Recent Blog Posts
Media Appearances, Personal Training, Uncategorized
September 27, 2010
My training facility, The Personal Training Center for Women, was featured in the Sunday edition of the Gannett Newspaper, Journal News. Here is a link to read the article:
Workout of the Week: Personal Training at The Personal Training Center for Women in Scarsdale
Stay Fit!
Brad
Uncategorized
September 1, 2010
This morning I overheard a guy in the gym justifying that, since he performed a split routine that worked different muscle groups each session, he was able work out everyday. It’s a claim that I hear a lot. It’s also misguided. While you can get away with increasing the frequency of your workouts for short periods of time (I often do this when training elite fitness and figure competitors for a show), extended periods of continuous training without allowing for recuperation are bound to lead to overtraining, regardless of the training split.
First a little background info: Overtraining is the product of performing too much strenuous physical activity. The exact threshold for overtraining, however, varies from person to person. Everyone responds differently to exercise. Some people can tolerate large volumes of training while others much less. What’s more, factors such as nutritional status, sleeping patterns, hormonal and enzymatic concentrations, muscle fiber composition, and previous training experience all can have an impact on recuperative capacity and, therefore, the point at which overtraining rears its ugly head. But ultimately, anyone and everyone can and will become overtrained if they perform too much exercise.
The idea behind a split routine is to provide an optimal balance of volume and recovery, conceivably helping to stave off overtraining. Some of the more popular training splits include push/pull, agonist/antagonist, and upper body/lower body. When properly implemented, these routines can potentially elicit superior gains in muscular development by permitting more frequent training capacity.
That said, a split routine doesn’t completely isolate muscles to the degree that most believe. You see, during the performance of exercises, there is a synergistic interaction between muscle groups. The biceps, for instance, are integrally involved in the performance of back maneuvers, the shoulders and triceps in many exercises for the chest, and the glutes and hamstrings during compound leg movements. Other muscles function as stabilizers: the abdominals and erector spinae (the muscles of the lower back), in particular, help to provide stability in a variety of upper and lower body exercises, contracting statically throughout each move. The fact is, when a muscle is repeatedly subjected to intense physical stress (even on a secondary level) without being afforded adequate rest, the rate at which mitrotrauma occurs outpaces the reparation process. The end result: impaired localized muscular development. And this doesn’t even take into account the systemic effects of repeated exercise bouts on your neurological system.
To avoid the effects of overtraining, your exercise program must allow for adequate recovery. Don’t succumb to the misguided theory that if a little bit is good, more must be better. By shortchanging recuperation, your body never has the chance to adequately recover from the extreme demands being placed on it. Inevitably, you become grossly overtrained and results come to a grinding halt. With respect to exercise, less can be more!
Although everyone has varying recuperative abilities, a period of about 48 hours is required for adequate recovery between strength training sessions. Research has shown this to be the approximate time for protein synthesis to fully run its course (protein synthesis is the phenomenon where muscles are “rebuilt” from the breakdown that occurs during training). Accordingly, for most strength training protocols, a three-day per week routine is ideal, with training performed on non-consecutive days (i.e. Monday, Wednesday, Friday, etc). This is true even for split routines. In certain cases it can be beneficial to periodize this type of schedule with a four day split, such as a two on/one off, two on/two off schedule (i.e. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday) if the routine is structured properly. But any more than four days of hard training per week and you begin to risk overtraining when such a schedule is maintained over time. Without question, a seven day a week routine is bound to leave you overtrained.
Moreover, it’s important to make judicious use of your sets. Marathon sessions will only serve to overtax your neuromuscular system and deplete your energy reserves. Even at the highest levels of fitness, large muscle groups generally require no more than nine to twelve total sets while smaller muscle groups need only six to nine; any more is basically superfluous.
Stay Fit!
Brad
Uncategorized
April 13, 2010
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.
Uncategorized
January 14, 2010
Wanted to share a motivational blog with you, Finding Radiance. The blogger, Lori, lost 105 pounds with the help of my book, 28 Day Body Shapeover. Kudos to Lori for adopting a fitness lifestyle–she’s a true fitness inspiration! The fact that I was able to help in the process is what makes my life’s work worthwhile.
Stay Fit!
Brad
Bookmark this on Delicious
Uncategorized
January 6, 2010
I have finalized the events for the Tri-State area portion of my book tour. Here are the dates:
Saturday, January 9 at 2 p.m. Borders Books, 162 E Main St, Mount Kisco, NY 10549, 914-241-8387
Friday, January 15 at 7 p.m., Barnes and Noble, 2518 South Rd., Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, 845-485-2224
Saturday, January 16 at 2 p.m., Borders Books, 1499 Post Rd, Fairfield, CT, 06824, 203-256-1619
Wednesday, January 20 at 7:30 p.m., Barnes and Noble, 380 Walt Whitman Rd, Huntington Station, NY, 11746, 631-421-9886
Dates for other cities will be announced shortly. Hope to see you at one of the events!
Stay Fit!
Brad
Uncategorized
December 6, 2009
I wanted to make everyone aware of an excellent fitness blog, Burn the Fat. The blog is written by Tom Venuto, who really knows his stuff about exercise and nutrition. I had the pleasure of meeting Tom at a recent publicity event and he is one of a select few fitness pros who bases his philosophy on research rather than unsupported hype. It’s always refreshing to see a trainer who is committed to evidence-based practice, and Tom embodies this approach. His blog is definitely worth a read…
Stay Fit!
Brad
Bookmark this on Delicious
Uncategorized
November 19, 2009
The holidays are rapidly approaching and it soon will be gift-giving time. And really, what can be better than giving the gift of fitness? The good news is that you don’t need to spend a lot to get a lot. This is one of the primary messages in my new book, Women’s Home Workout Bible. Here are three value-priced items that are sure to help your favorite guy or gal shape up and get healthier.
Stability Ball: In case you don’t know, stability balls are nothing more than large, inflatable rubber balls that can be used to perform a wide array of seated and prone exercises. Pretty much any exercise that can be done on a chair or a bench can also be done on the ball. What makes a stability ball unique? By placing your body in an unstable environment, it forces your core to assume a stabilizing role during exercise performance. This makes the ball an excellent option for developing the abdominal and lower back muscles. It’s particularly beneficial for direct ab training, where studies show abdominal muscle activity to be significantly higher than when similar moves are performed on a stable surface. Stability balls come in varying sizes. A simple test is to determine a good size for your body is to sit on the ball. A good fitting ball will allow your thighs to remain parallel to the ground: If your thighs slope down, the ball is too big; if your thighs slope up, the ball is too small. One important training consideration to keep in mind: training large muscle groups such as the chest, upper back, and shoulders on a stability ball will significantly decrease force output, so it’s not ideal if your goal is to increase muscle development or strength in these target muscles.
Resistance Bands: Here’s one of the most useful items for any home gym. Resistance bands are light weight and versatile, and allow you to perform dozens upon dozens of exercises. Using them is a snap: Simply attach a band to a stationary object (or, alternatively, hold one end or stand on it) and you create resistance at the opposite end of the band. The less slack in the band, the greater the tension and, hence, the more challenging the exercise. Best of all, you can perform exercises in all three planes of movement, making bands a highly functional modality. As an added bonus, you can take them with you on vacations and business trips—just pack them in your luggage and you’re ready to go. A good set of bands will run you around $50. This will provide five different levels of resistance—enough for even the most hardcore exercise enthusiast. They’re a terrific bargain considering the numerous applications for use.
Selectorized Dumbbells: Never heard of selectorized dumbbells? If not, you’ve probably seen them. While the exact shape and structure can vary from one model to the next, a basic selectorized dumbbell consists of a handle attached to a series of nested weight plates. To choose a weight, simply turn a knob or insert a pin on the nested plates and – voila! – you’re ready to go. Why go with a selectorized dumbbell rather than the standard “fixed” type of dumbbell? The biggest reason is space efficiency. A pair of selectorized dumbbells can take the place of a dozen or more pairs of the fixed variety. Storage is a cinch – just stick them in a closet or tuck them away in a corner and they’re out of sight. This is especially beneficial if you have a small workout area in your home. Prices vary depending on make and how much poundage you need. A pair of 12-pounders go for around $70 while a set of 50-pounders will run a couple of hundred bucks.
Stay Fit!
Brad
Bookmark this on Delicious
Uncategorized
November 12, 2009
Wanted to let everyone know that I’ll be lecturing in Ontario, Canada this weekend. For those interested in attending, you can read about it at the link below:
Bestselling Fitness Trainer Coming to Windsor
Hope to see you there.
Stay Fit!
Brad
Uncategorized
August 16, 2009
Thanks for all your emails on my blog post refuting John Cloud’s Time magazine article that exercise is useless for weight loss. Several of you pointed out, however, that I neglected to mention the author’s contention that exercise is supposed to turn fat into muscle. You’re right, I should have. My bad.
In case you missed it, here is the quote from Mr. Cloud:
You might think half a muffin over an entire day wouldn’t matter much, particularly if you exercise regularly. After all, doesn’t exercise turn fat to muscle, and doesn’t muscle process excess calories more efficiently than fat does?
It amazes me that a high-profile journalist would print such an absurd statement and it’s even more amazing that the fact-checkers over at Time wouldn’t have flagged it as an obvious faux pas. Let’s be clear here: muscle and fat are two separate and distinct properties that have completely different molecular structures. Muscle is a protein-based tissue comprised of filaments called actin and myosin. These filaments are derived from various amino acids and carry out a plethora of metabolic functions. Body fat, on the other hand, is a stored triglyceride. Triglycerides are made up of a carbohydrate (glycerol) moiety and three fatty acids. Once formed, triglycerides are packaged into cells called adipocytes (fat cells) and are used primarily as a long-term energy source. In their stored form, fat is biologically inert with little purpose other than to provide fuel and insulation. Hence, the possibility of muscle turning into fat (or vice versa) is akin to an apple becoming an orange: There’s simply no mechanism for it to happen.
On a related note, this shows that you shouldn’t avoid strength training in fear that the muscle you develop will turn to fat if you stop working out. Sadly, I still hear this reasoning, especially amongst women. Reality check: The only thing that happens when you stop training is that your muscles begin to atrophy (i.e. get smaller), eventually returning to pre-exercise levels. Since muscle loss is often associated with a decreased metabolic rate which, in turn, indirectly increases fat deposits, it can appear as if muscle has turned into fat. In reality, though, there is simply more fat and less muscle.
But why would you stop training, anyway? Make exercise a habit. Ingrain it into your everyday lifestyle. You’ll be healthier–and yes, leaner–as a result.
Stay Fit!
Brad
Bookmark this on Delicious
Exercise, Uncategorized
August 12, 2009
“In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless…”
I must say, I was pretty much speechless after reading this statement (and it isn’t easy to leave me speechless!). After all, this wasn’t some weirdo quack making the kind of absurd comments you often see on the Internet. Rather, these are the words of a man named Eric Ravussin, chair in diabetes and metabolism at Louisiana State University. If nothing else, the man has credentials.
The statement by Ravussin appeared in a recent Time magazine article written by John Cloud and titled, Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin. As you may have guessed, the article attempts to make a case that exercise is unnecessary for weight loss. In fact, Mr. Cloud, infers that an intense workout might actually hinder your weight loss efforts! Could this actually be true? Should we ditch the gym and go back to being a country of interactive couch potatoes in our quest to be lean? Let’s take a look at the major points made in the article and see what conclusions can be drawn from actual research…
A primary contention of the article is that working out is ineffective in promoting weight loss because exercise makes people hungry. Here is the author’s claim:
The basic problem is that while it’s true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued.
Let’s say for a moment that this claim is actually true and that an exercise session sends us straight to the fridge for that leftover piece of cheesecake. Do we thus conclude that exercise is superfluous for those trying to lose weight? If so, I guess we shouldn’t go to the movies since people tend to fill up on buttered popcorn and Bonbons when they’re watching a flick (blame Hollywood for our beer guts and saddlebags!).
Really now, just because you’re hungry following a workout doesn’t mean you have to binge on junk food. I don’t think I’m breaking any new ground in stating that there are many nutritious food-choices available that won’t pad your love handles. It’s is well known, for instance, that consuming protein has a satiety-inducing effect. High protein foods such as lean poultry, fish, and/or eggs not only help to fuel training (those involved in exercise have been shown to need about double the protein of sedentary individuals), but also to aid in quelling hunger. Ditto for fiber rich foods, which fill you up without filling you out. A hearty chicken or tuna salad eaten post-workout will provide a terrific source of nutrients and abolish any thoughts of downing that pint of Ben and Jerry’s sitting in the freezer (and why do you have ice cream in your house when you’re trying to lose weight anyway?).
Now let’s return to the original supposition that exercise makes you hungry. Is there really evidence to show such a phenomenon? The prevailing body of research says there’s not. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. A study by Martins and colleagues (1) had subjects perform moderate aerobic exercise for an hour and then assessed hunger both by self-reported hunger scores as well as measuring various “satiety-related hormones” (i.e. PYY, GLP-1, PP). The result? Self reported hunger showed no significant changes in fullness (‘How full do you feel?’) or motivation to eat (‘How much do you feel you can eat?’) in response to exercise. Moreover, there was an exercise-induced increase in levels of PYY, GLP-1 and PP, which have been shown to reduce the urge to eat. Bottom line: there was no evidence of either physiological or psychological indices of increased hunger from exercise. If anything, there was a trend for greater satiety.
A more recent study at Colorado State University came to similar conclusions. Ballard and colleagues (2) measured levels of the hormone ghrelin after an 80 minute bout of resistance training. Ghrelin has been called the “hunger hormone” – as ghrelin levels rise, so does the urge to eat. Well, surprise, surprise, ghrelin levels fell 13 to 21% as a result of the training protocol, leading researchers to conclude “weight lifting lowers plasma ghrelin concentrations during exercise and attenuates its rise during the postexercise period in young men.”
So, you might ask, how is it then that some people don’t show significant weight loss from exercise? This was addressed in a very well done study by King and colleagues, appearing in the International Journal of Obesity (3). The study showed that a 5-day-a-week moderate-intensity exercise program designed to expend 500 calories per session resulted in an average weight loss of more than 8 pounds after 12 weeks of training. What was most interesting, however, was that there was a huge variability between subjects, ranging from a loss of a whopping 32 pounds in one individual to a gain of almost 4 pounds in another. The researchers went on to conclude that some people are compensators, most likely choosing to binge out after exercise not because they are hungry, but rather as a “reward” for being active. The problem, therefore, is not in using exercise as a weight loss tool; it’s in educating the compensators on strategies to avoid compensating. Exercise works, just don’t feel you’re entitled to munch out because you spent a half-hour on the treadmill. If you want a reward, buy yourself a new dress that’s two sizes smaller–that will keep you motivated to stay away from the fridge!
Another glaring problem with the Time Magazine article is that there’s no distinction made between the types of exercise performed and their effects on weight management. Specifically, resistance training has been shown to be crucial in accelerating fat loss. During dieting, approximately 1/3 of weight lost is from muscle tissue. Since muscle is highly correlated with metabolism, consistent dieting gradually lowers resting metabolic rate, making further weight loss difficult to impossible. Cardiovascular exercise does little to preserve lean body tissue. Lifting weights, however, not only attenuates the decline in metabolism, it can actually increase it (4-7).
Nowhere is this better exemplified than in a study conducted by Ballor and colleagues at the University of Michigan (8). Forty obese women were assigned to one of four groups: diet only, weight-training only, diet plus weight training, and a control (no diet or exercise). After 8 weeks, the diet only group lost the most weight (just under 10 pounds) while the diet plus weight training group came in a close second at approximately 8.5 pounds. The more important statistic, however, was that lean body mass decreased by 2 pounds in the diet-only group, while it *increased* by over 2 pounds in the diet plus weight training group. This not only means that those who lifted weights lost significantly more body fat during the protocol, but that they had a superior body composition.
The Time Magazine article pooh-poohs the metabolic benefits of muscle, citing a Columbia University study that concluded a pound of muscle burns only about six calories a day at rest. This led the Time author to say:
…Which means that after you work out hard enough to convert, say, 10 lb. of fat to muscle — a major achievement — you would be able to eat only an extra 40 calories per day, about the amount in a teaspoon of butter, before beginning to gain weight. Good luck with that.
While this makes good copy, other studies seem to show that muscle possesses greater metabolic properties than those found at Columbia. Much greater. In a study done at Tufts University (9), Cambell and colleagues reported an increase in lean body weight of 3.1 pounds after 12 weeks of strength training increased resting metabolic rate by approximately 6.8%. This translated into an additional 105 calories burned per day. Do the math, and that equates to approximately 35 calories burned for each pound of added muscle. A study by Pratley and colleagues (10) came to a similar conclusion on the topic. A similar four month strength training protocol resulted in a gain of 3.5 pounds of lean muscle. Metabolic rate showed a resulting 7.7% increase, correlating to a metabolic-heightening effect of muscle of approximately 34 calories.
Taking the results of these studies into account, that same 10 pound gain in muscle cited in the Time article would conceivably help to burn an additional 350 calories a day, which would translate into a weight loss of about 36 pounds in a year by simply maintaining this level of muscularity. Even if the actual effects are only half those found in these protocols, that’s still pretty impressive in my book…
Perhaps most importantly, what the Time article seems to completely ignore is the fact that exercise has been shown to be extremely important for maintenance of goal weight after weight loss. Clearly, those who exercise show an improved ability to sustain lower levels of body weight and avoid weight regain after dieting (11-13). And ultimately the most important aspect of weight loss shouldn’t simply be to lose the weight, but rather to keep it off over the long haul.
Summing up, there is compelling evidence that exercise is not only a beneficial aspect of any weight loss program, but it’s crucial in long-term weight maintenance. Despite what you might have read in Time, don’t ditch your gym membership just yet…at least if you want to stay lean!
Stay Fit!
Brad
Bookmark this on Delicious
1) Martins C, Morgan LM, Bloom SR, Robertson MD. Effects of exercise on gut peptides, energy intake and appetite. J Endocrinol. 2007 May;193(2):251-8.
2) Ballard TP, Melby CL, Camus H, Cianciulli M, Pitts J, Schmidt S, Hickey MS. Effect of resistance exercise, with or without carbohydrate supplementation, on plasma ghrelin concentrations and postexercise hunger and food intake. Metabolism. 2009 Aug;58(8):1191-9.
3) King NA, Hopkins M, Caudwell P, Stubbs RJ, Blundell JE. Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008 Jan;32(1):177-84.
4) 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.
5) Donnelly JE, et al. Muscle hypertrophy with large-scale weight loss and resistance training. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Oct;58(4):561-5.
6) 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.
7) Hunter GR, Byrne NM, Sirikul B, Fernández JR, Zuckerman PA, Darnell BE, Gower BA. Resistance training conserves fat-free mass and resting energy expenditure following weight loss. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008 May;16(5):1045-51.
8 ) Ballor DL, et al. Resistance weight training during caloric restriction enhances lean body weight maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Jan;47(1):19-25.
9) 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
10) Pratley, R., B. Nicklas, M. Rubin, J. Miller, A. Smith, M. Smith, B. Hurley and A. Goldberg. 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.
11) Wang X, Lyles MF, You T, Berry MJ, Rejeski WJ, Nicklas BJ. Weight regain is related to decreases in physical activity during weight loss. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Oct;40(10):1781-8.
12) Miller WC, Koceja DM, Hamilton EJ. A meta-analysis of the past 25 years of weight loss research using diet, exercise or diet plus exercise intervention. Int J Obes 1997;21:941–947.
13) Curioni CC, Lourenço PM. Long-term weight loss after diet and exercise: a systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond). 2005 Oct;29(10):1168-74.
Entries (RSS)
