Good Reads

Steve

Member
Staff member
As a subscriber to many newsleters, websites, forums, etc.... as well as doing my own research, I come across quite a good number of useful articles that some here would find value in.

I figured I'd start a thread that simply highlights some of these articles as they 'come across my desk.' I'll do so in no particular order. If I think one is worthy, I'll post it in this thread. People can read them, ignore them, discuss them..... whatever.
 
Critical Thinking & Evaluating Information 1

Here's a good one by Matt Perryman over at amptraining.com who I've highlighted a number of times on this forum. I think I've actually posted this article once before, but it definitely deserves to be in this sticky:

******************************

Female-Specific Training and Diet for Physique Development
Part I - Myths and Misconceptions in Training


This is going to be a three-part series on "how to train and diet" with a slant towards women in specific.

Women in general don't need to do anything crazy, stupid, or outlandish in order to get in shape. In terms of stress-response from the body, which is all training and diet are, women respond nearly identically to men.

What this means is that any training or diet regimen that works for men will work for women. But you don't see this advertised. Quite the opposite.

I feel bad for women that are trying to get in shape. I really do. Men, although still bombarded with rampant idiocy, have it relatively easy compared to women.

The training of women by necessity falls into two categories:

1. Women are different than men, and thus should train differently.


2. Women respond to physical activity in the same way as men, and thus should train the same as men.

The old-school train of thought is that number one is true. I should explain what I mean by old-school. In this context, I mean the uneducated masses of men that inhabit most commercial gyms and assume they know what women should do based on the advice propagated by women's magazines. This is what "everybody knows" women should do.

There's also a lot of women that fall into this category as well, generally adopting this stance based on the one 21-year old girl that's “hot and sexy”. She trains a certain way, so therefore her appearance must be due to that. It certainly can't have anything to do with genetics; the factors that control how the body develops and reacts to outside stimuli. Nah, that'd be dumb.

These training approaches often emphasize a lot of high-rep work with isolation-type exercises, stuff that is affectionately referred to as “pump and tone crap”, and a major emphasis on endless spans of low-intensity cardio.

This would be a perfectly valid training strategy to take, except for one crucial fact: the vast majority of women training will see little to no results training in this way. There's a laundry list of reasons as to why, but the gist of it is simple: the body is never pushed sufficiently into making any real changes. If you provide no stimulus, you get no response.

Compound this with often idiotic dietary recommendations, which are usually way out in left field in regards to what and how much should be eaten, and you've got a recipe for failure.

Then of course you get the other side of the pendulum. Recent years have shown a resurgence of a more intellectual, logical, and science-based approach to training, which has led to many more sound practices. Relatively speaking, at least.

The result is a greater emphasis on strength training and overall conditioning, as opposed to “pump and tone” alongside endless cardio sessions.

This, on the surface, is a good thing. As the general base of training knowledge has become more readily available, smart coaches and smart women have begun to adopt these practices with much more favorable results. Truthfully, intelligent training benefits both men and women. In this world view, women are maximizing their results just as much as men are.

However, even point two has problems. Firstly, the “new paradigm” of intelligent training has its share of misapplication and misinformation, to include the famous paralysis by analysis issue. Secondly, some still can't let go of premise one from above, and will try to subtly sneak in “pump and tone” crap under the guise of intelligent propositions. Thirdly, some are capitalizing on this market with material just for the sake of material. This can lead right back to stupidity.

The first issue applies globally to men and women; the second is still a matter of men assuming that women will respond differently. This attempt at rationalization has rested upon the idea that men and women need to train identically when the goals are the same, but that women have different goals, which justifies bringing out different training approaches.

Do they now? This is a hefty assumption, and one that's resting on shaky grounds. However a more in-depth look at things can shed light on both the “old school” approach as well as this newer incarnation hiding behind the mask of science.
 
Last edited:
Women and the Mythology of Strength Training

First, we need to understand exactly what goes into developing the physique. At heart, it's two key things: the development of the musculature, and the removal of subcutaneous fat stores.

If you're an uninitiated woman, you just read “development of the musculature” and ran straight to the treadmill because for years you've been bombarded with the idea of toning with light weights so you don't get bulky.

Here's where a little science comes in handy. Men get large because they have about ten times more testosterone in their bodies than women do. It just so happens that the particular type of muscle fibers that are the most susceptible to massive growth are also the ones that are most responsive to testosterone and other androgens.

What this means is that while women can grow muscles to an extent, without taking androgenic (male) drugs they won't experience massive hypertrophy (muscle growth). That huge bodybuilder girl you saw in a magazine? Her body contains more androgenic chemicals than (at least) 4-5 average men, and is likely more receptive to them on top of that. Unless that applies to you, you just aren't going to become a huge muscle-bound beast.

We know, at least in terms of what to do in the gym, what it takes to develop the muscle. It's pretty simple really; the use of progressively heavier weights that are above the minimum threshold required to stimulate growth. The typically assigned optimal range is 60% to 80% of your single-rep maximum in an exercise. This has been evaluated and re-evaluated to death in both the research and in real-world gym results.

In practice, this means you'll be using anywhere from one rep to 20 reps, averaging somewhere in the 4-12 range depending on personal responses, preferences, and exercise choices. It also means that over some time frame, you'll be working to add working weight to those exercises. It is this progressive overload that is the ultimate determinant of muscular development.

Since it is muscle that gives the body its look and shape, it is muscle that you'll need to attain a “lean and sexy” look, as so many have taken to calling it.

So women have different goals? From the look of things so far, women have the same goals. They need to develop muscle in an efficient manner; the physiological realities of the female body preclude “getting bulky”.

Some have suggested that exercise selection plays a role. It does, but not as some would have you believe. What is required is a selection of basic barbell and bodyweight exercises that are practically universal for every goal, and a pool of assistance exercises that can be added into a workout for the sake of variety.

In other words, what you want is to have the various muscle groups of the body stimulated with your workout.

The basic exercises will vary according to who you ask, but since you're asking me, my list is the squat, the deadlift, the overhead press, the bench press, and the barbell row. Assistance lifts in this instance would include things like pullups (using varied grips), back raises/hip extensions, lunges and other forms of single-leg training, and whatever mess you feel you need to do for your arms. Arms are a vanity thing for most people, so adding in a little work for completeness won't hurt anything.

This list isn't comprehensive. It covers basic movement patterns, but as far as variations on the exercises, things like grip, implement used (barbell, dumbbell, whatever), range of motion, stuff like that really isn't that critical so long as the movement patterns are accounted for. Some degree of variety here is a good thing, so don't get caught up in the details.

This brings me back to the original point. If you're using major exercises that cover every muscle in the body, where are you going to develop weak points? Where are you going to “overdevelop” any single muscle group?

Imbalances occur in the kids you always see at the gym doing 30 sets of bench press and 30 sets of curls. They might have a big chest, shoulders, and arms (most likely not), but nothing else is developed. On a woman, that same sort of syndrome exists in terms of working the legs/butt/abs, and in some cases you might see imbalances occur.

But in a balanced routine? You start to see the fallacy of the logic.

This isn't to say you never ever need to do any bodypart-specific exercises, or never need to change your larger exercises. These are still useful strategies. The take home here is that this should not be the focus of your training. This is considered accessory work, something to add on to your foundational training. Your physique is built by getting stronger in the basics.

The key point to remember is that the body doesn't like imbalances, and ultimately how you end up looking is going to be determined by your genetics. Even drugs can only manipulate physiology so much when compared to what genetics will determine.

So really, the outcome of “looking good” isn't so much a factor of training in a certain fashion; you're not going to shape your muscles to any significant degree (while this isn't entirely true, but unless you're a very advanced lifter with a lot of experience, it's not something you need concern yourself with).

What it boils down to is the proper use of tools to 1) build and maintain muscle across the body with a balanced routine and 2) drop body fat using a combination of nutritional and exercise strategies. In terms of training for physique goals, that's all you're doing. How you end up once you've built muscle and gotten lean is determined by the genes you inherited.
 
Strength Training

Ok, with that out of the way, how do you go about starting this process?

It can be very tricky, and as mentioned, there's a lot of conflicting information. Some of it is right, a lot of it is wrong, and some of it is quasi-correct, meaning that it has an element of truth but is being used incorrectly. Sometimes even the correct stuff gets overcomplicated, becoming useless since you can't actually do anything with it at the gym.

Here are the basics:

Keep your exercises balanced across the body

This means practically speaking, you have a handful of options for your weekly training, since ideally all the basic movements would be targeted multiple times in a week.

Split Body Routine

A split body routine is the most commonly encountered type by most people. They're heavily publicized by magazines and professional bodybuilding/figure competitors. As a consequence, this is how "most" people train.

That does not, however, make it the best.

There are pros and cons to split training just as much as full body.

Pros: It's easy to concentrate a larger amount of work on a specific muscle group or exercise. This is good for people that need to devote work to developing a muscle, or maybe an exercise (such as powerlifters). This is so-called "vertical development", the use of multiple training strategies in a single session.

Cons: If done improperly, it can be very hard to ensure appropriate frequency of training for all body parts, which can lead to too much or too little being done. It can also be difficult to develop specific qualities.

Full Body Routine

Full body routines on the other hand are more commonly used by athletes and competitors in sports that occur outside the weight room. They can be just as effective for bodybuilding and physique purposes however.

Full body routines are a type of horizontal or sequential organization, which means you train the entire body with a single quality. In athletics, this can be a number of things. For physique emphasis, in most instances it will be limited to simple intensity fluctuation, which will affect things like volume, rep range, etc, but not truly training different motor abilities.

Pros: Easy to control and manipulate stress across a week by altering intensity. Can train parts frequently without issues.

Cons: Only allows a limited volume of work for any given part or exercises.

Which you pick isn't that important, so long as it is balanced and provides an appropriate frequency of exposure per part (more on this below). In fact, just out of simple practicality, factors such as boredom, and other issues, it's probably just as good an idea to rotate between the two from time to time.

Train often

This one is pretty critical. Going by the research available, the average frequency is two or three sessions per week, for any given bodypart.

This is further supported by what we know about the processes of growth that occur at the cellular level. In most cases, they tend to peak around 24 hours after a session, and are largely returned to normal within 2-3 days.

What this means is that in order to ensure optimal growth conditions, you'll want to follow this trend.

There are instances where this may not hold true, and using less frequency might be called for. However, these are generally special cases that are used for those that have plateaued and are using more advanced methods of planning.

For those of you just starting out or otherwise not at an advanced method, such approaches are usually not called for, and you will have the best results by training frequently.

In those new to weight training, the exercises can be thought of as a skill that improves as your strength does. The best way to improve a skill is to practice it frequently.
 
Train with weights that are between 60% and 90% of your maximum

This is one area where the research and the anecdote pretty much agree. You need heavy weights to stimulate muscular growth. In virtually all the academic literature, the loads used to stimulate the fastest gains in muscular cross-section fall into this range.

Now in most instances, you see this written as a percentage of the one-rep maximum. Depending on how trained you are and the exercise in question, this may be fairly easy to test or it might be so difficult and risky that it's not worth it.

For practical purposes, this means you'll be handling anything from 3-5 reps on down to 12-15 reps, assuming these sets are at or near the rep maximum (meaning, the most you can do before fatigue sets in). This, not coincidentally, also happens to be how the biggest and the strongest train, so in this instance research and reality coincide.

This doesn't mean you need to be out squatting and benching huge amounts of weight right off the bat. Heavy is always relative. Progression of load is always something to keep in mind as well; if you start out squatting with just the bar and improve to 200 lbs with the same form, I can guarantee you've improved not just your legs, but your entire body.

Women, specifically, tend to be able to do more reps at a given percentage of 1RM than men. So a man might be able to get 8 reps at 85%, whereas a woman could do 10. This can slant things somewhat, but the general idea is still the same.

As long as you're working with a high degree of effort in your chosen rep range and striving to add weight whenever possible, you're in the ballpark.

Train with a good degree of effort

Somewhat linked to the above, you'll also want to be doing reps until you are either incapable of doing any more due to fatigue, or very close to this state. This is something that has been referred to as "workout intensity", and although this isn't quite accurate (the appropriate word is "intensive") , it gets the point across.

Heavy weights are only part of the equation. Having a relatively high degree of exertion is important also.

Train with an appropriate volume
This is, in conjunction with the above two points, is one of the critical areas where people mess things up.

Volume is the amount of work done. This is expressed in several ways. Firstly, you have the total number of reps performed. If you do 4 sets of 6 reps, you've done 24 reps. If you do 3 sets of 10, you've done 30 reps. And so on.

Secondly, you have tonnage. Tonnage is simply the number of reps multiplied by the weight used. 4 sets of 6 at 100 lbs is 24 * 100 = 2400 lbs. 3 sets of 10 at 90 is 2700 lbs.

What the research on this matter shows, and generally in agreement with observed trends among physique competitors, is that the average number of reps per part per session is around 40-60. Good results have been shown with 20-40, as well as 80-100 and even higher.

In the case of 40-60 reps per part, this is not outlandish. Five sets of 5 for one exercise, then three sets of 8 for another would yield you 50 reps for a part, while falling into the required intensity zones.

However, this is a case where calling upon gym wisdom is useful. In my personal observation, going much over this for long periods of time is counterproductive. It can be done for short periods, or alternated with less stressful workouts (which is the preferred approach), but is not something that should be employed each and every session.

The body's ability to handle stress is limited. You need to trigger that response to a degree, but then back off of it to allow the body a chance to respond and recover. If you don't ever allow this to happen, you simply spin your wheels.

With that in mind, the gist of it is to shoot for a range of around 40-60 total reps per part trained. Other workouts, you can do more than this. Some workouts you can do less.

There's been a couple of review papers out recently that looked at the dose-response effects of training volume in terms of "optimal" responses, and they all seem to agree, and this also happens that it coincides with what does tend to work best in the real world.

The median number of reps is 40-60, with the total "range of effectiveness" being 20-100 reps, per part, per session.

If you sit down and do the math, the high-end of the median reps would be right at 5 sets of 5 (25) and 3 sets of 10 (30) for a total of 55. More moderate approaches like 3 sets of 5 (15) and 2 sets of 10 (20) would still put you right up there with 35 reps.

If you have the work capacity for 80-100 reps a session (hint: most of you don't need this much stimulus) you could do something like 5 sets of 6 (30), 3 sets of 10 (30) and 2 sets of 15 (30) for a total of 90 reps.

On another tangent, it has also been displayed that training with really heavy weights and an eccentric overload can create muscular gains with very low volumes of work, meaning 15 reps or less per session.

An eccentric overload means that on the lowering phase of the lift, the portion where the muscles are lengthening (as in the portion of the bench press when you bring the bar down to the chest) is being exposed to a large amount of weight. This is important, as it has been shown that the eccentric phase has a couple of neat effects. For one, it alters how the muscle recruits its fibers, bringing in more of the high-threshold fibers that are responsive to growth, and for two, it stimulates the fibers in a fashion that is positive for growth.

This type of work is employed by powerlifters seeking to improve their strength on a handful of barbell exercises, and has been used in the past by bodybuilders in a technique called negatives.

The idea here is to find the lifts that allow you to use a ton of weight, the aforementioned things like back squat, deadlift, the bench press, and barbell rows, then work up to very heavy sets of one to three reps over the course of a workout. This approach, called the maximal effort method, has been used to great success among powerlifters.

Bodybuilders using the negative technique have loaded up a barbell with more weight than they can lift on their own (typically 10-30% over the 1RM), then lowered the bar under control with a partner raising the bar back to the starting point. These are going to be very stressful on the system, and should not be attempted without a training partner.

As a rule, the maximal effort workouts are the preference, as they involve a pronounced eccentric phase on each lift just by the nature of it being very heavy, and tend to be less stressful on the body as a whole (albeit not by much).

Typically speaking, both approaches should be used with a spotter or two, and are not for the beginner. In any event, if you use such approaches, be aware that it is quite easy to do "too much", As noted previously, the total number of reps done should be less than 15. Keep in mind the body's recovery ability. Doing too much too often is not the trend to follow in nearly all instances.
 
Metabolic Conditioning (aka Cardio)

Of all the misconceptions out there, this is easily the biggest and the worst. From fitness mags to the average guy in the gym, "everybody knows" that cardio is what women have to do, and lots of it.

In order of importance on the list of things that actually make a difference in changing the body, aerobic endurance cardio is dead last. As far as I'm concerned, spending hour after hour on the treadmill is all but worthless if the remaining pieces of the puzzle aren't in place.

This does not mean that there is no use any time ever for low-intensity cardio. What it means is that you need to be smart about it. Smart beats hard for the sake of hard every single time.

Let's go over a little cellular energetics so that things make a little more sense.

At the cellular level, the body has two basic processes for obtaining energy, the anaerobic (oxygen independent) pathway and the aerobic (oxygen dependent) pathway.

The pathways are intensity dependent, with oxidative metabolism providing energy at rest and anaerobic metabolism providing energy as the intensity of movement increases.

The difference is the availability of energy. Anaerobic processes can readily provide energy over short time periods, whereas aerobic oxidation is slower from a metabolic standpoint. Intense activity uses up energy faster than aerobic metabolism can provide it. Anaerobic metabolism can provide energy quickly, but only in finite amounts before it needs recharging.

Over very short, very intense intervals, the primary energy substrate is ATP/CP, the so-called alactic or phosphagen anaerobic system. ATP, short for Adenosine Triphosphate, is essentially the energy currency of the cell, directly fueling all processes that require energy. The entire energetic system of the cell is designed around the creation and management of ATP. CP, creatine phosphate, is a short-term reserve of ATP, a compound that can almost immediately restore ATP levels.

The ATP/CP pathway is depleted after roughly 30 seconds of continuous activity, which means that very high intensity activity as a rule will not last longer than this. Athletes such as short-distance sprinters, powerlifters, and Olympic weightlifters are alactic-anaerobic dominant in their events.

The next step down is the glycolytic-anaerobic pathway. This involves the breakdown of muscular glycogen stores to provide a supply of ATP to the working muscle. Glycogen is simply blood glucose stored as a supply of energy, and "glycolytic" refers to the breaking down of glycogen. The by-product of this is lactic acid (or lactate), which results in the "burn" you feel when doing continuous exercise. Glycolytic-anaerobic work can sustain continuous work for around 90 seconds to two minutes, give or take. Most athletes competing in non-endurance competitions, such as most team sports, will fall into this category, as do strongmen competitors and the weight training of a great many bodybuilders.

Finally we have oxidative metabolism, which is where fatty acids in the blood are directly oxidized ("burned" if you will) for energy. This is the slowest pathway, and as such it is not able to sustain activity of any meaningful intensity, at least as compared to what the anaerobic pathways can handle. Aerobic/oxidative metabolism is operative at rest, or during low intensity activities of long duration.

It's important to note that these are just generalizations, and in reality some measure of all three are working at any given time. It's just a matter of which pathway is dominant in any given activity.

It might be very tempting to look at aerobic exercise, with the fact that it burns fatty acids exclusively, and think, wow, that burns a lot of fat! You'd be both right and wrong. Yes, oxidative metabolism burns fat almost exclusively. The problem is, it doesn't burn a lot of it. Have you ever looked at the calorie usage indicators on any cardio equipment? The amount you burn is ridiculously low. There's around 3500 calories in a pound of fat. You'll see numbers like 300-400 calories per hour for low intensity work. That's not a lot of fat being burned, especially not in return for an hour of your life wasted on a treadmill.

If anything, aerobic exercise, at least for physique training purposes, should be used as an adjunct to your diet. If you're burning 300-400 extra calories a day, then that's potentially 300-400 more calories you don't have to cut out of the diet. Of course, if you hate low-intensity cardio as much as most do, cutting your diet might end up being the easier route.

Look at something like a 200 meter sprint on the other hand. The activity itself is dominantly glycolytic, with a comparatively smaller ratio of fatty acids used. However, something interesting happens when you deplete glycogen stores in the muscle.

There's a molecule in cells called AMPK. Without going into detail, AMPK is a sort of "thermostat" for the energy status of a cell. When energy is low, AMPK activates. It has two general effects, to decrease energy expenditure and to increase energy scavenging. The biggest relevant effect is that the body stops using up glycogen for fuel, storing it instead from blood glucose, while increasing the use of fatty acids for energy. This is known as improving insulin sensitivity, and AMPK increases this when activated.

That has interesting implications. It means that even though the activity itself doesn't use much in the way of fatty acids, the interval following the activity can potentially use up a ton of them. You're also more likely to burn up a ton more calories from a session of hard anaerobic-interval training than you are even with an hour of low-intensity aerobic work. A higher energy expenditure coupled with a preferential increase in the use of fatty acids is a good combination.

Anaerobic workouts are performed as intervals, which are alternated periods of work and rest. This takes advantage of the fact that anaerobic output has a limited time frame to operate. By stressing the glycolytic pathway, then resting briefly to allow recovery, you're training that pathway to become more efficient.

High-Intensity Interval (or Intermittent) Training
This is likely the most commonly known variant of interval training. HIIT as it is widely known involves the use of intervals of maximal intensity, which means that each work set is taken to the limit of your ability to handle.

In research, HIIT has shown itself to be devastatingly effective at changing body composition. It's also quite good at improving cardiovascular elements such as VO2 max, due to the intensity of work performed.

However, HIIT doesn't differ much from high intensity strength training in regard to recovery. As a result, HIIT has to be used judiciously, and planned into a weekly program accordingly. Do too much, too often, and you'll risk burn out.

The idea behind all interval training, including HIIT, is to sequence periods of high-intensity work with low-intensity work or rest. In practice, you'll see things like 30 seconds high, 30 seconds low, or 60 seconds high, 90 seconds rest, and so on.

A high-intensity interval might have different meanings, but in most cases it means that either i) the work intervals are maximal or ii) the rest intervals are short so as to prevent complete recovery in between sets.

Tempo Training
Tempo training would be best described as "moderate intensity interval training". Tempo runs have been used by sprinters as a means of achieving a high volume of work, as opposed to the maximal efforts of HIIT. I've used these workouts to great success among figure girls after getting the idea from Charlie Francis' sprinting workouts, especially once the pre-contest diet becomes restrictive and recovery becomes a premium.

Tempo runs are performed at around 75% of maximum. What this means is that if your best time for a 100 meter sprint is 11 seconds, you'd want your work sets to take around 15 seconds (75% of 9m/s is around 6.7-6.8m/s).

If you aren't out running sprints on the track and have no idea of how your maximal performance compares, have no fear. There's a pretty easy way around that.

On whatever cardio machine you're using, simply divide your work:rest ratio into fairly equal increments. Say 30s:30s, or 45s:45s, whatever you prefer, and alternate between them.

The idea is to avoid complete recovery between each work interval in a set, and focus on the overall volume of work. Just remember to keep your work interval intense, but not all-out.

Beginner Level

Set 1: Work, Rest, Work, Rest, Work

Take a 60-90 second rest interval between each set.

Repeat 4-6 times.

Intermediate Level

Set 1: Work, Rest, Work, Rest, Work

Set 2: Work, Rest, Work, Rest, Work

Set 3: Work, Rest, Work, Work, Rest, Work

Set 4: Work, Rest, Work, Rest, Work

Rest interval of 60-90 seconds between each set

Repeat 2-3 times

Advanced Level

Set 1: Work, Rest, Work, Rest, Work

Set 2: Work, Rest, Work, Work, Rest, Work

Set 3: Work, Rest, Work, Work, Rest, Work, Work

Set 4: Work, Rest, Work, Work, Rest, Work, Work

Set 5: Work, Rest, Work, Rest, Work

Rest interval of 60-90 seconds between each set.

Repeat 2-3 times
 
Depletion Workouts
A depletion workout is a weight training session that is designed to stimulate anaerobic metabolism for the purpose of depleting intramuscular glycogen stores.

This can be done in the context of specific dietary schemes in order to produce a specific effect, but it has the benefit of doubling as a form of anaerobic cardio training.

Depletion workouts have long set times, slower tempos, and will use lighter weights accordingly. With a moderate tempo, depletion sets will typically go for 12 to 15 reps. If you move faster, 15-25 might be necessary. You'll also use a correspondingly higher volume of work, in the neighborhood of 4 to as many as 20 sets (depending on goals) with very brief rest intervals between sets.

Depletion workouts are performed with muscle-specific exercises in order to cause preferential usage of glycogen throughout the body. This can double as a form of local lactate-tolerance training, for those interested in the performance quality of specific muscular endurance.

Depletion workouts can be performed in a circuit fashion, doing one set of an exercise, then moving on to the next, then the next, going through the entire string before returning to the original exercise and repeating. This is generally the recommended fashion.

However, I've found from experience that circuit training in commercial gyms, especially at peak hours, can be a pain in the ass if not impossible. In those cases, you can try either a modified circuit (ie, do three sets of an exercise before moving on, to cut down on the time spent at each station), or as I've done before, just complete all the work at each station before moving on.

The number of sets and exercises you'll do largely depends on the goal. For a full-body depletion, you'll need somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-20 sets per part. Fortunately, barring few instances (such as Lyle McDonald's Ultimate Diet 2.0), you won't need this much to see the cardio training effect. Generally speaking for that role you can get away 4-6 sets of 12-15 per part. Since the volume's lower, you can go a little heavier, but still keep the rest intervals short.

Upper Body Depletion

Dumbbell Bench Press, 4x15
Pulldown, 4x15
Incline Chest Press, 4x15
Cable Row, 4x15

This workout and all the others listed, as mentioned, can be performed as a circuit (you'd go through each one four times), or you can just do straight sets of each.

Lower Body Depletion

Leg Press, 4x15
Romanian DL, 4x15
Split Squat, 4x15
Dumbbell Step-ups, 4x15
Calves, 6x15

Other options would include full-body workouts (not fun), or chest/back/shoulders and arms/legs, or really any thing else you care to imagine.

Complexes
A complex is somewhat similar to the above depletion workouts, but I gave them a separate section because they're different enough to deserve a mention.

A complex is simply a series of exercises performed with no rests in between. In some ways they are similar to a circuit described above, although a complex is generally performed with a barbell and no change in weight.

Whereas a circuit may have you moving between stations, a complex has you moving non-stop with absolutely no rests between all the working reps.

This can be performed in a variety of ways. Dumbbells, barbells, kettlebells, even odd objects like sandbags, kegs, whatever else you want can be subbed in. The trick is to have a variety of movements and just keep moving.

For example:

High Pull
Hang Clean
Military Press
Deadlift
Romanian DL
Barbell Row

You'd do one set of say 6 reps for the first exercise, immediately move to the second and do 6 reps, and so on until you reach the last. Or you can do shorter sets of say 3 reps and go through the series 2-3 times as a single set. That's a complex.

There's a ton of ways to organize complexes. Since barbells and dumbbells are the most commonly available implements at gyms, these are likely what you'll end up using most of the time. Fortunately there's enough exercise diversity that you should have little trouble coming up with effective combinations.

Istvan Javorek, the guy that as far as I can tell invented the idea of complexes, has a book out that details the topic and likely gives a ton of ideas on how to set these up.

Whereas depletion workouts are designed to work on the local muscle groups, a complex on the other hand is more of a systemic workout, training the endurance ability of the body as a whole. This can be valuable to those with performance-minded goals in conjunction with physique training.

Stubborn Fat Protocol
This is an idea that came from Lyle McDonald. SFP cardio involves the sequencing of high-intensity cardio with low-intensity aerobic cardio in order to take advantage of specific metabolic activities.

SFP is ideally performed in the morning on an empty stomach, or at the very least a few hours away from the last meal. Adding in 5-10mg of yohimbine, 200mg of caffeine, and 2-5g of L-tyrosine about 30 minutes beforehand can have positive effects as well, for reasons to be elaborated upon.

When you perform high-intensity cardio, a few neat things happen. The level of catecholamines in the body increases, which is good. Catecholamines are agonists of sympathetic nervous system output, the "fight" part of the "fight or flight" syndrome. Catecholamines also have the nifty property of causing the release of fatty acids into the bloodstream.

Since aerobic cardio feasts upon fatty acids for fuel, having an abundance of them in the bloodstream would obviously be a good thing when performing such work.

So that's the idea. Start off with a brief warm up, 2-5 minutes or so as your body dictates, then do five minutes of high-intensity cardio. Lyle originally suggested just going five minutes as hard as you can stand, adding that doing five 60s intervals would likely do the same thing. Others have experimented with longer blocks of intervals, with shorter working times, but the original five-minute block is what I'd stick with.

After completing the high-intensity phase, rest for about 5 minutes or so, enough to restore heart rate and generally cool off a little.

Then it's time for the aerobic portion of the session. Again the original recommendation was to do around 60 minutes of steady-state aerobic work on whatever piece of cardio equipment you choose. If you're short on time, you could conceivably shorten this to 40 or even 30 minutes, but if at all possible you should complete the entire session.

The reason for the yohimbine: when dealing with adrenal hormones like the catecholamines, you have two signals in the cells, the alpha receptors and the beta receptors. The beta receptors, generally, stimulate fatty acid release. The alpha receptors on the other hand, block it.

You tend to notice stubborn fat the most in areas that have high concentrations of alpha receptors. In men, this is the chest, abs, and lower back. In women, this tends to be from the waist down. Yohimbine blocks the alpha receptors and improves blood flow, but is also counteracted by insulin (meaning, if you've eaten recently it's not likely to work). This makes the SFP cardio a prime case for its usage, to help with fatty acid mobilization from those stubborn areas.

Caffeine and L-tyrosine are added in simply for the sake of having the energy to get through the session (which can be just as important in these scenarios).
 
Good read from Cressey about Squats

I’m going to let you in on a little secret: not all our athletes squat, and the older and more banged up they get, the less they squat.

We’ve all been told that “squats are king” when it comes to leg development, and the carryover of squat variations to athletic performance cannot be overstated. Squats even have a place in corrective exercise settings; I’ve frequently used box squats to help iron out quad-dominant vs. hip dominant imbalances. And, the eccentric strength attained from squatting is of undeniable importance in active deceleration in sports – thus taking the stress off of the passive restraints like menisci, ligaments, and discs. The list of benefits goes on and on.

As with anything in life, though, there’s a downside: you get some pretty crazy compressive loads on the spine when you get stronger:

Cappozzo et al. found that squatting to parallel with 1.6 times body weight (what I’d call “average” for an ordinary weekend warrior who lifts recreationally) led to compressive loads of ten times body weight at L3-L4 (1). That’s 7000N for a guy who weighs about about 150.

Meanwhile, in a study of 57 Olympic lifters, Cholewicki et al. found that L4-L5 compressive loads were greater than 17,000N (2). It’s no wonder that retired weightlifters have reduced intervertebral disc heights under MRI.

The spine doesn’t buckle until 12,000-15,000N of pressure is applied in compression (or 1,800-2,800N in shear) – so it goes without saying that we’re playing with fire, to a degree.

Fortunately, our body can adapt reasonable well – but not if you train like an idiot and ignore marked inefficiencies. Think of it this way:

Roughly 1/3 of all athletes have disc bulges that go completely undiagnosed.

It’s estimated that 4.4% of six-year olds have spondylolysis (lumbar fracture (3)).

Presence of spondylolyis is estimated at 15-63% in ordinary athletes (highest is among weightlifters) – yet only 50-60% of those diagnosed under imaging actually report lower back pain (4).

This isn’t the only place in the body where this happens. If you’re a pitcher, you’re going to have a ripped up shoulder labrum – but that doesn’t mean that you’re symptomatic. If you’re a pitcher with a junk labrum AND a lack of internal rotation range-of-motion, though, chances are that you’re hurtin’.

What does this tell us? Inefficiency is as important – and possibly MORE important – than pathology.

So, let’s assume for a second that everyone in the world had spondylolysis, disc bulges, and explosive diarrhea (just for shits and giggles – pun intended, if you’d like). To take it a step further, though, let’s say that everyone insisted that they squat and we didn’t have the option of saying “no.” What would I do, in this instance?

1. Avoid Lumbar Flexion. The aforementioned Cappozzo et al. study demonstrated that as lumbar flexion increased under load, compressive load also increased (1). In other words, if you aren’t mobile enough to squat deep, you need to squat a little higher. I’ll use light “tap and go” (to a box) variations to teach proper depth to those who lack flexibility.

2. Optimize hip range-of-motion. If your hips are stiffer than your lumbar spine, you’ll move at your spine first. Those who move at the lumbar spine get hurt; spine range of motion and power are highly correlated with injury risk. Some schmucks named Cressey and Robertson made a DVD called Magnificent Mobility that seems to help on this front…

3. Optimize ankle range-of-motion.
Those with poor ankle mobility will turn the toes out considerable when they squat in order to make up for a lack of dorsiflexion ROM. When they can’t externally rotate any more, they’ll start to flex at the lumbar spine (mostly because their hip mobility is also atrocious). Mike Boyle’s Joint-by-Joint Warm-up and Training DVD does an excellent job on addressing ankle mobility.

4. Optimize thoracic spine range-of-motion. Look at the guys who are lifting the biggest weights injury-free, and examine the way their erector musculature is “allocated.” You’ll notice that the meat is in the upper lumbar and thoracic regions – not the “true” lower back. Why? They subconsciously know to avoid motion in those segments most predisposed to injury, and the extra meat a bit higher up works to buttress the shearing stress that may come from any flexion that might occur higher up. Novice lifters, on the other hand, tend to get flexion at those segments – L5-S1, L4-L5, L3-L4, L2-L3 – at which you want to avoid flexion at all costs. Our body is great at adapting to protect itself - especially as we become better athletes and can impose that much more loading on our bodies. Just ask Olexsandr Kutcher, who’s pulling close to 800 and squatting close to 900 at sub-200 body weights.

I like several drills from Inside-Out and a ton of picture-perfect deadlifting technique to attack this.

5. Stabilize the @#*$_@^ out of your lumbar spine. This does not mean sit-ups, crunches, sidebends, hyperextensions, or the majority of what you’ll encounter in yoga (although some variations are sufficient). Lumbar rotation, flexion, and hyperextension serve to make the spine less stiff relative to the hips. Your back may feel tight, but stretching it is quite possibly the silliest thing you can do, as you’d be encouraging more problems long-term in the process. Tony Gentilcore likes to talk about how it’s like picking a scab; it feels good in the meantime, but only hurts you in the long-run. Yeah, I think Tony is odd, too.

If I can get my act together, I’ll have a full detailed progression ready for you in a few weeks.

6. Deload the spine once-a-month if you’ve been at this a while. There’s nothing wrong with dropping squatting for a week each month to focus on extra single-leg work, movement training, pull-throughs…you name it. I know of a lot of powerlifters who do it for 3-4 weeks at a time, so one week won’t kill you.

7. Avoid training first thing in the morning. Because we’ve decompressed overnight, our spines are “superhydrated” when we first wake up in the morning; this places more stress on the ligaments and discs and less on the supporting musculature. As a little frame of reference, full flexion reduces buttressing strength against shear by 23-43% depending on the time of day – meaning that your spine might be 20% safer later in the day even if exercise selection is held constant. Give the spine a bit of time to “dehydrate” and you’ll be much better off.

8. Get Lean. Ever wonder why pregnant women are always having lower back pain? Could it be that they're hyperextending (overusing the lumbar erectors) to offset the new weight they're carrying in the abdomen? Beer bellies work the same way.

9. Keep moving throughout the day. It takes about 20 minutes for "creep" to kick in with your muscles - and the less you let that happen, the better. The best posture is the one that is constantly changing.

10. Fix asymmetries. Okay, so we know that compression is probably a necessary evil. And, we know that flexion + compression is even worse. And, wouldn’t you know? We can actually make things worse by adding in an element of lumbar rotation. Who rotates at the lumbar spine? Usually, it’s those with asymmetries in mobility or strength at the ankle, hip, or thoracic spine. Compare ROM side-to-side and check side bridge endurance time; fix what’s out of whack.
 
7. Avoid training first thing in the morning. Because we’ve decompressed overnight, our spines are “superhydrated” when we first wake up in the morning; this places more stress on the ligaments and discs and less on the supporting musculature. As a little frame of reference, full flexion reduces buttressing strength against shear by 23-43% depending on the time of day – meaning that your spine might be 20% safer later in the day even if exercise selection is held constant. Give the spine a bit of time to “dehydrate” and you’ll be much better off.
the entire article is interesting but the above point is especially intriguing - not that I'd doub tht word of someone who's probably forgotten more about exercise than I will ever know.. but is that really true?
 
the entire article is interesting but the above point is especially intriguing - not that I'd doub tht word of someone who's probably forgotten more about exercise than I will ever know.. but is that really true?

I tend to abide by the rule, so take that for what it's worth. I've never had lower back pain before in my life. The only time I did was when I trained first thing in the morning.

That said, I know a shit ton of people who train at dark:30 in the a.m. without issue. So it's a fine line.

Cressey gets this from Dr. Stuart McGill, who definitely knows his stuff. He writes for t-nation as well as Cressey. Here's an article or two with McGill explaining:

TESTOSTERONE NATION - Mister Spine

TESTOSTERONE NATION - Back to McGill
 
I am pretty much not capable of doing anything heavier than lifting a coffee cup in the morning... so I prefer later in the day workouts...

As i mentioned elsewhere, one of my guilty pleasures is reading the best selling diet/fitness books, generelly for a giggle, but sometimes because if I can get one good factoid out of it (it happens sometimes) then it's worth it - but the latest one I'm glancing thru, insists that you get a more effective cardio workout if you do so first thing in the am on an empty stomach.

Now I know cardio and lifting are two different things - but that advice just seemed a illogical to me... So does the same hold true for cardio as well? should that be done after the body is warmed up a bit?
 
I am pretty much not capable of doing anything heavier than lifting a coffee cup in the morning... so I prefer later in the day workouts...

As i mentioned elsewhere, one of my guilty pleasures is reading the best selling diet/fitness books, generelly for a giggle, but sometimes because if I can get one good factoid out of it (it happens sometimes) then it's worth it - but the latest one I'm glancing thru, insists that you get a more effective cardio workout if you do so first thing in the am on an empty stomach.

Now I know cardio and lifting are two different things - but that advice just seemed a illogical to me... So does the same hold true for cardio as well? should that be done after the body is warmed up a bit?

They were probably saying cardio done on an empty stomach is more effective b/c a greater amount of your energy comes from free fatty acids.

That's a stupid argument that I've refuted a few times.

It's about net calories burned.... not preferential energy source.

That said, doing any form of exercise is better with a 'warmed-up' body. But I don't have an issue with early morning cardio.... I just prefer for myself and client to eat something first.
 
Good research review from Lyle McDonald newsletter

THE RESEARCH


LaForgia J et. al. Effects of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. J Sports Sci. 2006 Dec;24(12):1247-64.

Recovery from a bout of exercise is associated with an elevation in metabolism referred to as the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). A number of investigators in the first half of the last century reported prolonged EPOC durations and that the EPOC was a major component of the thermic effect of activity. It was therefore thought that the EPOC was a major contributor to total daily energy expenditure and hence the maintenance of body mass. Investigations conducted over the last two or three decades have improved the experimental protocols used in the pioneering studies and therefore have more accurately characterized the EPOC. Evidence has accumulated to suggest an exponential relationship between exercise intensity and the magnitude of the EPOC for specific exercise durations. Furthermore, work at exercise intensities >or=50-60% VO2max stimulate a linear increase in EPOC as exercise duration increases. The existence of these relationships with resistance exercise at this stage remains unclear because of the limited number of studies and problems with quantification of work intensity for this type of exercise. Although the more recent studies do not support the extended EPOC durations reported by some of the pioneering investigators, it is now apparent that a prolonged EPOC (3-24 h) may result from an appropriate exercise stimulus (submaximal: >or=50 min at >or=70% VO2max; supramaximal: >or=6 min at >or=105% VO2max). However, even those studies incorporating exercise stimuli resulting in prolonged EPOC durations have identified that the EPOC comprises only 6-15% of the net total oxygen cost of the exercise. But this figure may need to be increased when studies utilizing intermittent work bouts are designed to allow the determination of rest interval EPOCs, which should logically contribute to the EPOC determined following the cessation of the last work bout. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the earlier research optimism regarding an important role for the EPOC in weight loss is generally unfounded. This is further reinforced by acknowledging that the exercise stimuli required to promote a prolonged EPOC are unlikely to be tolerated by non-athletic individuals. The role of exercise in the maintenance of body mass is therefore predominantly mediated via the cumulative effect of the energy expenditure during the actual exercise.
 
Lyle's Review

My comments: In the last year or three, exercise programs for fat loss such as Alwyn Cosgrove's Afterburn, Craig Ballantyne's Turbulence Training and others have been geared around the concept of using certain types of training (either interval style cardio or highish rep/short rest weight training) to cause fat loss through an 'afterburn' effect where calories are burned after workouts to a greater degree than following standard training styles (esp. low intensity cardio). There's little to no doubt that these programs work (I'll come back to this at the end of the review) but this review paper raises the issue of how significant an impact the post-exercise calorie burn (called EPOC which stands for excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) actually is under most circumstances.

The first topic discussed is what EPOC actually represents. An outdated concept is that the post-exercise calorie burn represented an 'oxygen debt' representing the difference between what the body needed and what was available, this turns out to be simplistic and wrong. Lactate metabolism, phosphate resynthesis and fatty acid cycling, along with increases in catecholamine levels are likely the cause of the post-exercise calorie burn. Ultimately, the mechanisms are less important than the fact that EPOC is the result of a metabolic perturbation that has to be repayed afterwards.

I'm not going to detail the next section of the paper as it dealt with a bunch of boring methodological issues. Sufficed to say that accurate measurement of EPOC requires that certain methodologies be adhered to. One huge confound, which is likely the cause of the 'exercise raises metabolism for 24 hours' thing is food consumption. It's easy to mistake the thermic effect of eating with an effect of exercise. Good studies take this into account. Othe issues such as taking into account baseline metabolic rate and subject characteristics are also important.

The next section of the paper deals with continuous exercise and the impact of both duration and intensity on EPOC. Without going into every paper detailed in the review, the picture that has developed from the research is that EPOC goes up linearly with increasing exercise duration but exponentially with increasing intensity. That is, higher intensity exercise generates the higher EPOC. This is true if the duration is the same or if the same number of calories are burned. That is, if two people both burned 300 calories during exercise but one exercised at a high intensity and one at low intensity, the high intensity guy would get about double the EPOC. The problem is that, even under these conditions, the EPOC is still pretty minimal. In one study, subjects who exercised for 80 minutes at 70% VO2 max (about 80% of maximum heart rate) had an EPOC lasting 7 hours. But it only amounted to about 80 calories extra burned. Not to mention that only the most well trained individuals could sustain such a workload in the first place.

Additionally, it appears that there is an intensity threshold to generate any EPOC at all, compared to exercise at 30-50% VO2 max (50% VO2 is about 65% of max HR or the typical 'fat burning' zone), exercise at 75% generates a larger EPOC. However, the total calorie burn is still relatively small overall, averaging perhaps 7% of the total energy burned. So if you burn 600 calories with high intensity continuous exercise, you might burn an additional 45 afterwards. While this certainly adds up over long periods of time, it's still relatively insignificant compared to the total energy expenditure of the exercise bout.


The next section of the paper dealt with suprmaximal work, intervals basically. Interestingly, the data available here finds that relatively short amounts of intervals can generate EPOCs comparable to much longer bouts of continuous exercise. Several studies measured EPOCs from relatively short interval workouts on par with studies using much longer (>50 minutes) of moderate intensity work. Still, the total magnitude of the EPOC was relatively small, equal to roughly 13% of the total energy used during the exercise bout. So while the relative amount of calories burned after interval training is larger, the total amount is still small. In one study, subjects ran 20X1 minute intervals above VO2 max with a 2' rest between. While the EPOC was about double that found in subjects who performed 30' at 70% Vo2 max, the total EPOC was only about 32 calories (135 kJ).

The next section of the paper dealt a little more with the issue of exercise duration as studies have identified an increase in EPOC with increasing durations. However, the effect is only significant for exercise performed at intensities greater than 50-60% VO2 max (60-72% max heart rate). However, unless folks are willing to do 60-90 minutes+ of training, this still doesn't amount to very much in absolute terms. This is especially true of lower intensity exercise where prolonged durations of 90' or more are necessary to generate a prolonged EPOC; even there the absolute magnitude of calories burned is still small.

Finally the paper examines the impact of resistance training on EPOC. A number of studies have been performed and found fairly prolonged durations of EPOC (15-38 hours) and an increase in metabolic rate of 9-11% over that time period. However, many of the studies used horribly unrealistic numbers of sets (60 sets of 8-12 in one study, 30 sets in another). Interestingly, a study of women found a much shorter duration of EPOC (60-90 minutes); the reasons for this are unknown. Perhaps the most interesting study was the one using a relatively low volume of training (4 exercises for 4 sets each) in experienced lifters; in that study metabolic rate was significantly elevated for nearly 48 hours after lifting. The paper points out that the average person is unlikely to be able to sustain either the volumes (30-60 sets) or intensities used in these studies.


The paper concludes that, despite the variability in studies, the intensity of exercise appears to be of the utmost importance in terms of generating an EPOC. However, most studies indicate that the total magnitude of the EPOC is unlikely to be very large. With interval type training, EPOC may approach 14% of the total energy expended but, generally speaking, interval training doesn't burn as many calories during the bout so while the relative amount may be larger, the total EPOC is still small. For submaximal work, an EPOC of 7% is roughly the average.

This doesn't really amount to much not to mention that, outside of trained individuals, most folks couldn't sustain the durations (90'+) or intensities (80% maximum heart rate for steady state work or supramaximal intervals) required to generate much of an EPOC. I would note that even beginners can work up to that level with a properly set up progressive program. One beef I tend to have with many exercise and fat loss studies is that the intensity or duration of the exercise is never increased as the folks become fitter. But that's a separate topic for another day.


The paper suggests that focusing on maximizing the calorie burn of the exercise bout itself and issues of compliance should be the primary goal. Because even if you burn a few extra calories after the exercise bout, if you increase how many calories you burn with exercise by a couple of hundred, that couple of hundred will have a much larger impact than the 15 extra you burn because of it.

But here's the thing, there seems to be a disconnect with the conclusion of this study and the results people are reporting with interval based types of fat loss programs.

Even looking at the original Tremblay interval study, where EPOC was unfortunately not measured, fat loss was significantly greater for the interval group despite a massively lower time investment and calorie expenditure. Something is going on.


It may be, and I suspect that it is, that EPOC is only part of the picture. Studies have found that interval training may increase enzymes involved in fat utilization more effectively (or at least more quickly than steady state exercise). A followup study by Tremblay found that to be the case and a very recent study found that only 2 weeks of interval training had a fairly significant impact on whole body and skeletal muscle capacity for fatty acid oxidation at rest.

This is assuredly mediated through both effects on gene expression as well as the glycogen depletion that occurs with high intensity activities; glycogen depletion itself enhances full body fat oxidation. Frankly, irrespective of EPOC and what happens during the exercise bout, if you increase the body's utilization of fat for the other 23 hours of the day you aren't exercising, that's a good thing from a fat loss perspective. Coupled with a calorie reduced/controlled diet, enhancing fatty acid oxidation during the day goes a long way towards explaining enhanced fat loss.

Another possibility, implied by the Tremblay study is that interval type training programs are generating some muscle growth. I say implied because the original study found less of a change in total bodyweight than the change in fat; that suggests that muscle was gained. Given the caloric cost of synthesizing muscle, that would give a 'sink' for incoming calories.

Of course, as the volume of training (number of intervals, number of exercises/supersets in interval based weight training programs goes up), so does the caloric expenditure of the bout itself. That's in addition to whatever small extra impact that you may get from the EPOC.
 
Lyle's research review on drinking your cals

From Lyle McDonald's newsletter where he highlights his research review:

Research Review


Wolf A, Bray GA, Popkin BM. A short history of beverages and how our body treats them. Obes Rev. 2008 Mar;9(2):151-64.


Numerous studies have demonstrated that beverages containing sugar, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or alcohol are handled differently by the body than when sugar or HFCS are incorporated in solid foods and as a result the overall caloric intake from solid food does not adjust to account for the calories in these beverages. A consideration of our evolutionary history may help to explain our poor compensatory response to calories from fluids. This paper reviews the history of eight important beverages: milk, beer, wine, tea, coffee, distilled alcoholic beverages, juice and soft drinks. We arrive at two hypotheses. First, humans may lack a physiological basis for processing carbohydrate or alcoholic calories in beverage because only breast milk and water were available for the vast majority of our evolutionary history. Alternatives to those two beverages appeared in the human diet no more than 11 000 years ago, but Homo sapiens evolved between 100 000 and 200 000 years ago. Second, carbohydrate and alcohol-containing beverages may produce an incomplete satiation sequence which prevents us from becoming satiated on these beverages.


SEE CONT'D COMMENTARY BELOW
 
Lyle's comments: This is sort of a departure from the typical paper I talk about but I think it's very interesting and, as you'll see towards the end, does have some practical implication for dieters and folks looking to alter body composition.


After the necessary introduction, the paper first looks at changes in the patterns of beverage consumption within the US. They point out that by 2004, Americans were consuming over 135 gallons of fluids other than water or about 1.5 liter per day. Basically, Americans are drinking a lot but it isn't water; obviously it's something else.

The early part of the paper also trots out something called the Beverage Guidance Panel which, in my opinion, is about as useless as the current food pyramid. It's complicated and pointless, simply confusing people more about the issue. I'm not going to bother talking about it.

Quoting the paper, they state that "While consumption of healthful beverages is falling, consumption of the most unhealthy beverages is strong." While milk and coffee consumption are at roughly one half of their historical maximum, with tea basically unchanged, regular soft drinks are the most popular beverage; beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup are consumed at a rate of over 35 gallons per year on average. The second most popular drink is beer which at least has some nutrients.

Positively, low-fat milk makes up two thirds of milk consumption with soft drink consumption trending downwards. However, this may be a false artifact due to how drinks are classified, energy drinks aren't being counted as soft drinks which is making it look like folks are drinking less soda. They aren't, they are just drinking energy drinks instead.

Looking globally, drink patterns have shown massive growth with soda products being consumed at a rate in excess of one billion drinks per day. Beer consumption has shown the greatest increase with tea showing a slight increase. Wine and milk consumption have fallen globally, presumably due to the introduction of all the drinks that have made America rich, proud and very fat (my comment, not theirs).

The next section of the paper got into what is arguably the most important issue of the paper: the simple fact that for all but the last 11,000 years, the predominant fluids consumed by humans were water and breast milk and nothing else. Now, they go out of their way to point out that milk is a complete beverage containing protein, carbohydrate, fat and water. Water is, of course water which provides no calories. This is important because numerous studies have shown that humans show poor compensation for fluid calories.

Let me explain that a bit. Compensation means that the body will adjust caloric intake at other times of the day (or days later) for a given caloric load. So say you eat a bunch of candy earlier in the day and it provides 450 calories. What you might see is that, later in the day, folks eat a few hundred calories less than they'd normally eat. The body 'compensates' for the food you ate earlier. The problem is that most liquid calories aren't compensated for well and figuring out why is of some interest to researchers.

The paper suggests that one of two possible mechanisms may be at stake here. First, we may simply lack a physiological mechanism by which to compensate for liquid calories. Second, it may be that liquids are treated essentially like water, being digested/absorbed too quickly to have any impact on food intake (normally eating food does things hormonally that tends to make you eat less later).

With that out of the way, the paper examines the majority of fluids consumed by humans from a historical perspective. I'm not going into deep detail for each or this would take pages. While interesting, this really isn't that relevant to the rest of the paper or how it impacts on things like weight, fat or body composition.

The main take home point of this paper has to do with how the body responds to different beverages. Various lines of research indicate that the intake of calorically sweetened beverages do NOT reduce the intake of solid food (the compensation issue I mentioned above). Reviewing the literature, they basically point out what I wrote above. Of some interest (especially to me since I like jelly beans) one study compared the intake of 450 kcal or jelly beans to 450 kcal of a soft drink. the jelly bean consumers actually reduced their food intake by slightly more than the 450 calories in the jelly beans (my next book: the Jelly bean diet) later in the day. The carb containing soft drink group not only failed to compensate for the drink but also increased their intake of other foods slightly. That is, not only did they get the added calories from the soft-drink, they ate more food as well; a double whammy in terms of weight gain.

Continuing on, the paper addresses the issue of why the body shows weaker compensation to some fluids; the exact reason is unknown. The propose that one mechanism is in the way that the GI tract responds to the form of the food; solutions can stimulate stronger sensory responses than solid food (e.g. sweet drinks taste sweeter than sweet foods sometimes). As well, the components which make up the beverage or food may play a role.

Obviously the sight and smell of beverages are important, we may react badly to a repugnant or bitter smelling drink and well to a good smelling drink. How drinks affect the taste buds comes next; humans can taste sweet, sour, bitter, salty and something called umami. There is also a taste bud for fatty acids.

A sickness response to a drink can cause an aversion to foods down the road. Remember when you drank something and you threw up afterwards, and how the smell of that drink would make you gag? That's what I'm talking about. The sight and smell of foods also affects hormonal response, there is something called the cephalic insulin response for example, insulin can go up when people smell or taste sweet foods, long before it hits the bloodstream.

Then comes digestion where mixing with the other components of the stomach affects many things, including digestion rate. Average digestion rate of fluids is 1 cal/minute with water digesting the most quickly (no calories). Other drinks digest at relatively slower speeds depending on the composition with fat containing beverages emptying slowest.

Moving into the intestine, more stuff happens including the release of a number of different hormones many of which are involved in appetite. I don't want to detail this as there are 15 or more that may play a role here. The pattern of release of these chemicals depends on the composition of the drink and this is where we can start to see the problem.

Carbohydrates alone stimulate the least number of appetite blunting factors, protein and fat stimulate the release of more. So you'd expect much less of a compensatory response to a drink containing protein and fat (think lowfat milk) as compared to one containing only carbohydrate (think fruit juice or a high sugar soda). Which is exactly what the studies have shown. Milk shows a nice normal compensation to intake, it might as well be liquid 'food'. Soft drinks show no compensation.

So folks living on sugary drinks are causing themselves major problems. Not only do the drinks themselves have scads of calories, the body doesn't compensate for their intake. So all of those calories essentially end up being 'added' to the normal food intake (which is just as often awful in folks who drink lots of soda).

Alcohol is weird as it's treated strangely in the body. I've mentioned in previous newsletters that alcohol intake shows a weird relationship with bodyweight. Weight often goes up with alcohol intake in men but either stays the same or goes down in women. What few direct studies exist suggest that alcohol intake does not cause compensation of food intake later on. So what explains the gender difference? Most likely, men drink in addition to eating (beer and wings) while women drink instead of eating (glass of wine for dinner). Oddly, at least one piece of research suggests that regular drinkers may be more active. It may also be that drinkers under-report their true food intake.

The paper than concludes although they don't say much I didn't mention above. Humans didn't evolve on anything but water and mother's milk with other drinks such as alcohol and soft drinks coming into common usage at a much later date. Because of this, we don't appear to have evolved good mechanisms for dealing with fluid calories.

Liquids tend to digest quickly (although fluids with protein and fat, such as milk, are much slower) and carbohydrate only drinks such as soda don't release as many of the appetite blunting peptides during digestion as whole food (or milk which is a liquid whole food). This makes the consumption of sugary drinks (fruit juice or soda) a major problem. People don't compensate for intake and end up simply adding the massive amount of calories to their diet, which is often bad to begin with.

As a final take-home comment, I'm reminded of a client I had years ago. He wanted to lose weight and one of the habits I identified in him early was the intake of multiple cans of full-sugar soda. Simply switching him to diet soda saved him something like 800-1000 calories/day, he started losing at a nice 1-2 pounds per week with no other change to his diet.

In summary, in terms of the impact of fluid calories on bodyweight, bodyfat and body composition,

1. Milk good: plenty of studies show improvements in body composition with regular dairy intake
2. Non-diet soft drinks and fruit juice bad: lots of calories, no fullness, no compensation
3. Alcohol: it's complicated....we need more research.
 
Hey, there's no definitive answers wrt to alcohol so have at it.

That's my theory that I live by at least.

I'm drinking right now, lol
 
Back
Top