workout911.com

I will be speaking at this years NSCA National Conference. The conference takes place in Orlando, Florida at the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Hotel from July 14-17. The topic of my seminar is “Facts and Fallacies of Fitness.” I’ll be debunking many of the most common fitness myths so be sure to attend!

Stay Fit!

Brad

I recently received an email response to one of my television appearances questioning my assertion that strength training helps to improve metabolism. As I responded to this individual, the research on the subject speaks for itself. Here is the lowdown…

First, there is a large body of evidence showing that resistance training has a significant effect on excess post–exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC)–far more than aerobic exercise (Burleson, et al. 1998; Gillette, et al. 1994). Osterburg and Melby (2000) found that an intense resistance training bout increased resting metabolic rate by 4.2% over a 16 hour period following exercise, which is quite substantial. More recently, Schuenke and colleagues (2002) showed that EPOC was significantly elevated 38 hours after resistance training, highlighting its importance in reducing body fat.

Longer term studies show a significant impact of resistance training on metabolic rate. Cambell and colleagues reported an increase in resting metabolic rate of approximately 6.8% following 12 weeks of strength training. This translated into an additional 105 calories burned per day. A study by Pratley and colleagues (1994) came to a similar conclusion on the topic, showing a 7.7% increase in metabolic rate after a four month strength training protocol. And more recently, Hunter, et al. (2000) found that 26 weeks of regimented strength training resulted in a 6.8% increase in resting energy expenditure in elderly adults. Realize, too, that these studies examined the metabolic response in older individuals–younger subjects who strength train with higher intensities of effort are bound to see even greater results.

Finally, there is a substantial body of evidence that strength training is essential in promoting long term weight management (Bryner, et al 1999; Donnelly, et al. 1993; Ryan, et al, 1995). A recent study by Bea and colleagues (2009) gave further credence to this, showing that both frequency of resistance training and the amount of weight lifted were inversely associated with weight gain (i.e. those who exercised more and lifted more had lower body weights). On the whole, those who lifted were significantly leaner than those who didn’t.

Bottom line is that strength training confers a significant metabolic effect. For those seeking to lose body fat, it is an indispensable component of any exercise program. The research is clear: lift to lose!

Stay Fit!

Brad

References:
Bea JW, Cussler EC, Going SB, Blew RM, Metcalfe LL, Lohman TG. Resistance Training Predicts Six-Year Body Composition Change in Postmenopausal Women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Dec 14.

Bryner Rw, et al. 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.

Burleson, M.A. et al. 1998. Effect of weight training exercise and treadmill exercise on elevated post-exercise oxygen consumption. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 30, 518-22.
Campbell, W., M. Crim, V. Young and W. Evans. Increased energy requirements and changes in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 60: 167-175, 1994

Donnelly JE, et al. Muscle hypertrophy with large-scale weight loss and resistance training. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Oct;58(4):561-5.

Gillette CA, Bullough RC, Melby CL. Postexercise energy expenditure in response to acute aerobic or resistive exercise. Int J Sport Nutr. 1994 Dec;4(4):347-60.

Hunter GR, Wetzstein CJ, Fields DA, Brown A, Bamman MM. (2000). Resistance training increases total energy expenditure and free-living physical activity in older adults. J Appl Physiol. 89(3):977-84.

Osterberg KL, Melby CL. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate in young women. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2000 Mar;10(1):71-81.

Pratley, R., B. Nicklas, M. Rubin, J. Miller, A. Smith, M. Smith, B. Hurley and A. Goldberg. (1994). Strength training increases resting metabolic rate and norepinephrine levels in healthy 50- to 65-year-old men. Journal of Applied Physiology Jan;76(1):133-7.

Ryan AS, Pratley RE, Elahi D, Goldberg AP. Resistive training increases fat-free mass and maintains RMR despite weight loss in postmenopausal women. J Appl Physiol. 1995 Sep;79(3):818-23.

Schuenke MD, Mikat RP, McBride JM. Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption: implications for body mass management. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar;86(5):411-7.

There remains great debate as to whether a high carb/low fat or low carb/high fat diet is best for weight loss. The majority of research seems to suggest that there is no definitive answer on the topic; results ultimately depend on individual genetics. Studies show that people respond differently to different dietary protocols; some do better with higher carbs, some with lower carbs. I’ve addressed this issue in a previous post on Diets for Your Genotype.

One thing that is not in doubt, however, is that a higher protein intake is universally essential when restricting calories–much more important than the percentage of carbs versus fat. A large body of evidence shows that when dieters consume a low protein intake, the body cannibalizes muscle tissue for fuel. As much as 1/3 of the body’s muscle is lost on a calorie-restricted diet when protein is kept at the RDA (approximately 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight). Given that muscle plays a role in helping to maintain metabolism, its loss is a primary factor in weight loss plateau and subsequent weight regain.

Fortunately, muscle loss is significantly attenuated when greater levels of protein are consumed. A recent study by Gordon and colleagues showed that increasing protein from 15% of total calories to 30% of total calories reduced the amount of muscle loss by more than half in subjects consuming a low-calorie diet! These findings are supported by multiple other studies on the subject.

So how much protein should you consume when dieting? Studies suggest that about one gram of protein per pound of ideal bodyweight is needed to confer optimal benefits. Thus, if your target weight is 130 pounds, then you should consume about 130 grams of protein a day. Of course, adding resistance training to the mix can not only completely reverse muscle loss, but actually promote muscle development while losing body fat. So if you’re looking to get lean and defined, cut calories while maintaining a higher protein consumption and remember to lift those weights!

A word of caution: If you have existing kidney disease, higher protein intakes are generally contraindicated as they can overstress damaged kidneys. Make sure you coordinate any dietary changes with your physician.

Stay Fit!

Brad

Gordon MM, Bopp MJ, Easter L, Miller GD, Lyles MF, Houston DK, Nicklas BJ, Kritchevsky SB. (2008). Effects of dietary protein on the composition of weight loss in post-menopausal women. J Nutr Health Aging, 12(8):505-9.

I receive thousands of emails over the course of a year, but wanted to share one I received recently. It is reprinted here unedited in its entirety:

Dear Brad,

Just a quick note to THANK YOU for putting together your 28-day Body Shapeover book. It is “THE” book that just takes out all the guesswork in resistance training, and from wasting ridiculous amounts of money on lazy personal trainers!

I have been heavy-set for as long as I can remember, but got even heavier after having my three children who are now ages 17, 11, and 10. At my highest, I was 320 lbs and that was back in 2006. Since that time, I have been one of those who went through the yo-yo diet and exercise phases going from 320 to 240 then back to 300 and down to 280 – ridiculous times. I finally found myself and decided that if I just accept the challenge as part of my everyday life, as opposed to a chore or “must do” then I would enjoy working out and eating right.

So in January I did just that – it wasn’t easy – I still failed myself many times by going days/weeks without working out and eating crap; late February was a natural turning point and I haven’t stopped since. I’m a member at my local Gold’s Gym and started doing just cardio + good eating. Last weekend, I went to Barnes and Noble to find the “right” book to guide me with my resistance training (I’ve been out of work since June 2009 and couldn’t afford a trainer; was determined that finances wouldn’t deter me). There were so many books, but many made it seem so much more complicated that what resistance training really is. So I really liked your book because of its preciseness, guidance, versatility, and facts. IT’S THE BEST $20 I’VE EVER SPENT ON MYSELF!!! I have been following the plan since Monday and my body already feels the workouts. I’ve spent on trainers before – and in my opinion were a waste of my time and money.

So long story short (sorry) – I am super excited to have found your book, and super excited in incorporating your exercises into my regimen. I started at 264 on Monday, and am at 261 today.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING RESISTANCE TRAINING EASY AND EXCITING!

More power to you!

Jennifer

I’m always humbled when I receive these kinds of emails. Exercise is a complex science. I pore over dozens upon dozens of research articles every week in my never-ending quest to stay on the cutting-edge of the fitness field. The difficult part is to make this information accessible to the masses and to do so in a manner that can be practically applied to optimize results. I strive to attain this feat in all my writings, including here on this blog. Knowing that I’m accomplishing my goal is ultimately what makes my life’s work worthwhile.

If you have any thoughts you like to share on my blog or books, please send them to me. I read and respond to every one of my emails individually. As I said, it means a great deal to me to know that I’m making an impact.

Stay Fit!

Brad

I will be doing a live webinar in this coming June, 2010. The webinar will be hosted by the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA). The topic is one of my favorites: Facts and Fallacies of Fitness. I’ll post additional details shortly. Hope you can attend!

Stay Fit!

Brad

If you’ve followed my teachings over the years, you’ll know that I believe in taking an individualized approach to nutrition. Simply stated, there is no one diet that is best for everybody. This view is not simply a personal opinion based on anecdotal experience; it’s backed up by a significant amount of research. Studies consistently show that people respond differently to different macronutrient profiles. Here’s an example. A study by Tay and colleagues reported that LDL (i.e. the “bad” cholesterol) levels remained unchanged after subjects consumed a low carb diet over 24 weeks. However, a closer look at the individual responses of participants in the study paints a vastly different picture. Almost 60% of low carb dieters actually showed a reduction in LDL while 24% showed an increase of at least 10%! Such widespread discrepancies can only be attributed to differences in genotype (i.e. the genetic makeup of an individual).

Now, recent research reveals that we may be closer to having an effective tool in customizing diets based on individual response. Data presented at the American Heart Association’s Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism Conference showed that examining the activity of genes involved in fat metabolism can help predict what type of diet is best for a particular person. The researchers used a cheek swab to obtain genetic info on three genes–fatty acid binding protein 2, peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor gamma, and beta 2 adrenergic receptor–then sought to determine response to various diets (i.e. high-carb, low-carb, etc). The verdict? The genes studied had an extremely high correlation as to what diet worked best for the individuals, with those assigned to a the proper diet for their genotype losing up to three times as much weight after a year compared to those who were not assigned to a genotype-appropriate diet.

Now before we get too caught up in numbers, a few things to keep in mind. First, this was just an abstract and the data have not yet been published in a peer reviewed publication. Hence, results need to be interpreted with caution. Second, several of the researchers have a financial interest in the kit used to collect and interpret the info, which has the potential to introduce bias into results. That said, the research was carried out at a very prestigious university (Stanford) and the theoretical basis behind the approach is certainly sound. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but it represents a potentially exciting development in nutritional science that has important future implications.

In the meantime, the best advice is to experiment with different macronutrient profiles and see how your body responds. A little trial-and-error goes a long way to optimizing a dietary approach that works best for you.

Stay Fit!

Brad

Tay J, Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Keogh J, Clifton PM. (2008). Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1;51(1):59-67.

The abstract of my recent peer-reviewed journal publication titled Squatting Kinematics and Kinetics and Their Application to Exercise Performance is now available for viewing in publish-ahead-of-print format on both Pubmed and the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research website. The article assesses squatting biomechanics and then discusses their application to exercise training. I will post more on the subject in the future.

Stay Fit!

Brad

I’ve discussed the myriad benefits of consuming adequate amounts of omega-3 fatty acids numerous times in this blog. As I’ve detailed previously, the benefits of omega-3s extend to virtually every organ system, and include facilitating loss of body fat. There are few nutritional topics that have as much research-based support.

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) sheds some light on how omega-3s may protect against aging. The study looked at the effect of omega-3 intake on telomeres, which are repeat DNA sequences that form a “protective cap” at the ends of chromosomes. It has been previously shown that telomere length degrades over time, exposing cells to early death. This has led researchers to conclude that telomere length may be a marker of health and well being, with shorter telomere lengths associated with premature aging and the onset of cardiovascular disease.

In the JAMA study, researchers examined the relationship between blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids and telomere length in leukocytes (i.e. white blood cells) over a period of five years. Results showed that those who had the lowest levels of omega-3s (as determined by DHA+EPA) showed the greatest telomere shortening while those in the top quartile had the least degree of shortening. This inverse relationship between omega-3s and telomere length lends support to the anti-aging benefits of fish oil consumption. It is yet one more in a long line of studies showing just how important it is to get adequate omega-3s in your diet.

Stay Fit!

Brad

Farzaneh-Far R, Lin J, Epel ES, Harris WS, Blackburn EH, Whooley MA. (2010). Association of marine omega-3 fatty acid levels with telomeric aging in patients with coronary heart disease. JAMA, 20;303(3):250-7.