Maurice Boscorelli
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 19,322
This excerpt is from an interview with Alwyn Cosgrove. One of the foremost experts on fitness training.
TT: In a previous interview you commented that aerobics were useless for fat loss. This caused a lot of controversy (see what all the fuss was about What did you mean?
AC: I’m sure you’ll agree Craig that it only seemed to cause controversy with people who don’t do this for a living. Most of the good practitioners in this area didn’t even blink. It’s not controversial at all in terms of fat loss and I’m getting bored going over it.
I don’t think anyone who has trained themselves or anyone else has ever seen low intensity cardio to be a very effective fat loss tool. The loss in lean mass that is typical in most weight loss programs needs to be offset – and steady state aerobic training (despite it’s plentiful health benefits) only adds to that problem.
So let me expand on what I meant:
When I said “Aerobics are useless for fat loss” what I meant was “aerobics are useless for fat loss”. Is that clearer?
Ok – to be less antagonistic, let’s just say that aerobic training for fat loss is the most overrated and overemphasized method in use today. It’s completely outdated as a fat loss modality.
Here’s a quote from Paul Chek:
“First of all, lifting weights in the intensity zone of 8-12 reps coupled with short rest periods has been shown beneficial for releasing the androgenic hormone testosterone and growth hormone. These important hormones encourage development of lean muscle mass, which is a metabolically active tissue consuming calories 24 hours a day. Fat, on the other hand is just along for the ride! Aerobic exercise has been linked with the release of the catabolic hormone cortisol, which is antagonistic to the development of lean muscle mass. Cortisol also promotes conservation of glucose and encourages the use of fat. This might sound good on the surface, but you also become as efficient as a Honda Civic running for 80 kilometers on one gallon of gas. Then you are just like those people going for hours at a time on machines, only to utilize miniscule amounts of fat!”
The efficiency argument is interesting. Does weight training build muscle? No. It breaks down muscle and the body ADAPTS by building more muscle. So in aerobic training – when we “Encourage the use of fat” – do we force that same body to adapt by storing more fat? Interesting…guys like Poliquin, Chek, Jim Liston, Eric Serrano, etc., etc., all seem to think so. And most of the spinning and aerobic instructors at the local gyms in my area who’ve hired me to get them lean can anecdotally tell you that the more aerobic training they do – the harder it is for them to lean out.
Seriously – there are thousands of overweight individuals each year who complete marathons. Now completing a marathon is damn impressive to me. However it shows that the aerobic fitness needed to complete a marathon doesn’t have anything necessarily to do with creating a fat loss effect. So if you are capable of two to three hours of steady state running and still not be burning enough fat – we can either go to a higher intensity or you can try four hours of running. Any takers for the latter?
In terms of fat loss – calories burned are the most important factor. And aerobic training burns less calories than anaerobic training and weight training overall (besides doing very little to increase your metabolism -your body’s calorie burning engine).
So if we accept that lean mass is a major factor in your fat burning engine – and aerobic training makes that engine smaller (i.e. less muscle) and more efficient at burning fat (remember more efficient means it burns LESS) – how can having a smaller more efficient fat burning machine burn more fat? It doesn’t.
TT: In a previous interview you commented that aerobics were useless for fat loss. This caused a lot of controversy (see what all the fuss was about What did you mean?
AC: I’m sure you’ll agree Craig that it only seemed to cause controversy with people who don’t do this for a living. Most of the good practitioners in this area didn’t even blink. It’s not controversial at all in terms of fat loss and I’m getting bored going over it.
I don’t think anyone who has trained themselves or anyone else has ever seen low intensity cardio to be a very effective fat loss tool. The loss in lean mass that is typical in most weight loss programs needs to be offset – and steady state aerobic training (despite it’s plentiful health benefits) only adds to that problem.
So let me expand on what I meant:
When I said “Aerobics are useless for fat loss” what I meant was “aerobics are useless for fat loss”. Is that clearer?
Ok – to be less antagonistic, let’s just say that aerobic training for fat loss is the most overrated and overemphasized method in use today. It’s completely outdated as a fat loss modality.
Here’s a quote from Paul Chek:
“First of all, lifting weights in the intensity zone of 8-12 reps coupled with short rest periods has been shown beneficial for releasing the androgenic hormone testosterone and growth hormone. These important hormones encourage development of lean muscle mass, which is a metabolically active tissue consuming calories 24 hours a day. Fat, on the other hand is just along for the ride! Aerobic exercise has been linked with the release of the catabolic hormone cortisol, which is antagonistic to the development of lean muscle mass. Cortisol also promotes conservation of glucose and encourages the use of fat. This might sound good on the surface, but you also become as efficient as a Honda Civic running for 80 kilometers on one gallon of gas. Then you are just like those people going for hours at a time on machines, only to utilize miniscule amounts of fat!”
The efficiency argument is interesting. Does weight training build muscle? No. It breaks down muscle and the body ADAPTS by building more muscle. So in aerobic training – when we “Encourage the use of fat” – do we force that same body to adapt by storing more fat? Interesting…guys like Poliquin, Chek, Jim Liston, Eric Serrano, etc., etc., all seem to think so. And most of the spinning and aerobic instructors at the local gyms in my area who’ve hired me to get them lean can anecdotally tell you that the more aerobic training they do – the harder it is for them to lean out.
Seriously – there are thousands of overweight individuals each year who complete marathons. Now completing a marathon is damn impressive to me. However it shows that the aerobic fitness needed to complete a marathon doesn’t have anything necessarily to do with creating a fat loss effect. So if you are capable of two to three hours of steady state running and still not be burning enough fat – we can either go to a higher intensity or you can try four hours of running. Any takers for the latter?
In terms of fat loss – calories burned are the most important factor. And aerobic training burns less calories than anaerobic training and weight training overall (besides doing very little to increase your metabolism -your body’s calorie burning engine).
So if we accept that lean mass is a major factor in your fat burning engine – and aerobic training makes that engine smaller (i.e. less muscle) and more efficient at burning fat (remember more efficient means it burns LESS) – how can having a smaller more efficient fat burning machine burn more fat? It doesn’t.
Good point.
