I’ll let you in a little secret the diet companies absolutely do not want you to know: the bottom line is, it doesn’t matter what diet plan you follow! Take just about any diet plan, figure out the calories in one of their typical meal plans and chances are you’ll see a daily calorie count of around 1400 – 1800 calories for women and around 1800 – 2100 calories for men. That creates a nice moderate calorie deficit to lose weight for just about anybody.

» Click here to read more

Okay, before we start with the blueprint, I want everybody to keep this in mind: it’s not “weight” you want to lose, but “fat.” Everybody calls it “weight loss,” but, believe me, you don’t want to be losing muscle in your quest for a thinner body. I’ll be using terms like weight loss and lose weight, but I really mean “fat loss” and “losing fat.”

What I’ve got for you is a 5 step “blueprint” to lose weight by counting calories, covering how many calories you should eat in a day to lose to carb/protein/fat ratios, and more.

If you grab a pen and a piece of paper to write down numbers as you read along, you’ll have a calorie counting plan by the end of it all.

» Click here to read more

is a natural bodybuilder, certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) and a certified personal trainer (CPT). I’ve learned so much from Tom through is e-book, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. No hype, no gimmicks — Tom shoots straight from the hip, and tells you the truth about fat loss.

My mom makes the most amazing Christmas cake in the world; it’s been a tradition in our family for as long as I can remember. First, she mixes up a light, fluffy, vanilla cake mix, pours it into the pans and then pops it in the oven. After it’s been baked, she stacks the cake in two layers with whipped cream spread generously between each layer. She then pours on red and green Jell-O, which gets soaked up inside the cake. Next, whipped cream is smothered all the way around for frosting. And finally, she garnishes it with red and green sprinkles. A few red and green-striped candy canes are stuck in the top as the finishing touch, and off it goes to the refrigerator so it can be served chilled later.

Now let me tell you, as a bodybuilder, I have a lot of discipline. But when that moist, delicious, red and green, Jell-O-filled, whipped-cream covered cake is sitting on the table in front of me on December 25th, it takes every ounce of my willpower to keep from calling it a “VERY high carb day” and devouring numerous very large slices.

Despite the temptation, I don’t “pig out” nor do I deprive myself. Instead, I’m content with eating my single piece, savoring every mouthwatering bite, all the while repeating my mantra, “Nothing tastes as good as being lean feels.”

» Click here to read more

QUESTION: Tom, If you accidentally pig out or over-indulge at a meal, (a Holiday party for example), are you better off skipping your next meal to keep your daily caloric intake on target, or should you just go ahead and eat your next planned meal and not worry about being somewhat “over” your planned calories for the day?

Michael
Wisconsin, USA


» Click here to read more

By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
www.BurnTheFat.com

The controversies over cardio for fat loss are endless: steady state versus intervals, fed versus fasted, long and easy versus short and intense, and so on. Obviously there is a lot of interest in cardio training and how to do it right. Sadly, most people are still doing 2 things terribly wrong and it’s killing their results…… As best as I can figure, there are two major reasons why people are still mucking up their cardio programs for fat loss.

REASON #1: NOT ENOUGH FOCUS ON TOTAL CALORIES BURNED

Most people aren’t burning enough darn calories.

Why? Well, I guess they are too busy worrying about the “proper” type of exercise (which machine or activity), the mode (steady state or intervals), the “optimal” ratio of intervals, or the “best” duration.

Some people coast along on the treadmill at 2.3 miles per hour or some similar sloth-like pace and they think that just by hitting a TIME goal, such as 45 or 60 minutes, that with “X” duration completed, they are assured to get the results they want.

On the other extreme, we have folks who have found or created some mega-intense, super-duper short training protocol like the “4-minute wonder workout from Japan.” Just because the workout is high in intensity and it is performed in intervals, they too think they are assured to get the results they want.

What’s missing in both cases is the realization that total fat loss over time is a function of total calories burned over time (assuming you don’t blow your diet, of course).

AND…

Total calories burned is a product of INTENSITY times DURATION, not intensity OR duration.

Too much focus on one variable at the exclusion of the other can lead to a less than optimal total calorie burn and disappointing results. And remember, intensity and duration are *variables* not absolutes! (“Variable” means you can change them… even if your “guru” says you can’t!)

When you understand the relationship and interplay between INTENSITY X DURATION you will find a “SWEET SPOT” where the product of those variables produces the maximal calorie burn and maximum fat loss, based on your current health condition and your need for time efficiency.

REASON #2: TOO MUCH FOCUS ON WHAT TYPE OF CALORIES BURNED

As best as I can figure, there is one whopper of a mistake that is still KILLING most people’s cardio programs and that is…

Way too much focus on WHAT you are burning during the workout – fats or carbohydrates – also known as “substrate utilization.”

This idea comes from the notorious “fat burning zone” myth which actually tells people to exercise SLOWER and LESS intensely to burn more fat.

Hold on a minute. Pop quiz. Which workout burns more calories?

(A) A 30 minute leisurely stroll through the park
(B) A 30 minute, sweat-pouring, heart-pounding, lung-burning run?

Like, DUH!

And yet we have trainers, authors and infomercial gurus STILL telling us we have to slow down if we want to burn more fat??? Bizarre.

The reason people still buy it is because the “fat burning zone” myth sounds so plausible because of two little science facts:

* The higher your intensity, the more carbs you burn during the workout
* The lower your intensity, the more fat you burn during the workout

And that’s the problem. You should be focusing on total calories and total fat burned during the workout and all day long, not just what type or percentage of fuel you are burning during the workout.

It’s not that fat oxidation doesn’t matter, but what if you have a high percentage of fat oxidation but an extremely low number of calories burned?

If you really want to be in the “fat burn zone,” you could sit on your couch all day long and that will keep you there quite nicely because “couch sitting” is a really low intensity (“fat-burning”) activity.
(Of course, “couch sitting” only burns 37 calories per half hour…)

HERE’S THE FAT-BURNING SOLUTION!

In both cases, the solution to burning more fat is drop dead simple: Focus your attention on how you can burn more TOTAL calories during your workout and all day long.

If you want to burn more fat, burn more calories and you can do that by manipulating ANY of the variables : intensity, duration and also frequency.

If you build your training program around this concept, you will be on the right track almost every time.

BUT WAIT – THERE IS MORE TO IT…

Naturally, we could argue that it’s not quite this simple and that there are hundreds of other reasons why your cardio program might not be working… and I would agree, of course. But on the exercise side, the ideas above should be foremost in your mind.

On the nutrition side, you have to get your act together there too.

For example, many people increase their food intake at the same time as they start a cardio training program thereby putting back in every calorie they burned during the workout! Then some of them have the nerve to say, “SEE, cardio doesn’t work!”

Incidentally, this is the exact reason that a few studies show that adding cardio or aerobic training to a diet “did not improve fat loss”: It’s not because the cardio didn’t work, it was because the researchers didn’t control for diet and the subjects ate more!!

It should go without saying that nutrition is the foundation on which every fat loss program is built.

Choose the combination of type, intensity, duration and frequency that suits your lifestyle and preferences the best, and WORK THE VARIABLES to get the fat loss results you want, but whichever cardio program you choose, remember that a solid fat burning nutrition program, such as Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle is necessary to help you make the most of it.

Train hard and expect success.

By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
www.BurnTheFat.com

High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for short, has been promoted as one of the most effective training methods ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss and for cardiovascular fitness. One of the most popular claims for HIIT is that it burns “9 times more fat” than conventional (steady state) cardio. This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo Tremblay at Laval University in 1994. But what if I told you that HIIT has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular cardio… What if I told you that the same study actually shows that HIIT is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio??? Read on and see the proof for yourself.

“There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.”

- Mark Twain
In 1994, a study was published in the scientific journal Metabolism by Angelo Tremblay and his team from the Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. Based on the results of this study, you hear personal trainers across the globe claiming that “HIIT burns 9 times more fat than steady state cardio.”

This claim has often been interpreted by the not so scientifically literate public as meaning something like this: If you burned 3 pounds of fat in 15 weeks on steady state cardio, you would now burn 27 pounds of fat in 15 weeks (3 lbs X 9 times better = 27 lbs).

Although it’s usually not stated as such, frankly, I think this is what some trainers want you to believe, because the programs that some trainers promote are based on convincing you of the vast superiority of HIIT and the “uselessness” of low intensity exercise.

Indeed, higher intensity exercise is more effective and time efficient than lower intensity exercise. The question is, how much more effective? There’s no evidence that the “9 times more fat loss” claim is true outside the specific context in which it was mentioned in this study.

In order to get to the bottom of this, you have to read the full text of the research paper and you have to look very closely at the results.

13 men and 14 women age 18 to 32 started the study. They were broken into two groups, a high intensity intermittent training program (HIIT) and a steady state training program which they referred to as endurance training (ET).

The ET group completed a 20 week steady state aerobic training program on a cycle ergometer 4 times a week for 30 minutes, later progressing to 5 times per week for 45 minutes. The initial intensity was 60% of maximal heart rate reserve, later increasing to 85%.

The HIIT group performed 25-30 minutes of continuous exercise at 70% of maximal heart rate reserve and they also progressively added 35 long and short interval training sessions over a period of 15 weeks. Short work intervals started at 10 then 15 bouts of 15 seconds, increasing to 30 seconds. Long intervals started at 5 bouts of 60 seconds, increasing to 90 seconds. Intensity and duration were progressively increased over the 15 week period.

The results: 3 times greater fat loss in the HIIT group

Even though the energy cost of the exercise performed in the ET group was twice as high as the HIIT group, the sum of the skinfolds (which reflects subcutaneous body fat) in the HIIT group was three times lower than the ET group.

So where did the “9 times greater fat loss” claim come from?

Well, there was a difference in energy cost between groups, so in order to show a comparison of fat loss relative to energy cost, Tremblay wrote,

“It appeared reasonable to correct changes in subcutaneous fat for the total cost of training. This was performed by expressing changes in subcutaneous skinfolds per megajoule of energy expended in each program.”

Translation: The subjects did not lose 9 times more body fat, in absolute terms. But hey, 3 times more fat loss? You’ll gladly take that, right?

Well hold on, because there’s more. Did you know that in this oft-quoted study, neither group lost much weight? In fact, if you look at the charts, you can see that the HIIT group lost 0.1 kg (63.9 kg before, 63.8 kg after). Yes, the HIIT group lost a whopping 100 grams of weight in 15 weeks!

The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before, 60.1 kg after).

Naturally, lack of weight loss while skinfolds decrease could simply mean that body composition improved (lean mass increased), but I think it’s important to highlight the fact that the research study from which the “9 times more fat” claim was derived did not result in ANY significant weight loss after 15 weeks.
Based on these results, if I wanted to manipulate statistics to promote steady state cardio, I could go around telling people, “Research study says steady state cardio (endurance training) results in 5 times more weight loss than high intensity interval training!” Or the reverse, “Clinical trial proves that high intensity interval training is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio!”

Mind you, THIS IS THE SAME STUDY THAT IS MOST OFTEN QUOTED TO SUPPORT HIIT!

If I said 5 X greater weight loss with steady state, I would be telling the truth, wouldn’t I? (100 grams of weight loss vs 500 grams?) Of course, that would be misleading because the weight loss was hardly significant in either group and because interval training IS highly effective. I’m simply being a little facetious in order to make a point: Be careful with statistics. I have seen statistical manipulation used many times in other contexts to deceive unsuspecting consumers.
For example, advertisements for a popular fat burner claim that use of their supplement resulted in twice as much fat loss, based on scientific research. The claim was true. Of course, in the ad, they forget to tell you that after six months, the control group lost no weight, while the supplement group lost only 1.0 kilo. Whoop de doo! ONE KILO of weight loss after going through a six month supply of this “miracle fat burner!”

But I digress…

Back to the HIIT story – there’s even more to it.

In the ET group, there were some funky skinfold and circumference measurements. ALL of the skinfold measurements in the ET group either stayed the same or went down except the calf measurement, which went up.

The girths and skinfold measurements in the limbs went down in the HIIT group, but there wasn’t much difference between HIIT and ET in the trunk skinfolds. These facts are all very easy to miss. I didn’t even notice it myself until exercise physiologist Christian Finn pointed it out to me. Christian said,

“When you look at the changes in the three skinfold measurements taken from the trunk, there wasn’t that much difference between the steady state group (-6.3mm) and the HIIT group (-8.7 mm). So, much of the difference in subcutaneous fat loss between the groups wasn’t because the HIIT group lost more fat, but because the steady state group actually gained fat around the calf muscles. We shouldn’t discount simple measurement error as an explanation for these rather odd results.”

Christian also pointed out that the two test groups were not evenly matched for body composition at the beginning of the study. At the beginning of the study, the starting body fat based on skinfolds in the HIIT group was nearly 20% higher than the ET group. He concluded:

“So while this study is interesting, weaknesses in the methods used to track changes in body composition mean that we should treat the results and conclusions with some caution.”

One beneficial aspect of HIIT that most trainers forget to mention is that HIIT may actually suppress your appetite, while steady state cardio might increase appetite. In a study such as this, however, that can skew the results. If energy intake were not controlled, then some of the greater fat loss in the HIIT group could be due to lowered caloric intake.

Last but not least, I’d like to highlight the words of the researchers themselves in the conclusion of the paper, which confirms the effectiveness of HIIT, but also helps put it in perspective a bit:

“For a given level of energy expenditure, a high intensity training program induces a greater loss of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of moderate intensity.”

“It is obvious that high intensity exercise cannot be prescribed for individuals at risk for health problems or for obese people who are not used to exercise. In these cases, the most prudent course remains a low intensity exercise program with a progressive increase in duration and frequency of sessions.”

In conclusion, my intention in writing this article wasn’t to be controversial, to be a smart-alec or to criticize HIIT. To the contrary, additional research has continued to support the efficacy of HIIT for fat loss and fitness, not to mention that it is one of the most time efficient ways to do cardiovascular training.

I have recommended HIIT for years in my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, using a 1:1 long interval approach, which, while only one of many ways to do HIIT, is probably my personal favorite method. However, I also recommend steady state cardio and even low intensity cardio like walking, when it is appropriate.

My intentions for writing this article were four-fold:

1. To encourage you to question where claims come from, especially if they sound too good to be true.
2. To alert you to how advertisers might use research such as this to exaggerate with statistics.
3. To encourage the fitness community to swing the pendulum back to center a bit, by not over-selling the benefits of HIIT beyond what can be supported by the scientific research.
4. To encourage the fitness community, that even as they praise HIIT, not to condemn lower and moderate intensity forms of cardio.
As the original author of the 1994 HIIT study himself pointed out, HIIT is not for everyone, and cardio should be prescribed with progression. Also, mountains of other research has proven that walking (GASP! – low intensity cardio!) has always been one of the most successful exercise methods for overweight men and women.

There is ample evidence which says that obesity may be the result of a very slight daily energy imbalance, which adds up over time. Therefore, even a small amount of casual exercise or activity, if done consistently, and not compensated for with increased food intake, could reverse the obesity trend. HIIT gets the job done fast, but that doesn’t mean low intensity cardio is useless or that you should abandon your walking program, if you have the time and if that is what you enjoy and if that is what’s working for you in your personal situation.

The mechanisms and reasons why HIIT works so well are numerous. It goes way beyond more calories burned during the workout.

Train hard and expect success.

By: Craig Ballantyne, CSCS, MS
www.TurbulenceTraining.com

One of the biggest myths in fitness is that you have to maintain a certain heart rate in order to lose fat. But that’s just not true. Unfortunately, this myth has led to a whole lot of low-intensity training and therefore, a whole lot of failed programs.

The quicker you lose the “high heart rate equals the best workout” mentality, the quicker you will start to change your body.

In the Turbulence Training workouts, you are going to burn more fat and more calories when you are OUT of the gym because of the high-intensity training methods that you will use. Not because your heart rate increases during the workout (even though your HR will be up there from the supersets and intervals).

In the last 10 years, research has shown us two very important things about exercising for fat loss. First, lifting heavier weights leads to burning more calories after the workout when compared to lifting light weights. So that’s why 8 repetitions per set is better than 12 reps per set. And that’s one of the foundations of Turbulence Training.

And the second thing we have learned is that interval training is superior to slow, steady cardio for fat loss and post-exercise calorie burning. So it is more effective and more efficient to use short high-intensity interval training workouts instead of slow, long cardio sessions.

The only time you might need to know your heart rate is during the recovery period of the interval training. It’s important to take enough time between intervals so that your heart rate drops significantly (let it drop to less than 60% of your maximum heart rate).

That way you get more work done when it counts. You don’t want to start your next high-intensity interval too soon, nor do you want to exercise too hard during your recovery interval.

All of these details are provided in the interval guidelines in the Turbulence Training e-book. And I’ll show you how to properly structure your intervals so that you have enough recovery between each. That way, you don’t have to worry about monitoring your heart rate or anything fancy. Just follow my instructions.

So the bottom line:

Don’t worry about your heart rate during exercise (unless you just like to keep track for interest sake). Instead, make sure that you are working at a high-intensity during each lifting and interval session.

The TT workout guidelines will give you all the details you need on the specific rest periods to use between supersets and intervals.

There is a better way to train.

By: Craig Ballantyne, CSCS, MS
www.TurbulenceTraining.com

Here is the Myth:

You have to do cardio after lifting for fat loss because your glycogen is low from the lifting, and that way you will burn more fat.

And now, the Truth:

First off, this quote, “glycogen is low right after lifting” isn’t always true. If you just did an upper body workout, your legs are still full of glycogen.

Glycogen is the stored form of carbohydrates in our body (found in the muscles and liver). It is one source of energy when you are doing strength training, interval training, and aerobic training. Your glycogen levels go down after exercise, but increase after you eat carbohydrates.

It’s incorrectly believed by many that strength training will use up all of your glycogen and then you will only have fat to burn during slow, steady, monotonous (& useless?) cardio. Well, there are a lot of problems with that assumption as well.

First, you’d have to exercise for at least 90 minutes at a slow, steady pace to fully deplete your muscle glycogen. And even an advanced, higher-volume strength training workout will only deplete your muscle glycogen by about 50-70% (and that is only if you perform multiple exercises and sets for one muscle group).

Second, muscle glycogen only goes down in the muscles that are worked. Therefore, if you only do upper body exercises, your leg muscles will remain nearly full of glycogen.

Third, you require glycogen in order to perform a hard interval or cardio training session. If you truly were glycogen depleted, your workouts would suffer.

The bottom line is that you are better off performing strength training and interval training to lose fat, and not worrying about being glycogen depleted.

Don’t get suckered into thinking that you have to worry about scientific details. Unless you are a trainer, you have better things to occupy your mind, I’m sure. Just stick with an efficient, effective workout that gets you in and out of the gym in less than an hour.

No need to stick around longer than that. Do your weights and then your intervals. Or feel free to do your intervals on your off-day. It’s consistency, not timing, that matters.

Taking that first step to lose weight can be tough sometimes. Where do you start? Here are 7 simple changes you can make to your diet today to lose weight.

» Click here to read more

You’ve been pregnant for 9 months, gaining the weight that’s necessary to support and nourish your growing baby. Now, you have your beautiful little baby, but you also have a few extra pounds that can be very hard to get rid of. Your body is understandably exhausted, so exercising is just not on the top of your list of priorities. Well, don’t worry! You aren’t the first new mom to go through this, and you won’t be the last. But, here are some tips which can help you get some kind of an exercise program set up that will be easy for you to maintain.

» Click here to read more