Showing posts with label body composition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label body composition. Show all posts
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Weight Loss Ups your Power - if you're a competitive cyclist and not going nuts with the CR.
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
There's been a debate for some time as to whether or not "fasted cardio" is ok. There's a "fasted cardio roundtable" at t-nation discussing this, and good arguments on either side. The title of a recent article made me think "great - a specific study on fasted cardio with elite athletes" Here's the title: "Effects of caloric restriction and overnight fasting on cycling endurance performance." But alas, it's not about fasted cardio: it's about doing an exertion test after ONE night of fasted cardio after having been on a calorie restricted diet.
Not the most usual circumstance. Indeed, the study is interesting nonetheless for a couple of other related reasons: it's looking at the effects on performance of a protocol often used by cyclists before competetive race season when they need to drop some weight to improve their Power to Weight Ratio (PWR) - lighter on the bike but still driving the same power means get there faster, if not fasted.
So not exactly fasted cardio - as in regularly doing cardio in a fasted state. But there are *some* findings that may reasonably be extended - maybe - around fasted cardio. In particular the effects shown around perceived exertion in this condition and intriguingly fat utilization.
Here's the abstract
Here's the actual protocol during the study:
In the lab: the athletes did a submaximal two hour endurance ride (with ipods and music of their choice if they wished) on lab bikes set up just like their racing bikes with the following condition:
Results:
over the 25 days of their CR, they lost weight - in particular their body fat dropped but their lean mass was maintained. They had a 1.7 plus or minus. 5kg body weight loss, with a drop in bf% of 2.1 (plus or minus .4) %. Lean mass increased by 2.1%. No muscle mass loss. That's a plus of exercise while doing calorie reduction: lean mass hangs in.
in the lab: the fasted, post CR test showed no statisitcal difference in power output, Vo2max, resting metabolic rate (RMR), revolutions per minute. In otherwords, nothing performance wise changed - in particular, nothing changed netgatively - as a result of the CR and fasted state of the test.
One place there was a difference: PWR at 90 and 100% vo2max was significantly different post CR (it went up), though no PLWR (power to lean weight ratio) changes.
The authors suggest:
Two notable changes/surprises: first, that perceived exertion was LOWER after the CR period. And second, that despite doing a heavy work load after an 11 hour fast, fat oxidation (using fat as the main fuel for the workout) did not change from baseline. Now me, i must be missing something because both base line test and re-test post CR were the same: post 11 hour fast. But here's what the authors say about the fat oxidation non-change:
Practical Applications
The authors have some cautiously positive effects to report
In other words, there's some good results in terms of body comp and PWR from a pretty intense caloric restriction for three weeks, but we don't know what would happen if this was strung out or for that matter repeated at intervals anywhere into competetive season. This ain't a license to go nuts.
And it's also not much help when thinking about fasted cardio as a regular practice.What i'm not sure this study says is what the authors state in the abstract: that "Caloric restriction (up to 40% for 3 weeks) and exercising after fasting overnight can improve a cyclist's PWR without compromising endurance cycling performance" Caloric restriction for three weeks with regular workouts, sure, but one session of fasted endurance work? Maybe i'm reading this wrong, but that seems a bit of a stretch. All it seems one can say is that after three weeks of caloric restriction, a sub max endurance workout in a fasted state when done by elite athletes doesn't have any negative effects - on them.
On the plus side: one can work to weigh less and maintain power, thereby increasing power. And for sports, like life, where better body comp has a host of benefits, a three week nutritionally balanced calorie cut with maintained workouts - at least for seasoned athletes - can be effective. Does this approach transfer to non-competetive athletes? May be worth investigating.
Citations
Related Articles
There's been a debate for some time as to whether or not "fasted cardio" is ok. There's a "fasted cardio roundtable" at t-nation discussing this, and good arguments on either side. The title of a recent article made me think "great - a specific study on fasted cardio with elite athletes" Here's the title: "Effects of caloric restriction and overnight fasting on cycling endurance performance." But alas, it's not about fasted cardio: it's about doing an exertion test after ONE night of fasted cardio after having been on a calorie restricted diet.Not the most usual circumstance. Indeed, the study is interesting nonetheless for a couple of other related reasons: it's looking at the effects on performance of a protocol often used by cyclists before competetive race season when they need to drop some weight to improve their Power to Weight Ratio (PWR) - lighter on the bike but still driving the same power means get there faster, if not fasted.
So not exactly fasted cardio - as in regularly doing cardio in a fasted state. But there are *some* findings that may reasonably be extended - maybe - around fasted cardio. In particular the effects shown around perceived exertion in this condition and intriguingly fat utilization.
Here's the abstract
Doesn't the above sound to you like the cyclists were doing both caloric restriction for three weeks AND doing fasted cardio at the same time? Well it turns out the only time we know that they did fasted cardio was on two test occaisions: before the diet started and at the end of the three week period
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Mar;23(2):560-70.
Effects of caloric restriction and overnight fasting on cycling endurance performance.
Ferguson LM, Rossi KA, Ward E, Jadwin E, Miller TA, Miller WC.
Department of Exercise Science, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. Abstract:
In addition to aerobic endurance and anaerobic capacity, high power-to-weight ratio (PWR) is important for cycling performance. Cyclists often try to lose weight before race season to improve body composition and optimize PWR. Research has demonstrated body fat-reducing benefits of exercise after fasting overnight. We hypothesized that fasted-state exercise in calorie-restricted trained cyclists would not result in performance decrements and that their PWR would improve significantly. We also hypothesized that substrate use during fasted-state submaximal endurance cycling would shift to greater reliance on fat. Ten trained, competitive cyclists completed a protocol consisting of baseline testing, 3 weeks of caloric restriction (CR), and post-CR testing. The testing sessions measured pre- and post-CR values for resting metabolic rate (RMR), body composition, VO2, PWR and power-to-lean weight ratio (PLWR), and power output, as well as 2-hour submaximal cycling performance, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). There were no significant differences between baseline and post-CR for submaximal trial RER, power output, VO2, RMR, VO2max, or workload at VO2max. However, RPE was significantly lower, and PWR was significantly higher post-CR, whereas RER did not change. The cyclists' PWR and body composition improved significantly, and their overall weight, fat weight, and body fat percentage decreased. Lean mass was maintained. The cyclists' RPE decreased significantly during 2 hours of submaximal cycling post-CR, and there was no decrement in submaximal or maximal cycling performance after 3 weeks of CR combined with overnight fasting. Caloric restriction (up to 40% for 3 weeks) and exercising after fasting overnight can improve a cyclist's PWR without compromising endurance cycling performance.
Here's the actual protocol during the study:
For the CR period, subjects followed a fixed-macronutrient, calorie-restricted diet [this was set carbs, fats, proteins equivalent to a 40% reduction in total calories -mc] while maintaining their normal exercise training routines. None of the athletes were actively involved in strength training. Individual training plans typically involved base miles and some interval work, as it was still the off-season. Training was not standardized among athletes, because each athlete was a seasoned cyclist, accustomed to his or her own training regimen, and making changes to those plans could have produced chronic fatigue, muscle soreness, or altered the training volume to which each cyclist was accustomed-any of which could have led to unfavorable temporary adaptations that would have confounded their performance in their paired time trials.In other words, they were doing big calorie restriction and that's the only change to their training. We don't know if training actually changed in any way during this period - though participants were asked to keep things the same during the study as before in terms of these workouts. Ok, let's say that's all fine, then.
In the lab: the athletes did a submaximal two hour endurance ride (with ipods and music of their choice if they wished) on lab bikes set up just like their racing bikes with the following condition:
A metronome was used to ensure that subjects cycled at a constant 50 rpm to allow for consistent evaluation of workload. Subjects warmed up for 5 minutes at 100 W for men and 75Wfor women. The workload was incrementally increased by 50 Wevery 2.5 minutes. When HR reached 35 bpm below age-predicted maximal HR (220 bpm 2 age), or when the respiratory quotient exceeded 1, the workload was only increased by 25 Wevery 2.5 minutes until exhaustion. The subject cycled to exhaustion, ending the test voluntarily when he or she could no longer pedal or keep the 50-rpm cadence. Each subject wore a mouthpiece and nose clip, and ventilatory air was continuously analyzed forO2 consumption and CO2 production using the ParvoMedics system. Also, HR, RPE, and power output were recorded at the end of each stage throughout the test.
Results:
over the 25 days of their CR, they lost weight - in particular their body fat dropped but their lean mass was maintained. They had a 1.7 plus or minus. 5kg body weight loss, with a drop in bf% of 2.1 (plus or minus .4) %. Lean mass increased by 2.1%. No muscle mass loss. That's a plus of exercise while doing calorie reduction: lean mass hangs in.
in the lab: the fasted, post CR test showed no statisitcal difference in power output, Vo2max, resting metabolic rate (RMR), revolutions per minute. In otherwords, nothing performance wise changed - in particular, nothing changed netgatively - as a result of the CR and fasted state of the test.
One place there was a difference: PWR at 90 and 100% vo2max was significantly different post CR (it went up), though no PLWR (power to lean weight ratio) changes.
The authors suggest:
The increase in PWR was influenced by the significant decreases in body weight and percent body fat. Because there was no significant loss of lean body mass, the PLWRwas maintained. Thus, power was maintained not simply because of weight loss but because of the maintenance of fat-free mass. This increase in power output at high intensity levels, accompanied by a decrease in body weight, will provide the cyclist with more energy and power for improved uphill cycling performance.Overall then, the cyclists did get what they wanted: an improved Power to Weight Ratio: their power stays the same, but at a lighter weight. That translates potentially into getting the bike moving down the road faster.
Two notable changes/surprises: first, that perceived exertion was LOWER after the CR period. And second, that despite doing a heavy work load after an 11 hour fast, fat oxidation (using fat as the main fuel for the workout) did not change from baseline. Now me, i must be missing something because both base line test and re-test post CR were the same: post 11 hour fast. But here's what the authors say about the fat oxidation non-change:
Although we hypothesized that we would find a greater reliance on fat oxidation post-CR, particularly because RER [respiratory exchange rate - seeing which fuel is used more, carbs or fat -mc] - measuring has been previously shown to be lower in the fasted state (Aragón-Vargas LF 93, Knapik JJ88 ), this was not statistically supported. ...A possible explanation for the lack of a significant shift to fat metabolism is that the subjects were all highly trained endurance cyclists already and, as such, were able to use fat as a fuel more efficiently than if they had been untrained subjects.Hmm. Makes ya wonder.
Practical Applications
The authors have some cautiously positive effects to report
[The study results] suggests that CR (up to 40% for 3 weeks) and exercising after fasting overnight can improve a cyclist’s PWR without compromising endurance cycling performance. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that a shortterm period of moderately severe CR is not detrimental to the conditioning process. Athletes can continue to prepare for the upcoming race season in terms of endurance training while dieting to reduce body weight without losing significant muscle mass in the process. However, it is not known what would happen to performance if an athlete were to prolong his or her exposure to the CR beyond 3 weeks, or to repeat the 3-week exposure to CR with short intervals of balanced energy intake in between. The current data suggest that a protocol such as the one outlined in this report would be most appropriate if used in the off-season to increase PWR or during the season before a competition.
In other words, there's some good results in terms of body comp and PWR from a pretty intense caloric restriction for three weeks, but we don't know what would happen if this was strung out or for that matter repeated at intervals anywhere into competetive season. This ain't a license to go nuts.
And it's also not much help when thinking about fasted cardio as a regular practice.What i'm not sure this study says is what the authors state in the abstract: that "Caloric restriction (up to 40% for 3 weeks) and exercising after fasting overnight can improve a cyclist's PWR without compromising endurance cycling performance" Caloric restriction for three weeks with regular workouts, sure, but one session of fasted endurance work? Maybe i'm reading this wrong, but that seems a bit of a stretch. All it seems one can say is that after three weeks of caloric restriction, a sub max endurance workout in a fasted state when done by elite athletes doesn't have any negative effects - on them.
On the plus side: one can work to weigh less and maintain power, thereby increasing power. And for sports, like life, where better body comp has a host of benefits, a three week nutritionally balanced calorie cut with maintained workouts - at least for seasoned athletes - can be effective. Does this approach transfer to non-competetive athletes? May be worth investigating.
Citations
Ferguson LM, Rossi KA, Ward E, Jadwin E, Miller TA, & Miller WC (2009). Effects of caloric restriction and overnight fasting on cycling endurance performance. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 23 (2), 560-70 PMID: 19197210
Aragón-Vargas LF (1993). Effects of fasting on endurance exercise. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 16 (4), 255-65 PMID: 8248683
Knapik JJ, Meredith CN, Jones BH, Suek L, Young VR, & Evans WJ (1988). Influence of fasting on carbohydrate and fat metabolism during rest and exercise in men. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 64 (5), 1923-9 PMID: 3292504
Related Articles
- 6mins to weight loss and fitness?
- Cardio levels when ya can't do HIIT
- HIIT intervals (on bikes) for fat loss
- Hill workouts - with kettlebells
- Respect the Fat
PDF
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Mentor Support: an unsung key predictor of weight loss and weight loss maintenance
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
There's one weight loss study that somehow has been in the public eye since 2003. Each time a version of its data gets published, it gets media attention for showing that LOTS of exercise helps maintain weight loss. Now from my reading of that data, that's actually kind of a misrepresentation of the findings in the paper. There are THREE factors that impact weight loss maintenance: caloric restriction (1200-1500kcals), 270-300mins of (vigorous) exercise a week AND (the under reported component) regular human contact intervention about compliance with the protocol. Finally, in yet another paper about this study, this later part of the work is being highlighted a bit more in the paper "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss." I find it fascinating that such an interesting predictor of success - along with the more familiar caloric reduction - has been so seemingly downplayed in favor of hours of exercise.
Background
Last year (2009), discussion of a second paper (published July 2008) on a 2 year study of obese women losing weight generated lots of attention. In particular, Time focused on one aspect of the study, calling their piece "The Myth of Moderate Exercise." They focused on the finding that, in a trial of 201 obese women ("conducted between December 1999 and January 2003") who took off and kept off 10% of their body, did so by exercising at twice the amount of time recommended by the CDC (center for disease control), and by doing vigerous - not moderate - work.
A less well cited piece on the study at WebMD did make a bit more about the social aspect of the study that was seen to contribute to participants' ongoing success. One more even less cited post at FoodConsumer.org, unlike Time, got it, too:
Indeed, here's the latest version: April, 2010, Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss."
Oh, and just a few months before this April 2010 version of the data, the American College of Sports Medicine put out a press release taking "strong exception to assertions [in that original Time Article?] that exercise can inhibit weight loss by over-stimulating the appetite." The key person cited in the PR is John Jakicic, author of the above study and who also just happens to "[chair] a committee on obesity prevention and treatment for the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and helped write an ACSM Position Stand on strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults."
Naturally, the ACSM statement says exercise helps maintain weight loss. And to that end, quotes an awful lot of Jakicic's singular study's findings. Now, that all sounds great, but let's face it, (1) this cohort was 201 obese women, and (2) the ACSM may have just a little invested in celebrating the importance of exercise. They were burning off 1800+ calories with exercise AND living on calorie reduced diets AND were still, after two years, considered overweight. So their health had certainly improved, but if nothing else, this cohort shows that losing weight from an obese state takes long, hard graft. But it also seems to benefit from something else that may be just as necessary, and that's the human expert support.
Telephones: The Secret Ingredient?
Just to be clear, i'm in no way suggesting that exercise doesn't help with weight loss. Recently i've discussed just two of many studies - one on HIIT, one on cardio - that shows benefit for fat loss. But what i am intrigued by, and what's been in the published data since day one, is the fact that exercise and BIG calorie restriction were not the only key factors in getting the weight off, and perhaps just as importantly, keeping it off. While the researchers have made this point repeatedly in the data, it's one they themselves seem reluctant to foreground, even in the latest study. Here's the abstract:
Here's a bit on the way social support with the protocol worked:
This is a pretty substantial result that is intriguingly reiterated in a smaller cohort study carried out over at Precision Nutrition awhile ago (and discussed at b2d here).
To the folks who were "extremely happy" with the progress towards their weight goals, 77% said that they'd had regular mentorship from someone who was in the shape they wanted to achieve.
It's important to note that not everyone needs social/expert support to achieve their weight loss goals. Brad Pillon, whose work is continually interesting and intriguing, blogged recently about how happy he was to carve his own path. And any guy who can fast regularly twice a week is probably just that kinda guy. But let's face it: Mr. Pillon of the terrific Eat, Stop, Eat has a heck of a background in nutrition and supplements, so perhaps he's not the Norm in the distribution here? Maybe?
Martha Beck of the Four Day Win
(your way to Thinner Peace [i love that]) reiterates the value of social support for success in body comp 
goals, encouraging folks who don't have it for free in their social network to go pay for it (precision nutriton - the forum - is the biggie i've praised for ages for this value; the lean eating program takes that to daily, direct contact).
For the rest of us, then, it seems we more than get by, but can thrive with a little help if not just from supportive friends, but from knowledgeable mentors.
And uptake of *that* human support component is, at least in this Never Ending Study, an unsung key predictor of success with caloric reduction and exercise for attainment and maintenance of body comp success.
Related Posts
PS Please Remember,
UNICK, J., JAKICIC, J., & MARCUS, B. (2010). Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42 (4), 745-753 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181bd1a57
Tweet
Follow @begin2dig
There's one weight loss study that somehow has been in the public eye since 2003. Each time a version of its data gets published, it gets media attention for showing that LOTS of exercise helps maintain weight loss. Now from my reading of that data, that's actually kind of a misrepresentation of the findings in the paper. There are THREE factors that impact weight loss maintenance: caloric restriction (1200-1500kcals), 270-300mins of (vigorous) exercise a week AND (the under reported component) regular human contact intervention about compliance with the protocol. Finally, in yet another paper about this study, this later part of the work is being highlighted a bit more in the paper "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss." I find it fascinating that such an interesting predictor of success - along with the more familiar caloric reduction - has been so seemingly downplayed in favor of hours of exercise.Background Last year (2009), discussion of a second paper (published July 2008) on a 2 year study of obese women losing weight generated lots of attention. In particular, Time focused on one aspect of the study, calling their piece "The Myth of Moderate Exercise." They focused on the finding that, in a trial of 201 obese women ("conducted between December 1999 and January 2003") who took off and kept off 10% of their body, did so by exercising at twice the amount of time recommended by the CDC (center for disease control), and by doing vigerous - not moderate - work.
A less well cited piece on the study at WebMD did make a bit more about the social aspect of the study that was seen to contribute to participants' ongoing success. One more even less cited post at FoodConsumer.org, unlike Time, got it, too:
But even among this group who sustain 10 percent weight loss, exercise may not be the only thing they did to have the effect. These people also completed more phone calls with the research staff and engaged in more eating behaviors recommended for weight loss and had a lower intake of dietary fat.This was the second time this same study data had garnered attention for the reason Time made primary. Back in 2005, WebMD published a story called "how much exercise sparks weight loss." It focused on the data that showed that the women who exercised for 4.5-5 hours a week, at an overall vigorous intensity, lost the most weight. This was the first time the full study data had been taken out for a walk - this time at a presentation at the North American Association for the Study of Obesity’s annual scientific meeting, Vancouver, Canada, Oct. 15-19, 2005. Prior to this, a one year version of the study, with pretty much the same findings at the 12 month point was reported in 2003 in the Journal of American Medical Association. Gotta say, i am amazed at the longevity of this data set. It's a lesson for academics about how much information one can get from a rich data set.
Indeed, here's the latest version: April, 2010, Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss."
Oh, and just a few months before this April 2010 version of the data, the American College of Sports Medicine put out a press release taking "strong exception to assertions [in that original Time Article?] that exercise can inhibit weight loss by over-stimulating the appetite." The key person cited in the PR is John Jakicic, author of the above study and who also just happens to "[chair] a committee on obesity prevention and treatment for the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and helped write an ACSM Position Stand on strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults."
Naturally, the ACSM statement says exercise helps maintain weight loss. And to that end, quotes an awful lot of Jakicic's singular study's findings. Now, that all sounds great, but let's face it, (1) this cohort was 201 obese women, and (2) the ACSM may have just a little invested in celebrating the importance of exercise. They were burning off 1800+ calories with exercise AND living on calorie reduced diets AND were still, after two years, considered overweight. So their health had certainly improved, but if nothing else, this cohort shows that losing weight from an obese state takes long, hard graft. But it also seems to benefit from something else that may be just as necessary, and that's the human expert support.
Telephones: The Secret Ingredient?
Just to be clear, i'm in no way suggesting that exercise doesn't help with weight loss. Recently i've discussed just two of many studies - one on HIIT, one on cardio - that shows benefit for fat loss. But what i am intrigued by, and what's been in the published data since day one, is the fact that exercise and BIG calorie restriction were not the only key factors in getting the weight off, and perhaps just as importantly, keeping it off. While the researchers have made this point repeatedly in the data, it's one they themselves seem reluctant to foreground, even in the latest study. Here's the abstract:
That's an interesting conclusion. It separates out achieving a weight loss target to sustaining a weight loss target. It says, if i'm reading it correctly, that eating behaviors and social expert support about the progress in the program are potent factors for getting to weight loss equal to 5% of total weight, or for that matter to anything above 5%. To *sustain* weight loss that is equal to or greater than 10%, however, high level physical activity has to be there. At least if you're an obese woman.Sustaining weight loss at the long term is difficult.Purpose: To examine if eating behaviors, physical activity levels, and program participation influence ones ability to achieve ≥5%, ≥7%, and ≥10% weight loss during a period of 24 months.Methods: Data from 170 overweight and obese women (body mass index = 32.7 ± 4.2 kg·m−2) were analyzed in this study. All women followed a standard 24-month behavioral weight loss program in which they were instructed to decrease caloric intake and increase physical activity levels. Eating behaviors, body weight, and physical activity levels were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 24 months. Program participation was evaluated by the percentage of group meetings attended and the percentage of telephone calls completed with an interventionist. Three separate stepwise linear regression analyses were performed to identify variables that were predictive of ≥5%, ≥7%, and ≥10% weight loss at 24 months.Results: The percentage of telephone calls completed and change in weight loss eating behaviors predicted ≥5% (r2 = 0.16), ≥7% (r2 = 0.14), and ≥10% weight loss (r2 = 0.10) at 24 months. However, the change in physical activity levels from baseline to 24 months was only predictive of weight losses ≥10% (r2 = 0.11).Conclusions: Behavioral factors, such as adopting healthy eating behaviors and telephone contact time, are important components that assist individuals in achieving weight losses ≥5%. However, high levels of physical activity play a more prominent role in sustaining weight losses ≥10%. Therefore, innovative strategies to enhance long-term exercise adherence should be developed.
Here's a bit on the way social support with the protocol worked:
During the initial 6 months, participants attended weekly group intervention meetings that focused on specific behavioral strategies to adopt and maintain the recommended eating and physical activity components. From months 7 to 12, participants were to attend biweekly meetings, with the frequency of these meetings reduced to monthly during months 13 to 18, and these meetings no longer offered during months 19 to 24. The group intervention meetings were complemented with brief individualized telephone contacts between months 7 and 24. The frequency of these telephone contacts was biweekly during months 7 to 12, monthly during months 13 to 18, and biweekly during months 19 to 24. Phone calls were scheduled for a period of up to 10 min; however, the weight loss counselor could extend the call beyond the 10 min period if deemed necessary. All calls followed a structured script, and calls were prescheduled to facilitate the ability of the subject to participate in this callHere's some of the main findings correlating effect of this contact with results:
In other words, whether folks went to meetings or not wasn't the big factor; the time of direct contact that folks made seems to correlate with success. My humble take is that, gosh, this is a pretty significant component to ongoing success. So heere's a conclusion, given that, i don't quite understand. The authors state:
Telephone contact time, expressed as the percentage of telephone calls completed, was significantly greater (P G 0.001) using the Q5%, Q7%, and Q10% weight loss criteria, in the MAINTAIN group (79.4%, 79.5%, and 83.6%, respectively) compared with the NONMAINTAIN (69.3%, 70.6%, and 68.4%, respectively) and NONADOPT (64.4%, 67.7%, and 69.6%, respectively) groups. There was no significant difference in participant session attendance between groups for any of the weight loss criteria
On the basis of the results of this study, physical activity was a key factor in the ability to achieve this magnitude of weight loss when used in combination with improved eating behaviors and sufficient contact with the intervention staff (Table 4). Thus, innovative strategies that would promote the adoption and maintenance of sufficient doses of physical activity are needed, and this may facilitate the achievement of larger magnitudes of longterm weight loss.If "sufficient contact" and "improved eating behaviours" are key, why do the authors only want to propose only workout strategies? Not to worry, though: the authors seem to come around by the conclusion of the study:
In addition, data from the current study indicate that sufficient levels of physical activity in combination with appropriate eating behaviors and maintaining contact with a weight loss specialist are important predictors of Q10% weight loss at 24 months, which is the level of weight loss recommended by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (14). Therefore, to assist overweight and obese individuals in achieving and maintaining weight losses Q10% of initial body weight, innovative strategies that would enhance long-term adherence to appropriate exercise and eating behaviors and that facilitate continued contact with a weight loss specialist should be implemented.
This is a pretty substantial result that is intriguingly reiterated in a smaller cohort study carried out over at Precision Nutrition awhile ago (and discussed at b2d here).To the folks who were "extremely happy" with the progress towards their weight goals, 77% said that they'd had regular mentorship from someone who was in the shape they wanted to achieve.
It's important to note that not everyone needs social/expert support to achieve their weight loss goals. Brad Pillon, whose work is continually interesting and intriguing, blogged recently about how happy he was to carve his own path. And any guy who can fast regularly twice a week is probably just that kinda guy. But let's face it: Mr. Pillon of the terrific Eat, Stop, Eat has a heck of a background in nutrition and supplements, so perhaps he's not the Norm in the distribution here? Maybe?
Martha Beck of the Four Day Win (your way to Thinner Peace [i love that]) reiterates the value of social support for success in body comp goals, encouraging folks who don't have it for free in their social network to go pay for it (precision nutriton - the forum - is the biggie i've praised for ages for this value; the lean eating program takes that to daily, direct contact).For the rest of us, then, it seems we more than get by, but can thrive with a little help if not just from supportive friends, but from knowledgeable mentors.
And uptake of *that* human support component is, at least in this Never Ending Study, an unsung key predictor of success with caloric reduction and exercise for attainment and maintenance of body comp success.
Related Posts
- First Review of Precision Nutrition
- Change is Pain - how to work through the pain to success in Diets
- Set point theory is crap
- Fat Metabolism - a bit about how it works
- some thoughts on motivation as a skill
- sustenance - it's more than appetite
- Georgie Fear helps us Dig In
PS Please Remember,
Jamie Oliver's food revolution. Please check out the petition for better food in kids'schools.
JO's excellent TED talk on same.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
"Lean Muscle "- muscle is lean - do you mean lean mass?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Just a quicky about terminology. I've heard many folks referring to building "lean muscle" and burning fat. Even seemingly knowledgeable sites do this. Consider this wikianswer response about building "lean muscle" A review of Staley's muscle logic refers to building "lean muscle mass." Or just do a search for "lean muscle" and check how many sites come back with that
term in the title.
The thing is, muscle *is* lean in that (a) lean means wanting in fat and (b) muscle has very little fat in it. Pretty much ever. It's very particularly designed to be that way.
The "lean muscle" may come from conflating the desire for muscle gain and fat loss on the one hand and measuring "lean mass" relative to body fat % from body composition on the other.
Or maybe it's that gaining muscle is supposed to go with burning fat and hence getting lean. Not always true by the way: see "bulking."
Anyway, lean muscle may be a redundant term but it's pretty pervasive. So let's take these terms apart then:
Lean, in lean mass refers to the measurement of the body sans adipose tissue - the fat that's under the skin (and can be measured by calipers) as opposed to visceral fat, which is the stuff around our internal organs.
Body composition by the way is formally the meanure of fat, bone, muscle tissue. So a lean person - say a man below 10% body fat with a six pack starting to show - is "lean" - as in wanting in fat (that's another great word: to want, wanting - as in to lack). He may be more or less muscular at that bf% than another person who is say
bigger or smaller boned, so not everyone at a particular bf% looks the same to be sure.
Similarly someone can gain lean mass, or gain muscle, and not necessarily put much of a dent in lowering their body fat percentage (as seen recently with obese kids on exercise programs). In fact many folks will eat more to gain muscle mass, and pack on some more fat while doing so. This is partially why it's hard to gain muscle mass while reducing calories to get lean: the fuel to build the muscle mass (new tissue) isn't necessarily there (see discussion on hypertrophy here).
So, there's muscle, there's lean mass, and there's body fat. Muscle and bone is lean; fat is fat. Working to gain muscle doesn't necessitate getting lean(er), but eating at a caloric deficit may (scroll dow to see discussion on weight loss, nutrition, habits, change is pain, here for more).
Now, for most situations the above may be considered a nice distinction (nice is another cool word like want - means fussy or fastidious or jesuitical for that matter), but sometimes folks make the assumption that muscle gain means fat loss when thinking about "lean muscle gain" and since it doesn't, it may help to have this cleared up - help a person working on weight loss and fitness to have a better mental model of what's happening within us.
And so thar we go: muscle is lean already, to get lean is to drop fat, but building muscle is no guarantee of fat loss, though developed in the right circumstances, it can certainly help. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
term in the title.The thing is, muscle *is* lean in that (a) lean means wanting in fat and (b) muscle has very little fat in it. Pretty much ever. It's very particularly designed to be that way.
The "lean muscle" may come from conflating the desire for muscle gain and fat loss on the one hand and measuring "lean mass" relative to body fat % from body composition on the other.
Or maybe it's that gaining muscle is supposed to go with burning fat and hence getting lean. Not always true by the way: see "bulking."
Anyway, lean muscle may be a redundant term but it's pretty pervasive. So let's take these terms apart then:
Lean, in lean mass refers to the measurement of the body sans adipose tissue - the fat that's under the skin (and can be measured by calipers) as opposed to visceral fat, which is the stuff around our internal organs.
Body composition by the way is formally the meanure of fat, bone, muscle tissue. So a lean person - say a man below 10% body fat with a six pack starting to show - is "lean" - as in wanting in fat (that's another great word: to want, wanting - as in to lack). He may be more or less muscular at that bf% than another person who is say
bigger or smaller boned, so not everyone at a particular bf% looks the same to be sure.Similarly someone can gain lean mass, or gain muscle, and not necessarily put much of a dent in lowering their body fat percentage (as seen recently with obese kids on exercise programs). In fact many folks will eat more to gain muscle mass, and pack on some more fat while doing so. This is partially why it's hard to gain muscle mass while reducing calories to get lean: the fuel to build the muscle mass (new tissue) isn't necessarily there (see discussion on hypertrophy here).
So, there's muscle, there's lean mass, and there's body fat. Muscle and bone is lean; fat is fat. Working to gain muscle doesn't necessitate getting lean(er), but eating at a caloric deficit may (scroll dow to see discussion on weight loss, nutrition, habits, change is pain, here for more).
Now, for most situations the above may be considered a nice distinction (nice is another cool word like want - means fussy or fastidious or jesuitical for that matter), but sometimes folks make the assumption that muscle gain means fat loss when thinking about "lean muscle gain" and since it doesn't, it may help to have this cleared up - help a person working on weight loss and fitness to have a better mental model of what's happening within us.
And so thar we go: muscle is lean already, to get lean is to drop fat, but building muscle is no guarantee of fat loss, though developed in the right circumstances, it can certainly help. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
