.

Recently there has been a lot of buzz in the fitness industry about a new study showing that 45 minutes on vigorous activity boosts post exercise calorie burning by 190 calories.  Frankly, I think the study was done VERY well, but I think people are taking it to mean more than it does.  I figured I’d do a quick review to share a few of my thoughts.

.

In short, the researchers took 10 subjects had each one spend 24 hours in a metabolic chamber on two separate occaisions.

.

For the uninitiated, a metabolic chamber is an 8 x 10 foot room with a 7 foot ceiling that is completely sealed for the period in which the subject is studied.  (In other words, if you don’t like enclosed spaces you’d probably freak right the hell out)

.

On one occaision the subjects did no physical activity within the chamber other than what was necessary for daily living (washing, brushing teeth, etc).  The rest of the time was spent sitting and no additional activity was permitted.

.

On another occaision, the same methods were followed except that subjects performed 45 minutes of exercise at a “vigorous” intensity (75% VO2 max – actually VO2 peak, but that’s just being picky). 

.

On both occaisions subjects received meals that were designed to keep them in calorie balance so on the exercise day subjects were fed more food to account for the calories expended from activity.

.

The results of this very strictly controlled study showed that when the subjects exercised they burned 514 calories from the exercise bout itself and an additional 190 calories in the post exercise period.

.

So what does this study actually tell us?

.

This study shows that you’ll burn 190 extra calories after doing vigorous exercise than you would if you did absolutely nothing!

.

Mind-friggin’-blowing isn’t it?!?

.

I think the researchers did a very good job at answering the question they asked, but I’m not sure the the research is of much relevance to non-researchers (i.e., people who want to lose fat).  I don’t think there is really anything new here.

.

Previous research has demonstrated that intensity and duration can both contribute to the post exercise calorie expenditure so this research just reinforces this fact. 

.

.And more importantly, does it really matter?

.

To illustrate the effects of such a protocol in the real world a training study would have to be conducted to show that fat loss would result as a chronic effect of this protocol.

.

But again…you’d be looking at doing nothing versus doing something so I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be surprised to see that the exercise group might come out on top.

.

In summary, exercise versus not exercising DOES result in increased calorie expenditure.  You might even hypothesize (probably correctly) that this would result in greater weight loss over time. 

.

Would there be a difference between two exercise intensities if done for the same time with both groups already in a calorie deficit and free living conditions (i.e., not being told to sit down all day in a box)?

.

I don’t know the answer to that.  But I’m not holding my breath since exercise really doesn’t tend to result in more weight loss in trials where diet changes are already in place.

.

In the end, this study does show we burn more calories when we exercise which is good (not surprising).  But it doesn’t really tell us much more than that.

.

.—

.

Knab AM, Shanely RA, Corbin K, Jin F, Sha W, Nieman DC. A 45-Minute Vigorous Exercise Bout Increases Metabolic Rate for 14 Hours. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Feb 8. [Epub ahead of print]

.

Side Note - I found it interesting that this study actually had two references from Eric Poehlman whose career has come crashing down after admitting to falsifying data in grant applications and several studies.

.

If you’d like to review studies like this for yourself, check out my product How to Read Fitness Research.

.

.

Today I want to switch gears and share a reader question that I’ve received and a snippet of my answer.  But first, a little background.

.

Within the body there are two main types of adipose (fat) tissue.  White adipose tissue is probably what you’re most familiar with as this is what you’ll be spending most of your time and effort trying to lose when you’re on a fat loss plan.  Brown adipose tissue (BAT) or brown fat, on the other hand, is actually metabolically active fat and can contribute to thermogenisis and calorie burning due to the large number of mitochondria within the cells.  Some have actually proposed that new weight loss drugs will be able to target brown adipose tissue to increase calorie output and increase weight loss as a result.

.

Which leads me to our reader question…

.

I think it’s great that we find out as much about our physiology as possible, but then using this just to give fat people drugs to raise their BAT content, so they can eat as before or even more is quite perverse.  What about dieting?! This is a great dilemma of our society today.  Always trying to find the easy way out (i.e. pharmaceuticals) instead of just trying hard enough by dieting (and exercising).  What do you think about this?

.

And my answer…

.

In terms of obesity management, there are still many unknowns, but one thing we do know is that diet and exercise typically only prove useful in the short term as many people (over 95%) will regain some or all of the weight lost in the long term.  So just saying “exercise more and eat less” is not an effective strategy for weight management in this group.  They don’t fail because they don’t understand WHAT to do.  It is more about application.  Further, this underscores the need for a greater focus on the cognitive and behavioural strategies for weight loss which is the focus of much research and practice right now.

.
 
However, we also know that previous anti-obesity drugs can not only help morbidly obese patients lose 5-10% of their body weight (not a lot, but the amount required to improve health markers dramatically) and keep it off with greater success.  In the wake of drugs like Merida being pulled from the market (due largely to use on contraindicated patients) and other drugs like Contrave and Qnexa getting rejected by the FDA, there is only one anti-obesity drug on the market right now.  That drug (called Xenical) is a fat blocker and it is not really well tolerated as it can lead to loose stools and a bad sneeze could totally ruin your day.

. 

How is it that we have drugs for Diabetes, depression, hypertension, anxiety, and almost any other problem under the sun, but we can’t treat obesity???  Isn’t this THE single biggest epidemic causing many of the conditions above?  (Hint: Part of the reason is weight bias and discrimination where we think obesity it solely the fault of the afflicted.  This stereotype needs to change.)

.

Now I am not saying that we should medicate INSTEAD of behavioural treatment, dietary counselling, and exercise, but I think that medication in conjunction would go a long way to making weight loss more sustainable and improve the health of these people.  To take it further, the previous classes of drugs for obesity that act like stimulants will probably never survive the FDA panels.  New classes like GLP1 Agonists are coming, but drugs for BAT might just save lives.

.

And I don’t think these should be for the general population who want to lose a few pounds, but I have no problem treating people for obesity with these drugs.  After all, the very best drugs have only resulted in just over 5% weight loss anyway.  While this is great for obesity treatment and health, most people wouldn’t even bother.

.

Which, of course, leads to the question…if we can’t create drugs that safely produce more than 5% weight loss, what makes people think there are supplements that can do more?

.

So that’s my perspective.  What do you think?  Agree?  Disagree?  Let me have it in the comments section below.

.

.

Today I just wanted to give you all a little update on my How to Read Fitness Research product.

.

The product is done and, as of yesterday, the cover art is in.  Today I’m just putting the final touches on the sales page (kill me now) so I should be able to finally get that done.  Once that is complete it is simple a matter of waiting for the product to be approved for sale through the vendor and we’re good to go.

.

 Next week if I’m feeling really nice I might just be inclined to give away a couple free copies!

.

Stay tuned for details…and have a great weekend!

.

.

I have a confession to make.

.

I use interval training with my clients for fat loss.

. 

For those who are new to this blog this will probably come as no surprise as interval training is pretty trendy and everyone and their mother “knows” that interval training is better than steady state exercise for fat loss.

.

However, my regular readers will know that I’m not buying this at all.  As far as the research is concerned, I don’t think that there is any evidence to date showing that interval training is vastly superior in terms of total fat loss compared to steady state exercise.  In fact, there are only a handful of studies (less than 5) actually looking at this and the differences in fat loss between groups are actually quite small.

.

To further complicate matters, in studies where intervals and steady state have been compared, there was no calorie restriction.  As I mentioned previously, adding exercise to diet rarely yields additional weight loss so I’m wondering just how much of an extra effect intervals would have if this was added to the mix.  I’m guessing the divide between intervals and steady state would get even smaller!

.

Until a study is conducted where steady state is compared to intervals with dietary restriction and a similar amount of mechanical work,  I think the jury will be out on the true effectiveness of this method for fat loss.  I could be wrong, but in the end, I think they may just pan out to be even.

.

Of course, some might find this shocking given the amount of media hype about how intervals will make you lose 26 pounds of fat in 18 seconds.  But the truth is, that if you prefer steady state exercise or you don’t love puking on your shoes after repeated sets of sprints, you don’t necessarily need to jump on the interval bandwagon if you want to get lean.  After all, people used steady state exercise to get lean for years before intervals were “in”.

.

So why would I use intervals in my fat loss programs???

.

One word.  TIME.  I certainly don’t believe that intervals are better, but I know they are faster and that is where I believe the big distinction is.  Maybe it is semantics, but I don’t think it is fair to tell people that intervals are superior when the research doesn’t support it.

.

If you only have time for short bouts of activity then I’m in full agreement that intervals are a good choice (which is why I think so many facilities that use them feel intervals are superior).  But for those who prefer steady state exercise and have more time available for this I don’t feel that we need to force them into interval training.

.

Both work.  Find what you like, get it done, and be consistent.  Diet is probably more important anyway.

.

What do you think?

.

A while back I did a guest post for my buddy Bret Contreras where I basically stated that the acute rise in hormones like testosterone and growth hormone from certain types of training protocols has no additional  effect on muscle hypertrophy (growth). 

.

Then, just a couple weeks ago, one of my friends emailed me a recent study showing exactly the opposite with the primary difference being the timing of the “hormone inducing” workout.

.

In both studies the authors had the subjects train one arm in a low horomone condition and the other arm in a high hormone condition on alternate days.  In the first study though, the authors had the subjects perform additional leg exercise AFTER the arm training to increase anabolic hormones in the high hormone condition.  In the more recent study, the subjects  performed the leg exercise to increase growth hormone and testosterone BEFORE the arm exercise in the high hormone condition.

.

In the first study they found no difference in strength and muscle growth between the two conditions and in the more recent study they found that the higher hormone condition increased the strength and muscle growth to a greater degree.

.

At first glance, it appears that boosting hormones via training BEFORE training your smaller muscle groups (like biceps) can increase your results.

.

However, one other major difference was that in the first study they gave each subject a drink containing protein both before and after the workout.  In the more recent study, they “encouraged” subjects to consume something afterward, but nothing was formally provided.

.

Previous studies have demonstrated that there may be a maximum level of protein synthesis that can be achieved and that giving a bolus of protein in conjunction with exercise would make this easily achievable.  Because they didn’t give a peri-workout beverage at all in the second group, it is hard to know whether the differences would have been seen if protein synthesis had already been maxed out.

.

So it MAY be that doing hormone inducing exercise before your smaller muscle groups can accelerate muscle growth.  Or it may be that doing hormone inducing exercise before training your smaller muscle groups can accelerate growth when protein synthesis isn’t already maxed out from pre or post workout nutrition.

.

The moral of the story though, is that since the second study didn’t control peri-workout nutrition, we just don’t know.  For now, I’m still leaning towards the conclusions of the first study since the second study lacked the appropriate control to really answer this question.

.

If you’d like to review studies like this for yourself, check out my product How to Read Fitness Research.

.