A Rational Approach to Exercise

I remember that at least once in the past, there was a thread in this forum (started by me) dedicated to strength training, bodybuilding, and exercise in general. Some of the opinions voiced there were, in my opinion, strange. Many were irrational and illogical, without any basis in fact. Furthermore, the opinions voiced on libertarian websites like LewRockwell.com about exercise are equally baffling. Instead of trying to lay down rational principles for proper exercise, like they do for economics, they take a bunch of disparate knowledge, throw it together, and call it "exercise."

Fortunately, there is an alternative. This alternative has been dubbed "HIT" or "high intensity training." It was initially used/discovered/invented/organized by Arthur Jones in the 1970s. Since Arthur's ideas spilled out into the bodybuilding and exercise world, many variations have been created, but all essentially are the same: they utilize very high intensity resistance training at a relatively low volume.

Here is a good presentation for anyone interested:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Here is a video featuring Mike Mentzer, the only bodybuilder ever to score 300 (a perfect score) in the Mr. Universe contest:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Train hard. Eat clean. Sleep. Train harder. That is all.

Basically. The problem is that everyone wants to believe that getting fitter and healthier is about training more with less effort. Precisely the opposite is true.

I agree.  More effort (high intensity) with less training. 

Damn kaju, you are so crazy.. haha that's what I needed.. Because I started excercising yesterday. Cool topic, thanks.

Kaju, are you also one of the fellow board members that follows the Paleo diet?

I'm starting the paleo diet soon, I'm still in the process of getting rid of the grains in my house. I thought about making a post about it because it seems like something other libertarians would be interested in.

But I love Oatmeal! How could I exclude grains?

But I love Oatmeal! How could I exclude grains?

Hah! It's tough.

Resisting temptation, on its own, is easy enough. But when when everyone around is an enabler and pusher, it gets difficult to keep the bad stuff away.

Thanks for the video links. I've been strength training (NOT bodybuilding...different discipline) for a few years now using p90x...McGuff apparently doesn't like it but it works up to a point for a lot of people. I'm ready to move on from it and form my own training program.

Interesting that McGuff mentioned that our mind is aimed (assuming evolution) towards survival and not truth. A favorite philosopher of mine, Alvin Plantinga, uses that, and I think it originated with him.

Agreed.  From what I've heard and read, training each muscle group only once per week, with more exercises and sets, gives better results.  That's what I've been doing for the past several months, and it seems to work better for me.

Of course, plenty of good food and rest are also essential.

Less bread for you means more bread for me.

Of course the problem with HIT, as with any other magic system for exercise that is THE system in many people's minds, is that there are a myriad of studies available showing one can achieve greater fitness, however that is defined, through a number of different training protocols.  And since fitness goals differ, suggesting one mode of exercise for all goals is quite simply wrong, and obviously so.  For general fitness any workout program that is not out and out retarded is going to 'work'.  Any workout regimen with a decent balance of volume and intensity in both anaerobic and aerobic work coupled with a healthy diet will lead to greater 'fitness' in the general sense.  The optimal balance of volume and intensity can be affected by everything from a person's individual tolerances for each to their schedule and what they can fit into it.

Bottom line, advocating for one particular mode of training is nonsense.  HIT vs 5x5 vs HST vs MaxOT vs this vs that and vs the other is pure wanking BS.  And overly committed advocates for HIT aren't HITards for nothing.  Bottom line, anyone who prescibes a fitness 'solution' before hearing any individual's particular problem to be solved is missing the main point: goals and abilities differ among individuals.

Why no oats? Oats are great.

You should paleo diet if you aren't exercising. You should eat 50/50 protein and carbs from clean sources if you're going for the fitness look. Don't worry about eating fat. You get plenty from all the good stuff you're eating.

Example meals:

Chicken Breast, brown rice
Lean ground turkey, sweet potatoe
Lean ground beef, oatmeal
Lean fish (tuna prolly), red potatoes

Snacks:

Apple and protein shake
Yogurt
Cottage Cheese (before bed)

If you eat 5-6 times a day, you'll get better absorbtion of your food. So do that too. Plan everything out in advance. Don't go to subway.
 

Good advice. Don't forget the nuts/beans/legumes. I haven't researched fish too much but I know there's a lot of other good ones. They're generally out of budget for me, plus the wife doesn't like it that much, so...

Subway might actually be good compared to how some people eat. Sometimes it's easier to take baby steps until your diet is a lot better.

5-6 times a day? I have heard spreading meals out like this helps your metabolism. Really? Does this mean eating more food? I have heard that eating slightly less food then normal helps extend one's lifespan.

How many days do you guys work out? I work 4-5 days a week, 2 days I do an hour of cardio, 3 days I do an hour of cardio and lifting. Am I working out too much? I also drink lots of whey protein (syntha 6).

I do 4 times a week strength training...alternating different muscle groups. It's been going good so far but I need to buy heavier weights since I've "maxed out" on the weights I have now.

I also bike 6 miles every work day (I bike to the bus stop) for my cardio.

I have no idea if this is "ideal" for me but I'm in excellent shape (doctor's words, not mine).

I'm skeptical of the benefits of eating 5-6 times per day. Rob Wolff says there is evidence that more insulin is released when meals are that frequent, and as a result your insulin sensitivity can be negatively effected. Not to mention how difficult and time consuming eating six meals a day is.

"I'm skeptical of the benefits of eating 5-6 times per day. Rob Wolff says there is evidence that more insulin is released when meals are that frequent, and as a result your insulin sensitivity can be negatively effected. Not to mention how difficult and time consuming eating six meals a day is."

I have hypoglycemia caused by hyperinsulinism which makes simple sugars drop my blood sugar down really low. My doctor recommended eating 5-6 times a day with a high-protein low-carb diet and I've never felt better. This just seems to stand against what this Wolff fellow says. Eating frequently helps keep blood sugar to normal levels (at least for me.)

MaikU:

Damn kaju, you are so crazy.

Why thank you.

Joe:

Kaju, are you also one of the fellow board members that follows the Paleo diet?

No, but I think the paleo/primal diet makes sense. I think a healthy diet ought to consist of lots of fats and proteins, and some carbs. Intermittent fasting is a good idea too. I'm not too big on the idea of never eating ANY grains. Having whole grain buns with your burger won't set you back at all, unless you're trying to follow a ketogenic diet.

xahrc:

Of course the problem with HIT, as with any other magic system for exercise that is THE system in many people's minds, is that there are a myriad of studies available showing one can achieve greater fitness, however that is defined, through a number of different training protocols.  And since fitness goals differ, suggesting one mode of exercise for all goals is quite simply wrong, and obviously so.  For general fitness any workout program that is not out and out retarded is going to 'work'.  Any workout regimen with a decent balance of volume and intensity in both anaerobic and aerobic work coupled with a healthy diet will lead to greater 'fitness' in the general sense.  The optimal balance of volume and intensity can be affected by everything from a person's individual tolerances for each to their schedule and what they can fit into it.

Bottom line, advocating for one particular mode of training is nonsense.  HIT vs 5x5 vs HST vs MaxOT vs this vs that and vs the other is pure wanking BS.  And overly committed advocates for HIT aren't HITards for nothing.  Bottom line, anyone who prescibes a fitness 'solution' before hearing any individual's particular problem to be solved is missing the main point: goals and abilities differ among individuals.

HIT has plenty of variation within itself. But the basics are: train with high intensity, train briefly and infrequently, and train with proper form. All of these conform to the basic physiology of all human beings. Depending on goals and personal genetics, HIT can be varied. Some need lower volume, others need higher volume. Some need to incorporate more circuit-like workouts (search "Project Total Conditioning") for cardio benefits, while those solely interested in strength and/or bodybuilding need not do that. Bodybuilders who wish to focus on one lagging bodypart can tweak HIT for their own needs. And when it comes to proper form, everyone has a certain rep cadence/rep scheme that they should follow for certain bodyparts. The only practical way to determine this, however, is through experience.

Other programs (e.g. 5 x 5) are decent, as they focus on lifting heavy and progression, but they lack any kind of scientific coherence. Honestly, I kind of regret having HIT labeled as "HIT." It should be simply called "proper exercise." Within the realm of proper exercise, there are various ways to achieve one's  personal goals, and those variations should be taken into account.

"5-6 times a day? I have heard spreading meals out like this helps your metabolism. Really? Does this mean eating more food? I have heard that eating slightly less food then normal helps extend one's lifespan." - Libertyandlife

If there is a thermic effect to eating it's related to the calorie content of the meal as a percentage, and that means for total calories the thermic effect will generally be the same no matter when the calories are eaten, in one sitting or in six.  The only way to take advantage of the thermic effect of food relative to total calories taken in is to shift your macro nutrient intake to favor this effect, which put simply means eating more protein since it ha the highest TE.

Meal frequency can help with appetite, but again that goes both ways.  Some people do better on an intermittent fast, eating one big meal a day and fasting most of the rest.  Others like to nibble.  I's a balance of hormonal responses and psycological responses and which is stronger in each individual.

"HIT has plenty of variation within itself. But the basics are: train with high intensity, train briefly and infrequently, and train with proper form. All of these conform to the basic physiology of all human beings." - krazy kaju

Training briefly is a moronic if one's goal is to increase endurance.  Your body adapts to the stimulus it is trained to; specificity.  Training 'briefly' and 'infrequency' and with a 'high intensity' is a ridiculous approach if a person's goal is to exert themselves for prolonged periods of time.

"Depending on goals and personal genetics, HIT can be varied. Some need lower volume, others need higher volume. Some need to incorporate more circuit-like workouts (search "Project Total Conditioning") for cardio benefits, while those solely interested in strength and/or bodybuilding need not do that. Bodybuilders who wish to focus on one lagging bodypart can tweak HIT for their own needs. And when it comes to proper form, everyone has a certain rep cadence/rep scheme that they should follow for certain bodyparts. The only practical way to determine this, however, is through experience."

So in other words when someone is done optimizing their HIT they may actually be doing MaxOT, or a classic 5x5, or HST, or some other random workout that 'works' for them.  If find it funny that the 'key' to every workout system on the web is to customize it to your needs...

HIT and all the other systems out there to be quite frank are a load of crap.  When it comes to training with weights for strength or size you lift as heavy as you can as frequently as you can for a reasonable volume level, the latter having some research suggesting a pretty damn wide range, and frequencies likewise have research suggesting anything from once a week to 3 times a week and perhaps even more, and the weights generally having to fall into ranges than allow anywhere from 3-15 reps, or whatever similar numbers anyone wants to throw in.  In other words there's such a broad range of workable solutions that sticking or adhering to one system only makes sense if it helps you achieve your goals, and recommending it for others only makes sense if it wll help them achieve theirs.

HST is an example of a program which lets people gain size and strength and completely belies HIT principles; in HST you train frequently and often, and often with sub maximal loads.  And HIT is a program which lets people gain size and strength and completely belies HST principles.  Which only makes sense if you realize these programs are all a variation on a simple formula: lift as heavy as you can as often as you can, and increase the weight as regularly as you can.  That's the prescription that has worked for people long before anyone started counting reps and/or sets or worrying about eating just the right amount of cottage cheese before bed.  All these systems are merely a framework for helping people accomplish those simple goals, and each system is only as good as its effectiveness in helping a person reach their goals.  And if any of these systems do confer an advantage of any kind, I'd happily bet my own balls that few if anyone not on steroids in this world has strict enough control over their diet and other factors affecting fitness to see that advantage.

"Other programs (e.g. 5 x 5) are decent, as they focus on lifting heavy and progression, but they lack any kind of scientific coherence."

Oh, please, if you would, define "scientific coherence."  If it means backing studies, the backers of both HST and 5x5 can trounce HIT.  They ALL have studies that some schmuck can dredge up from PubMed to 'prove' they work.

"Honestly, I kind of regret having HIT labeled as "HIT." It should be simply called "proper exercise." Within the realm of proper exercise, there are various ways to achieve one's  personal goals, and those variations should be taken into account."

"Proper exercise" is exercise that is effective at letting people accomplish their goals.  Depending on those goals, there are an infinite number of combinations of various factors and methods that would be considered 'proper'.

5x5 routines feel good for beginners because you get a lot of neurological gains in strength, rather than muscular/endurance related ones. I put on a lot of mass when I did 5x5's, but if I had to go and do it over again, I'd definitely do 3 sets of 10. I find its difficult to push yourself very hard on lower volume sets.

You want to start your workout with a 5-10 minute warmup on cardio.

You do your hardest exercise first usually, followed by 2 more power exercises. So flat bench, incline press, dips maybe.

Then get two isolation exercises in the mix. Maybe incline flyes and cable flyes.

You should be exhausted. Go do pushups till failure or something.

Your basic goal is to put as much weight on the muscle at the beginning of the workout, and then taper off by pumping as much blood as you can into it at the end of the workout.

If you're real fat, you should do cardio at the end of the workout. Everyone should do cardio in the morning as soon as they wake up to get a metabolic boost and increase their VO2 max for the day.

5 days a week is good. Chest/back/legs/shoulders/arms is the standard split. You want to train your calfs 2-3 times a week, and your abs/obliques 2-3 times a week. Make sure you are doing all the exercises with good form. AND PUSH HARDER.

To get an idea...

When I started I was an idiot. I thought that if I did what everyone else did, maybe a little smarter, I would get results. Nope. If you're not ripped now you're probably not going to get ripped by making minor adjustments like drinking protein shakes or working out an extra time/week. Some people are just naturally built. Some frat boys juice. Some people are black and do bicep curls and their chest gets bigger. Its not fair. So what? You have to make a big change.

xahrx:

Training briefly is a moronic if one's goal is to increase endurance.  Your body adapts to the stimulus it is trained to; specificity.  Training 'briefly' and 'infrequency' and with a 'high intensity' is a ridiculous approach if a person's goal is to exert themselves for prolonged periods of time.

SAID (specific adaptation to imposed demands, for the others who might be reading this post) is a very simplistic and erroneous approach to physical fitness. What is necessary is to stimulate the necessary change in the systems involved. Training the muscles to failure inevitably results in many of these changes - it enduces the growth and strengthening of muscle fibers, while improving the systems which serve the muscles themselves (e.g. the cardiovascular system).

One does not immunize oneself against snake venom by being bitten by a snake. Likewise, one does not train for a marathon by running many marathons.

So in other words when someone is done optimizing their HIT they may actually be doing MaxOT, or a classic 5x5, or HST, or some other random workout that 'works' for them.  If find it funny that the 'key' to every workout system on the web is to customize it to your needs...

Not at all. A HIT program for runners would involve more focus on strengthening the legs and more focus on circuit-style workouts in order to improve metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning. A HIT program for a bodybuilder would focus less on circuit workouts and more on allowing enough rest between sets in order to reach anaerobic failure before aerobic failure.

HIT and all the other systems out there to be quite frank are a load of crap.  When it comes to training with weights for strength or size you lift as heavy as you can as frequently as you can for a reasonable volume level, the latter having some research suggesting a pretty damn wide range, and frequencies likewise have research suggesting anything from once a week to 3 times a week and perhaps even more, and the weights generally having to fall into ranges than allow anywhere from 3-15 reps, or whatever similar numbers anyone wants to throw in.  In other words there's such a broad range of workable solutions that sticking or adhering to one system only makes sense if it helps you achieve your goals, and recommending it for others only makes sense if it wll help them achieve theirs.

First of all, research has shown that HIT is by far the superior method of training. Again, I refer you to Project Total Conditioning.

Secondly, there are no studies that were actually conducted that training 4+ times a week is beneficial. Many HIT programs involve frequencies of three times a week or less, which captures the range that you speak of.

Thirdly, studies show that if you wish to stimulate greater strength and growth in a muscle, you ought to stimulate it with heavy loads between 30 and 90 seconds. That would account to a minimum of 5 reps and a maximum of 15 reps, done with the Nautilus-recommended 2/4 rep cadence (for the record, Nautilus generally recommended 8-12 reps). The catch is that many people react differently due to their muscle fiber types, and therefore require different rep ranges, which is probably why some people have tried HIT but have not reaped the expected benefits.

Fourthly, intensity and volume are inversely related. You can't train hard for hours on end and on consecutive days, because you'll literally end up in a pool of sweat on the ground. If you're lucky, you won't collapse and die from such Herculean efforts. But you can walk for hours. You can even jog for hours. But because these activities are so low intensity, they do not stimulate much (if any) change. Thus, this leads us to a low volume but high intensity exercise program.

HST is an example of a program which lets people gain size and strength and completely belies HIT principles; in HST you train frequently and often, and often with sub maximal loads.  And HIT is a program which lets people gain size and strength and completely belies HST principles.  Which only makes sense if you realize these programs are all a variation on a simple formula: lift as heavy as you can as often as you can, and increase the weight as regularly as you can.  That's the prescription that has worked for people long before anyone started counting reps and/or sets or worrying about eating just the right amount of cottage cheese before bed.  All these systems are merely a framework for helping people accomplish those simple goals, and each system is only as good as its effectiveness in helping a person reach their goals.  And if any of these systems do confer an advantage of any kind, I'd happily bet my own balls that few if anyone not on steroids in this world has strict enough control over their diet and other factors affecting fitness to see that advantage.

HST is a load of horseshit  invented in order to sell useless supplements to the ignorant masses. Many of the Weider-mag invented routines give trainees what they want: long hours in the gym with easy exercise, instead of what they need: brief, infrequent, but HARD work. The fact of the matter is that you will NOT stimulate the most muscle fibers possible if you do not go to failure. On the flip side, exercising too frequently will exhaust the systems in your body that support your muscles, e.g. the endocrine system. There is a reason why certain people seem addicted to exercise and it's because they ARE addicted to exercise for precisely the same reason that meth heads are addicted to meth: exercise (and meth) causes certain systems in your body to release chemicals (e.g. the adrenal glands assist greatly in exercise). Overstimulation of these systems will lead to their damage, to the point where you could develop mood disorders due to hormonal imbalances.

Oh, please, if you would, define "scientific coherence."  If it means backing studies, the backers of both HST and 5x5 can trounce HIT.  They ALL have studies that some schmuck can dredge up from PubMed to 'prove' they work.

Studies conducted by mainstream exercise scientists are as reliable as those conducted by mainstream economists. First of all, most exercise scientists do not use tools that are actually capable of measuring strength. They do not take into account such factors as stored energy, torque, etc. Most modern "strength testing" procedures also cannot distinguish between skill/neural gains vs. actual strength gains. Secondly, many of these studies are obviously way out of line with their testing procedures... modern studies show that 1 set per exercise produces 25% strength gains over the course of a few weeks, while Arthur Jones regularly produced 60% strength gains in studies where the testing was conducted by people not associated with him or Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries. Clearly, something is wrong here.

Sieben:

If you're real fat, you should do cardio at the end of the workout. Everyone should do cardio in the morning as soon as they wake up to get a metabolic boost and increase their VO2 max for the day.

I disagree completely. "Cardio" is a horrible form of exercise, if you could even call it that. If you're trying to lose fat, you should save your precious recovery ability and instead focus on dieting down while keeping your protein levels at an acceptable level. Studies by Dr. Ellington Darden have shown that the people who focus purely on diet and resistance training lose more fat than those who diet, resistance train, and do some form of "cardio."

you want to start a diet that you can use forever?

 

start the "no more processed foods diet"....

 

cut out fake foods....fake chemical fats....like hydrogenated soybean oil, cotton seed oil, [insert name] oil

 

cut out fake chemical sugars.....high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, any artifical sweeteners

 

cut out fake chemical carbs....bleached white flour....heck, even the unbleached white flour....

 

just trying to cut out those things above and your whole lifestyle will have to change....

 

we were not designed to eat chemicals.....

we were designed to eat real food.....

plants and to a lesser extent animals.....

 

there are these awesome food products that grow on vines and stuff...they're called fruits and vegetables....

 

and by the way....take vitamin D3.....its not really in the foods we eat and you need it for about everything you can imagine, and you DON'T GET MUCH OF IT IN THE WINTER TIME....

krazy kaju:

I disagree completely. "Cardio" is a horrible form of exercise, if you could even call it that. If you're trying to lose fat, you should save your precious recovery ability and instead focus on dieting down while keeping your protein levels at an acceptable level. Studies by Dr. Ellington Darden have shown that the people who focus purely on diet and resistance training lose more fat than those who diet, resistance train, and do some form of "cardio."

Can they explain why? Doing cardio at the right times (morning, post workout) burns energy, and if your carb stores are depleted you'll probably be burning fat yada yada yada. This is basic conventional bodybuilding and fitness model wisdom. I find it hard to believe that what EVERYONE at the national shows does is wrong. Even Arnold, who never did cardio and just trained harder, looks back and realizes that cardio is a far more efficient way to burn fat.

[edit] Oh, and I'm not big on studies. 95% of people are approaching weight loss incorrectly. Maybe more... As far as I'm concerned, taking a sample of the general population is useless. You want to look at people who are elite athletes are doing, and then taper off a little.

anyone will lose all execess fat if they eat only fruits and vegetables.....

I guarantee it....and you could eat more....

what?

wait....what did he just say?

that's right....EAT MORE AND LOSE WEIGHT!

 

hell, you could eat 10 pounds of fruits and vegetables for every meal and you'd still lose weight....as a matter of fact, the weight would fly off your fat ass!

 

wha?  wait....i think he just said you could eat more and still lose wieght.....oh shit.....nah....that sounds way to good to be true....change the channel....its one of those stupid infomercials.....

 

I guarantee you could eat more food and still have weight flying off your fat ass.....

listen to these testimonials....

 

wow shit.....hey...check this out....damn....that is the same person....this shit is real.....

there must be a catch......

 

you could eat 10 punds of food if you want...EVERY MEAL...and still the weight would fly off your fat ass....as long as you eat only fruits and vegetables....

and as an added bonus, your immune system would be built up and kick ass!

 

what?  fruit and vegetables....f*ck that!.....its not worth it.....change the channel.....

// sarcasm

 

most people don't have the discipline to do this, though....

Sieben:

Can they explain why? Doing cardio at the right times (morning, post workout) burns energy, and if your carb stores are depleted you'll probably be burning fat yada yada yada. This is basic conventional bodybuilding and fitness model wisdom. I find it hard to believe that what EVERYONE at the national shows does is wrong. Even Arnold, who never did cardio and just trained harder, looks back and realizes that cardio is a far more efficient way to burn fat.

If we accept the calories in minus calories out equation (which isn't entirely true), then which would be a more efficient way to lose fat: performing more exercise (which depletes your muscle glycogen stores and stresses the muscles and the systems which serve your muscles) or simply consuming less calories?

And think about it: does exercise really burn that many calories? Nope. If it did, we'd starve to death on our way to the grocery store. We are designed to burn as little calories as possible in order to survive till we catch the next meal.

I think the best way to lose fat would be a combination of intermittent fasting with a low carb diet. Low carbing and intermittently fasting will help with your insulin sensitivity, which will do a lot to help you shed those pounds, while keeping the fats and protein in your diet will do the most to maximize your recovery and growth in between workouts.

limitgov:

we were designed to eat real food.....

plants and to a lesser extent animals.

Our paleo/primal ancestors actually consumed the majority of their calories from animal sources. Sometimes, dietary fat accounted for 50% or more of caloric intake. Also, while there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate, there is such a thing as a essential fatty acids and essential amino acids. Thus, dietary fat and protein ought to be the cornerstone of any diet, while carbohydrates should be kept at relatively low levels. Carbs are nothing more than a cheap source of energy. If I had the money to go ketogenic (less than 50g of carbs a day), I certainly would do that. Right now, I generally limit my carb intake to fruits and veggies which are rich in micronutrients, and some whole-grain breads that go with the burgers and chicken sandwiches that I enjoy.

"Our paleo/primal ancestors actually consumed the majority of their calories from animal sources. Sometimes, dietary fat accounted for 50% or more of caloric intake."

 

real saturated fat from real food, like you say...animals is good for you....I'll agree...

all I'm saying, is, if you ate alot of animals....you could get pretty fat.....

if you eat nothing but fruits and vegetables...you will lose weight....

My diet consist of no meat and tons of Coca-Cola.  My exercise consist of the skatepark.

video.php?v=440966240948

EDIT: Too bad this doesn't actually show up like YouTube vids.

Hmm I've typed a lot you already probably know Krazy K. I did so in an attempt to be educational to the audience, not to try and school you up. Who knows, I might lose this argument... education education education!

Krazy Kaju:

If we accept the calories in minus calories out equation (which isn't entirely true), then which would be a more efficient way to lose fat: performing more exercise (which depletes your muscle glycogen stores and stresses the muscles and the systems which serve your muscles) or simply consuming less calories?

Exercise increases the insulin sensitivity of your muscles. This means that a larger proportion of the food you eat will go into muscle tissue rather than fat tissue. Consuming fewer calories simply causes your body to shut down.

(For those unfamiliar, insulin is secreted in response to carb intake. Insulin drives carbs, protein, triglycerides, and probably other nutrients into cells. Whether it goes into adipose or muscle tissue depends strongly on whether you exercise)

Moreover, counting calories is a little bogus. Different foods have different bioavailability. So if you consumed 20g of protein from soy, you are absorbing less than 10g of protein... whereas if you got it from eggs, you'd net 18. It shows up as the same amount of "calories", but one fuels your body a lot more. This doesn't invalidate the calorie reduction approach, it merely recommends that you multiply things by their BV :)

There's also the factor of how well you digest food. If you chew it, you digest more of it. You fart less :P. If you eat foods in the wrong combinations, you won't digest it as well. If you can, you should eat a serving of protein first and wait 15 mins before introducing your carbs. Only a precious few carbs really combine with protein, and they cannot be your staples (apples, pineapples, grapes). Note that not everyone does this (sammiches), but you should if you have the opportunity. You should also avoid consuming large varieties of food in the same meal.

Krazy Kaju:

And think about it: does exercise really burn that many calories? Nope. If it did, we'd starve to death on our way to the grocery store. We are designed to burn as little calories as possible in order to survive till we catch the next meal.

I actually think around 200 calories is pretty significant. That should be around 7-10% of what you're eating. Regardless, the biggest effect of exercise is that it drives nutrients into muscle rather than fat.

But 200 calories is a... light workout? :) According to the eliptical's computer, I burn 450 calories in 30 minutes when I wake up. There isn't a similar counter for weight training, but my leg day is definitely way more exhausting than any cardio session. I've heard the pros can burn through 1000 calories in a leg workout... if I'm half as strong as they are that's another 500.

Krazy Kaju:

I think the best way to lose fat would be a combination of intermittent fasting with a low carb diet. Low carbing and intermittently fasting will help with your insulin sensitivity, which will do a lot to help you shed those pounds, while keeping the fats and protein in your diet will do the most to maximize your recovery and growth in between workouts.

Fats will not maximize your recovery. Without insulin, nutrients don't find their ways into cells. I've been on atkins before. It works if you don't exercise, but you'll never get a hard body.

I would also be a little worried about triglyceride and HDL levels on an atkins diet. The theory is that fats will get converted into ketones, which okay fine. But how much of the fat? Not all of it. Is the remaining significant? I'd be interested to see if there are any studies done on this.

I think atkins works because people don't understand or don't want to bother manipulating their insulin, so defaulting to virtually no insulin is superior to perpetually high insulin in most american diets. I would also argue that most people who think they are on atkins are actually not. Eating 20g of carbs, particularly high GI, is enough to knock you out of ketosis for the next 2 days. Most people either don't have the discipline or knowledge to control their carbs so strictly. So I think they lose weight because they cut down on a lot of crappy foods and eat more protein, not necessarily that they implement atkins correctly.

But back to the norms of fitness/bodybuilding, no one goes on low carb except 4-8 weeks precontest. This is because its impossible to put on good quality muscle without insulin and energy from carbs. Again, I find it difficult to believe that everyone getting such great results from their diet/training is wrong because they're not on atkins. The only time I've ever seen low carb recommended is under a cyclic-ketogenic diet, which is recommended for people just to stay shredded all year round and not gain muscle.

 

I once read an article where the guy tried all kind of diets.

The paleo one made him have the best rates in blood tests, but he claimed he was constantly hungry.

Then he tried the japanese diet, it wrecked havoc to his rates. Mind you he is of european descent.

The best ratio of satisfaction/health was obtained with the mediterranean diet.

I think atkins works because people don't understand or don't want to bother manipulating their insulin, so defaulting to virtually no insulin is superior to perpetually high insulin in most american diets. I would also argue that most people who think they are on atkins are actually not. Eating 20g of carbs, particularly high GI, is enough to knock you out of ketosis for the next 2 days. Most people either don't have the discipline or knowledge to control their carbs so strictly. So I think they lose weight because they cut down on a lot of crappy foods and eat more protein, not necessarily that they implement atkins correctly.

But back to the norms of fitness/bodybuilding, no one goes on low carb except 4-8 weeks precontest. This is because its impossible to put on good quality muscle without insulin and energy from carbs. Again, I find it difficult to believe that everyone getting such great results from their diet/training is wrong because they're not on atkins. The only time I've ever seen low carb recommended is under a cyclic-ketogenic diet, which is recommended for people just to stay shredded all year round and not gain muscle.

I've read a bunch from a bunch of doctors on different blogs, fwiw. Most of them are in disagreement over little points here and there, but I think most would agree with the above, as do I.

You need insulin for muscle growth. Carbs will increase your muscle glycogen, which allows a better resistence workout and lets you work until failure. A ketogenic diet is best for reducing bodyfat, but it is very difficult to build muscle. There have been "hints" in studies that show a person who is well adapted to ketosis and has an effective fat-burning metabolism would have excellent endurance for running, swimming, etc...

I did a paleo-ketogenic approach for a while earlier this year. I'd have 0-50g of carbs a day. I wasn't able to run even 1 mile for years. I'd either be out of energy or gasping for air. On this new approach, after just a few runs, I was able to run 3 miles before my legs started giving out. I didn't feel short of breath or out of energy as compared to before, though. But then again, I lost about 50 pounds in those 3-4 months, so that probably helped more than anything! :p

Compound lifts that involve many muscle groups and natural ranges of motion should be the base for most people's work out routines. Squats, deadlifts, press, bench press, chins, etc...

That, sprints, some stretching, and enough eating and sleeping to properly recover and you'll be ok.

You'll get stronger, lose fat, look good, and feel good.

Real "exercise":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo

We only split "health" into "diet" and "exercise" because getting food doesn't require much physical effort anymore.

"SAID (specific adaptation to imposed demands, for the others who might be reading this post) is a very simplistic and erroneous approach to physical fitness. What is necessary is to stimulate the necessary change in the systems involved. Training the muscles to failure inevitably results in many of these changes - it enduces the growth and strengthening of muscle fibers, while improving the systems which serve the muscles themselves (e.g. the cardiovascular system)."

Training the muscle not to failure also inevitably results in many of 'these changes', hence the trillion or so studies showing adaptations using sub maximal loads and maximal loads and occlusion and high reps and low reps and going to failure and not going to to failure, nor worrying about how many seconds the negative lasts or any other wanfy detail that so differentiates one system from another.

As for the rest, I am not getting into a wankfest with another HIT'ard on this or any other board.  Project Total Conditioning is one study done in the 70s, there has been some research done since then, you know, in the last 40 years or so.  Bryan Haycock has shitloads of it cited at his HST site, feel free to browse.  The old Hypertrophy Research site concentrated on just that, there's a backup on the web with a multitude of citations showing why HIT methods are absolutely not the preferred way to train for all people and all goals.  And there are workout gurus galore and more over the entire web claiming to have THE SYSTEM, "totally backed up by research dude, and don't believe all that other research those thousand or so other guys use to back up their obviously inferior systems..."

Ever try and train a CPD patient?  They don't take well to HIT methods, it has a tendency to kill them.  As someone who has trained other people professionally and privately, I say you're full of it.  And if you want to get into a gun slinging match over it and start hurling PubMed abstracts around be my guest, do it with someone stupid enough to want to get involved though.  Training methods are variable and effective, HIT is not THE WAY, nor can it properly be called 'proper exercise' or anything else close.  It is one method among many that produce variable results given the trainee, their condition, and their goals.