems orthorexia, defined as an obsession with eating healthily and "righteously", is on the increase. More and more people are planning meals in advance, becoming concerned with the types of food they put in their bodies and how it is produced, and deriving satisfaction from the act of eating better food. Oh, and this is a bad thing. In all seriousness, the article is reasonably balanced and I can certainly see how overly obsessive behaviour around food to the point that it causes you severe psychological stress if you miss a serving of chicken breast could be seen as unusual. Also, if you follow a stupid diet in the mistaken belief that it is a better way, you can become malnourished. But where is the line between healthy habits and an eating disorder? Well you can self test here to find out! http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.02.01/eating3-0131.html
Well, if you read that and answered yes to 2 or 3 questions, meaning you have "a touch of orthorexia", don't feel too bad. I did too, along with pretty much anyone else who has ever been in better than average shape. Along with every athlete. Brace yourself; getting in great shape requires some level of focus and planning around what you eat.
When I first began to take in interest in nutrition for the purposes of gaining muscle and getting stronger I experienced some resistance from friends and family; the usual unfounded worries about about excess protein and a general feeling that creatine and steroids are one and the same. But more than this, there was just a certain amount of plain hostility about the fact that I wanted to eat better food. Some people were threatened or perhaps offended by it. It happens.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it "socially isolated me", but it definitely caused some friction and caused me some stress. Until I realised it wasn't really my problem. I think that's the point really, restricting your food intake to the point of malnourishment and ceasing all socialising to focus on your diet is a form of disorder, and that's your problem. But if people don't like me eating better than them, or feel threatened or guilty because they know their diet is crap, then that's their problem.
It seems orthorexia, defined as an obsession with eating healthily and "righteously", is on the increase. More and more people are planning meals in advance, becoming concerned with the types of food they put in their bodies and how it is produced, and deriving satisfaction from the act of eating better food. Oh, and this is a bad thing. In all seriousness, the article is reasonably balanced and I can certainly see how overly obsessive behaviour around food to the point that it causes you severe psychological stress if you miss a serving of chicken breast could be seen as unusual. Also, if you follow a stupid diet in the mistaken belief that it is a better way, you can become malnourished. But where is the line between healthy habits and an eating disorder? Well you can self test here to find out! http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.02.01/eating3-0131.html
Well, if you read that and answered yes to 2 or 3 questions, meaning you have "a touch of orthorexia", don't feel too bad. I did too, along with pretty much anyone else who has ever been in better than average shape. Along with every athlete. Brace yourself; getting in great shape requires some level of focus and planning around what you eat.
When I first began to take in interest in nutrition for the purposes of gaining muscle and getting stronger I experienced some resistance from friends and family; the usual unfounded worries about about excess protein and a general feeling that creatine and steroids are one and the same. But more than this, there was just a certain amount of plain hostility about the fact that I wanted to eat better food. Some people were threatened or perhaps offended by it. It happens.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it "socially isolated me", but it definitely caused some friction and caused me some stress. Until I realised it wasn't really my problem. I think that's the point really, restricting your food intake to the point of malnourishment and ceasing all socialising to focus on your diet is a form of disorder, and that's your problem. But if people don't like me eating better than them, or feel threatened or guilty because they know their diet is crap, then that's their problem.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Aegis makes it back into Time Out
Well we still don't know how they found out about us, but we are delighted nonetheless to have made it back into the Time Out list of London's best gyms and fitness centres. We are especially pleased as this year it is a slimline list with only eight venues selected from central London. You can check out the page on London's best fitness centres here.
It is really pleasing for us to see our name alongside such large established venues like The Third Space and Gymbox, and refreshing to know that we are able to continue offering something that can compete with them. Of course, we always have and continue to believe that we offer something unique within London. A private gym with tons of space, natural light, plenty of equipment, a passionate and enthusiastic team, no contracts or joining fees, a great location, and high quality personal training starting from as low as £25 per session. So, we very much hope we can continue to reflect that in our clients and our results.
As readers of our newsletter will know, we are also only weeks away from finally getting the new website online, along with new pictures of the gym and a simple, easy to follow guide to our services and products. Our 30 minute training sessions continue to be popular and we still have a few slots available in off-peak times for those of you who find it hard to fit one hour training sessions into your busy days.
We even keep trying to get hold of the Time Out team to invite them to come and train with us one day here at the gym, but so far we haven't heard back (could it be that the tyre flipping and sledgehammers are scaring them off!!!???), so if they are reading please email London personal trainers and we will get your team down for some training.
It is really pleasing for us to see our name alongside such large established venues like The Third Space and Gymbox, and refreshing to know that we are able to continue offering something that can compete with them. Of course, we always have and continue to believe that we offer something unique within London. A private gym with tons of space, natural light, plenty of equipment, a passionate and enthusiastic team, no contracts or joining fees, a great location, and high quality personal training starting from as low as £25 per session. So, we very much hope we can continue to reflect that in our clients and our results.
As readers of our newsletter will know, we are also only weeks away from finally getting the new website online, along with new pictures of the gym and a simple, easy to follow guide to our services and products. Our 30 minute training sessions continue to be popular and we still have a few slots available in off-peak times for those of you who find it hard to fit one hour training sessions into your busy days.
We even keep trying to get hold of the Time Out team to invite them to come and train with us one day here at the gym, but so far we haven't heard back (could it be that the tyre flipping and sledgehammers are scaring them off!!!???), so if they are reading please email London personal trainers and we will get your team down for some training.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Madonna's Veiny Arms
Oh here we go again. You spend your working life explaining to women that weight training is massively beneficial to their health and effective for fat loss, then the Metro print a picture of Madonna looking like an anatomy chart with veiny *ahem*.. "bulging" biceps, complete with comments from a "celebrity personal trainer" admonishing her to cut out weight training and just do Yoga and Pilates (not wanting to put another trainer down I'll assume he was taken out of context to fit the tone of the article.) Excuse me while I stab myself in the eyes.
How many women are now going to be put off weight training by this picture and accompanying article?
Perhaps I've missed something but wasn't Madonna basically the poster girl for yoga, claiming at one point to practice it for hours every day? And didn't she train with that other "celebrity trainer" Tracy Anderson, the person who once brilliantly decreed that women should never lift more than 3lbs ? (careful never to buy more than two bags of sugar at once there ladies, you'll get bulging biceps just from carrying them home!) I have no idea what kind of exercise Madonna actually does (neither does the journalist writing the article or the trainer commenting on it) but the premise that she is performing too much heavy weight training and needs to do MORE yoga is, I feel, basically crap.
The fact is Madonna is not even particularly muscular, she simply has very low body fat , probably due to her alleged macrobiotic eating habits and a very active lifestyle given that she is dancing round on a stage for hours every night. A woman with the same amount of muscle mass and a normal body fat percentage would look the toned, athletic picture of health.
The blanket recommendation of Yoga and Pilates over weight training is moronic, and is symptomatic of the general demonisation of weight training that has existed for years amongst people who are ignorant of exercise physiology (again, I have no idea what the trainer actually said and don't wish to attack him personally, only the message of the article.) Perpetuating this rubbish helps nobody.
Madonna's physique and training regime has precisely zero relevance to anybody actually reading the article, the vast majority of whom don't even perform enough physical activity to preserve the muscle mass they have, let alone build massive biceps. Just because some celebrity looks a bit freakish doesn't mean you need to avoid weight training altogether for fear of turning into Mr Universe overnight. Trust me folks; it's not that easy! (if it was my biceps would be 26 inches instead of just 25.)
Weight training as part of a properly devised exercise program is one of the most positive steps you can take toward staying lean and healthy for life. Don't let any media boneheads or "Celebrity Personal Trainers" tell you other wise. Rant over.
How many women are now going to be put off weight training by this picture and accompanying article?
Perhaps I've missed something but wasn't Madonna basically the poster girl for yoga, claiming at one point to practice it for hours every day? And didn't she train with that other "celebrity trainer" Tracy Anderson, the person who once brilliantly decreed that women should never lift more than 3lbs ? (careful never to buy more than two bags of sugar at once there ladies, you'll get bulging biceps just from carrying them home!) I have no idea what kind of exercise Madonna actually does (neither does the journalist writing the article or the trainer commenting on it) but the premise that she is performing too much heavy weight training and needs to do MORE yoga is, I feel, basically crap.
The fact is Madonna is not even particularly muscular, she simply has very low body fat , probably due to her alleged macrobiotic eating habits and a very active lifestyle given that she is dancing round on a stage for hours every night. A woman with the same amount of muscle mass and a normal body fat percentage would look the toned, athletic picture of health.
The blanket recommendation of Yoga and Pilates over weight training is moronic, and is symptomatic of the general demonisation of weight training that has existed for years amongst people who are ignorant of exercise physiology (again, I have no idea what the trainer actually said and don't wish to attack him personally, only the message of the article.) Perpetuating this rubbish helps nobody.
Madonna's physique and training regime has precisely zero relevance to anybody actually reading the article, the vast majority of whom don't even perform enough physical activity to preserve the muscle mass they have, let alone build massive biceps. Just because some celebrity looks a bit freakish doesn't mean you need to avoid weight training altogether for fear of turning into Mr Universe overnight. Trust me folks; it's not that easy! (if it was my biceps would be 26 inches instead of just 25.)
Weight training as part of a properly devised exercise program is one of the most positive steps you can take toward staying lean and healthy for life. Don't let any media boneheads or "Celebrity Personal Trainers" tell you other wise. Rant over.
Fat Loss Mistakes Part 3
4. Not being honest with yourself.
Okay, if I had a fiver for every time someone has asked me how they should be eating to lose their spare tyre and then followed it with the caveat “I have a good diet, I only eat fish and vegetables” then I’d have at least £500, probably more. Please, don’t tell me one thing, when your body tells me a different story. You’re not just lying to me, you are lying to yourself and until you start being honest with yourself then you are not going to shift that weight. If you don’t play by the rules then you won’t get the results. Once you pick a programme or a diet that ticks your boxes you MUST stick to it. Doing something 70% will not give you 100% of the results. So, it means you must be disciplined and honest with yourself about what you can achieve.
For example, I am a known fan of ‘low-carbohydrate diets’ but this can mean a lot of different things, there is a world of difference between the ketogenic diet and the protein power diet for example, even though both are ‘low-carb’. Here is a little rule for you, the more extreme the diet approach, the harder it is to follow and the easier it is to get completely wrong. An interesting study carried out at Stanford in the USA found that when put on a low-carb diet or a low-fat diet over the course of a year those who were ‘low-carb’ (following Atkins) tended to increase their carb intake, while those who were ‘low-fat/high carb’ (following the Ornish diet) tended to reduce their carbs. Interesting, how both groups found long-term reduction of an entire food group to be a challenge. As an aside, during that study, the Atkins group however maintained a higher healthy fat intake and were yet the only group (the study also compared Zone and LEARN national recommended diet) to see reductions in triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, with improvements in HDL levels and favourable changes in blood pressure. A stinging blow for all those dieticians out there who STILL insist on vilifying anyone who attempts to suggest that we should focus our efforts on reducing the refined carbohydrate intake of the population.
However, I digress from the original motto of this little story and in true Ronnie Corbett fashion will adjust my glasses, sit back, and continue. The real fact is that people often don’t want to hear that losing fat is hard work, a lot harder than gaining it was actually. When they are new to exercise they often are reluctant to push themselves out of their comfort zone, instead opting for dumbbells the weight of toothpicks (wouldn’t want to bulk up after all!!!) and fifteen minutes in the fat-burning zone (see more below). Listen folks, it is simple, if you want to get strong then you have to pick up something heavy, if you want to get fitter then you have to get that heart rate up well above it’s normal daily level, and if you want to lose bodyfat you have to put some serious effort into how you eat and how you train. Anyone who tells you any different is either a liar or a salesperson, or both.
Okay, if I had a fiver for every time someone has asked me how they should be eating to lose their spare tyre and then followed it with the caveat “I have a good diet, I only eat fish and vegetables” then I’d have at least £500, probably more. Please, don’t tell me one thing, when your body tells me a different story. You’re not just lying to me, you are lying to yourself and until you start being honest with yourself then you are not going to shift that weight. If you don’t play by the rules then you won’t get the results. Once you pick a programme or a diet that ticks your boxes you MUST stick to it. Doing something 70% will not give you 100% of the results. So, it means you must be disciplined and honest with yourself about what you can achieve.
For example, I am a known fan of ‘low-carbohydrate diets’ but this can mean a lot of different things, there is a world of difference between the ketogenic diet and the protein power diet for example, even though both are ‘low-carb’. Here is a little rule for you, the more extreme the diet approach, the harder it is to follow and the easier it is to get completely wrong. An interesting study carried out at Stanford in the USA found that when put on a low-carb diet or a low-fat diet over the course of a year those who were ‘low-carb’ (following Atkins) tended to increase their carb intake, while those who were ‘low-fat/high carb’ (following the Ornish diet) tended to reduce their carbs. Interesting, how both groups found long-term reduction of an entire food group to be a challenge. As an aside, during that study, the Atkins group however maintained a higher healthy fat intake and were yet the only group (the study also compared Zone and LEARN national recommended diet) to see reductions in triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, with improvements in HDL levels and favourable changes in blood pressure. A stinging blow for all those dieticians out there who STILL insist on vilifying anyone who attempts to suggest that we should focus our efforts on reducing the refined carbohydrate intake of the population.
However, I digress from the original motto of this little story and in true Ronnie Corbett fashion will adjust my glasses, sit back, and continue. The real fact is that people often don’t want to hear that losing fat is hard work, a lot harder than gaining it was actually. When they are new to exercise they often are reluctant to push themselves out of their comfort zone, instead opting for dumbbells the weight of toothpicks (wouldn’t want to bulk up after all!!!) and fifteen minutes in the fat-burning zone (see more below). Listen folks, it is simple, if you want to get strong then you have to pick up something heavy, if you want to get fitter then you have to get that heart rate up well above it’s normal daily level, and if you want to lose bodyfat you have to put some serious effort into how you eat and how you train. Anyone who tells you any different is either a liar or a salesperson, or both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
