You hear it all the time: "Train in your aerobic zone to maximize fat burning." Training in your aerobic zone means exerting effort so your heart rate is maintained between 60% to 80% of maximum (depending on who you read) for an extended period of time (i.e., 45 minutes of steady state of exercise on a treadmill, elliptical, road-run, etc.). The question is this: is this the best exercise prescription if you're attempting to shed body fat?

Let's take a look at the facts.

On one end of the energy-demand continuum you have sleeping/lying down. This is pure aerobic (with oxygen) and fueled by body fat only. On the other end you have maximal exertion such as sprinting/intense strength training. This is anaerobic (without oxygen) and fueled primarily by immediate stores of ATP, then stored muscle glycogen and circulating blood glucose (blood sugar).
Doing absolutely nothing (i.e., sleeping - the essence of "aerobic") burns very little fat since the energy demands of sleeping is minimal and your body has virtually an unlimited supply of fat. As you increase intensity of effort, the substrate for energy demand shifts to immediate stores (ATP) and eventually muscle glycogen and blood glucose because the muscles do not have time to "aerobically" metabolize fat.

This is where confusion arises: training "aerobically" does burn a greater proportion of body fat, but due to the aforementioned facts, not a whole lot. Stepping up the intensity taps more of the "anaerobic" sources (immediate ATP, muscle glycogen and circulating blood glucose), so it is assumed that working at a higher intensity is not appropriate for targeting body fat stores. Hmmm, makes sense, right?

Not exactly!

The key to fat loss is creating a huge energy-output surplus so stored adipose fats (i.e., mid-section, triceps (women) and buttocks) are tapped to supply energy IN THE RECOVERY PROCESS. That is, working at a high level of intensity uses immediate ATP stores, muscle glycogen, blood glucose and intra-muscular fat stores (yes, fat is available within muscle) - but due to the high-demand exercise the adipose sites are visited during the post-workout recovery period in order to facilitate complete recovery and energy replenishment. E.P.O.C. = Exercise Post-Oxygen Consumption. Look it up.

A number of studies have been performed relative to the above. Check this one out: http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM

Time-efficient examples (much better than 45+ minutes workout at a steady-state):

:30 work/:15 rest x 20 minutes.
:20 work/:10 rest x 15 minutes.
1:00 work/:30 res x 25 minutes.
:45 work/:20 rest x 10 minutes.

The bottom line: Exercising at low intensity and steady state and for an extended period (i.e., treadmill walking for 45 minutes) does burn some calories, but performing high-intensity interval training (i.e., bust your butt for :30, rest :15, repeat x 20 minutes) actually uses more energy - and thus ultimately more stored body fat (all other factors being equal) -- in less the time as compared to conventional steady state exercise options.

Take home message: to shed body fat, train as hard as you can in 20 minutes rather than easing up and training for 45+ minutes.

1/2 stick of butter (4 oz.) = 405 calories.  You're thinking..."an awful choice of food...it's all fat."  

1 cup of homemade granola (4.3 oz.) = 598 calories.  You're thinking..."a much healthier option...low-fat, good carbs."

More people would be inclined to consume the cup of granola over a 1/2 stick of butter. 

Do the math.

Could SOMEONE PLEASE explain the physiological mechanisms of adaptation and/or the proven science behind these Yoga maneuvers that supposedly "Sculpt a Sexy Stomach?"

http://www.self.com/fitness/workouts/2010/06/yoga-for-abs-workout-slideshow?mbid=synd_yshine#slide=1

A few issues:

(1) The Stomach is an internal organ, part of the digestive system.  I have never seen one (let alone a sexy one) other than in photos.  The only way to truly determine what level of "sexiness" the Stomach organ has would be to consult a surgeon who specializes in gastric bypass procedures.  They have seen them "up close and personal."  I really doubt that many find the Stomach a turn-on.

(2) HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS: ONE CANNOT SPOT-REDUCE ABDOMINAL FAT BY DOING A LONG LIST OF ABDOMINAL MUSCLE-TARGETING EXERCISES!!!!!!!!!!  WAKE UP, PEOPLE!  TO GET A "FLAT STOMACH" ONE NEEDS TO (a) EAT PROPERLY AND (b) GET OFF THEIR YOGA MAT AND PERFORM GREATER CALORIE-BURNING EXERCISE, WHICH YOGA IS NOT (that fact is well-documented...look it up).  If you want to spend time doing Yoga to relieve stress, fine, but you are a complete card-carrying moron if you opt for it as a path to a "sexy Stomach."

(3) For an older man, I have well-developed ABDOMINAL muscles, obtained by routinely performing a MINIMAL number of direct abdominal strength training exercises AND other exercises for the entire body.  I do not have an extremely "flat stomach" due to the fact I have some abdominal FAT covering my abdominal muscles (thanks to an un-strict diet, living in the U.S.A., being a bit undisciplined, and not performing a significant amount of high-demand (intense) exercise beyond my strength training sessions). 

(4) If my goal was flatness and sexiness in my abdominal area, what would be the best option?
     (a) Yoga.
     (b) Addressing my diet (the BIGGEST factor) and engaging in more frequent, higher-calorie
          demand exercise.

How many memberships could you sell here? 

A row of 15 Versa Climbers on the right...no televisions, no reading material, no earphone jacks. 
RULE: Once on the climber, you cannot get off until a minimum of 1,500 feet are climbed.  
WORKOUT SUPERVISOR: Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens.


A line of strength training equipment on the left set up to address all muscle groups in a circuit fashion. 
RULE: You only get 20 minutes to train...no long rest breaks, all sets to momentary muscular fatigue, you must do a multi-joint leg exercise.
WORKOUT SUPERVISOR: The Grim Reaper.

Other amenities: a drinking fountain, plenty of trash cans with liners and 70's & 80's rock music for your listening pleasure.

.
It has come to the point that I detest these: Lamb (tastes like sheep smell...I am from Iowa), Brussels Sprouts and people who attempt to exercise by walking on a treadmill for 45+ minutes.  Forget the food dislikes, the treadmill issue is perplexing.  I see it every day: Set the console to a low-level speed, stick in the ear buds or open a magazine and start plodding away.  Ultimately, maybe 300 calories were used (4 x chocolate chip cookies, 2 oz. of potato chips, 24 oz. of Monster energy drink).  They depart, satisfied.  Think about it: if you commit to going to the gym to exercise, don't you want to get the most from the time you spend there?  Rather than doing the 45+ minute low-level endeavor, try a more time-efficient, higher calorie-using, greater intensity protocol: :30 hard effort / :30 easy; or 1:00 hard effort / :30 easy for 15 - 20 minutes (400 calories at 7:00 mile/running pace).  Better results in less than one half the time!  Remember, the harder you work, the less time you need to spend exercising. 

Remember, jogging/running is a single-support endeavor (one leg is taking all the force each stride).  Your joints have to deal with that THOUSANDS of times when you "go for a jog/run" to burn calories.  Because of the constant extreme forces exerted, injuries can occur. 

Now, if you love to run, then go for it. Similarly, if you love to sky-dive, rock climb, swim, bike, cliff dive, etc., then have at it but understand the risks. 

If you want to maximize calorie usage in exercise, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RUN!  Strength train in circuit fashion, get on a Versa Climber and climb (low impact) 2000 feet, walk with alacrity up and down a steep hill for dozens of repetitions, or do any low-impact activity that is demanding.  More importantly, monitor your nutritional intake so you take in an appropriate number and type of calories.  That is 80% of the weight loss effort.

You cannot out-exercise a bad diet.

What is the proven science supporting this display?  That is, what specific benefit can be derived based on the known principles of exercise physiology and motor learning?  Provided one did this for an extended period of time -- thus elevating the heart rate -- a conditioning effect could be gleaned.  Other than that, it violates all other known exercise principles.  That stated, there are safer means by which to create a conditioning effect.  We now live in a world where anything goes as long as it is different, in-line with the latest trends and "functional" according to the present-day thinking.

Food manufacturers have commendeered our brains with three substances: sugar, fat and salt.  Put them all together and it is like a Mardi Gras parade.  Bring on the Leptin!

http://www.cbass.com/ExerciseCurbsAppetite.htm

> If it comes out of the ground and not processed, eat it.

> Water...it is free, plentiful and good for you.

> Find a hill and walk/run up and down it until you are tired, then do some more.

> Go to the gym and do one upper body pushing, one upper body pulling and one multi-
   joint lower body exercise for 3 rounds of as many repetitions you can do.

> No equipment?  push ups x max reps --> pull ups x max reps --> burpees x 10 --> walking
   lunges x 15 each leg...3-4 for rounds.  Done in fifteen minutes.

> 4 to 5 meals/day consisting of a fruit or vegetable, chicken breast/tuna/beans & H2O or
   skim milk.

> Work in a tall building?  Walk up and down the stairs for 10 to 20 minutes during the
   lunch hour.

> Sit at a desk all day?  Every hour, do 20 squats, max push ups and 20 bent-over rows with
   an object.

> Walk or cycle to work...or park your car far away from your workplace.

> Wear a weighted vest under your clothes all day long.  Dealing with the extra resistance
   will burn more calories.

I am no longer shocked by all the exercises, devices and purported newly-discovered programs that address the elusive health/fitness goals we desire, especially muscle development.  It is inevitable...we have more people roaming the Blue Marble (and needing to create a niche for themselves), the proliferation of the Internet, mega-television channels/infomercials and a vast amount of health/fitness magazines available in book stores and magazine racks at the grocery store.  It has created senseless confusion and wasted efforts (not to be confused with "muscle confusion" that is a recent concept).  Sadly, it is getting worse.  It is time to cut to the quick on some welcomed and refreshing facts:

MUSCLE tissue is metabolically active!  Build it and you will 1) become stronger and 2) burn more calories...male or female.  Gals, you are not going to grow huge muscles and look like a man.  You have a different plumbing system than men.  Guys, the average man has to bust his butt to grow even nominal amounts of muscle tissue.  Either way, you better work your butt off or you will get soft and lose your potential to burn more calories.  It is not rocket science...basic strength training principles work.

The whole "cardio" thing?  It is MUSCLE that moves the body, so work them hard to challenge and stress them...and guess what?  You will stress your heart-vascular system!  Better to do a demanding 20 minute workout than a low-level 50 minute walk in the park.  An upside...you will have 30 more minutes to apply to something else.

MUSCLE gives you shape, "tone", a "fit" look and confidence.  Hit the weight room as opposed to doing an easy, non-demanding workout in an aerobics class or on treadmill while watching Oprah.

Building or maintaining MUSCLE also strengthens and fortifies the skeletal joints.  This can safeguard against potential injury that may occur while doing everything from getting out of your car, playing with your kids or competing in a weekend softball tournament.

MUSCLE is sexy...fat is not.  Do the math.

Way too many health risks can be related to an over-abundance of adipose (fat) tissue.  Can’t think of any when you have more MUSCLE.
  

1. No equipment required: front to backs.  Get down on the floor and touch your chest to the floor - stand up - get down on the floor and touch your shoulder blades to the floor, then repeat.  Do this for 3:00 continuously - rest 1:00 - then repeat for 4 more rounds.  Total workout time = 20:00.

2. Run in place x 1:00, push ups x 1:00, body-weight squats x 1:00, ground pull ups x 1:00.  Rest :30 and repeat the sequence two more times.  Total workout time = 15:00. 

Which one of these three exercise prescriptions would give you the best chance of losing abdominal body fat? (all sets being challenging)


A) 3 x 50 sit ups

B) 6 x 30 sit ups
 
C) 2 x 20 squats or leg presses
 
Answer: C

You cannot spot-reduce body fat and sit ups do not have a high energy demand.  The squats or leg presses involve more muscle mass (higher energy demand), thus -- all other factors being equal -- they would be the best option.  Now, go out and waste your money on the latest abdominal gadget advertised on some obscure television channel.  

Do the math:  30 minutes of interval-type training (e.g., 1:00 of all-out effort & :30 of rest)...working at a pace equivalent of running a 7:00 mile for a 150 lb. person burns approximately 500 calories as compared to 60 minutes of steady-state training (e.g., low-level, continuous work) at a pace of 12:00/mile for a 150 lb. person (576 calories).

To maximize time-efficiency and calorie-burning, WORK HARDER and shorten the length of your workouts.  

Article beginning on page 12...STRONG FOUNDATION (lower body training).  Other than the comments by Jason Gallucci and Mike Boyle, someone PLEASE make sense of the other input: little substance, replete with buzzwords, vague, and confusing.  Whatever happened to training that is simple, measureable, and realisitic?

http://www.training-conditioning.com/2010/10/24/strong_foundation/index.php)

Want an effective "cardio" workout?  Get on a Versa Climber and do a Tabata protocol (:20 on - :10 off) for 10 minutes.  If that is too nasty, go :30 on - :30 off for 15 minutes.  Either way, it's a short and sweet workout that is time-efficient.

Was listening to ESPN Radio the other day and they were discussing a certain quarterback from a BCS school who was supposedly using "too much arm and not enough core" when passing.  Come on...are you serious?  The act of throwing a football engages the legs (HUGE force producer), the hips, the torso, the shoulder, the arms...EVERYTHING is involved in the action.  To somehow conclude that the "core" was not engaging properly is ridiculous.  The lad plays for a top 25 school!  And by the way, what muscles actually make up the "core"?  Too many opinions out there on that.  Either way, it is hard to believe that whatever muscles constitute the "core", they were supposedly not working enough. How did they measure that?

Strength Training!