Why Aerobics Are WORTHLESS For Weight Loss

We have ALL been sold a big LIE - that aerobic exercise is the key to fat loss. In reality it is actually THE lest efficient fat loss exercise tool known to man. This has been CONSISTENTLY revealed in the research over the past 15 years.

No one except bodybuilders who are dialing-in for a competition should be using aerobic training for fat-loss. For everyone else it is a complete and utter waste of time and energy compared to more intense, efficient and effective modes of exercise like resistance training.

Don't Believe The Hype

While it is true that aerobic training burns extra calories, and you must create an energy debt to burn fat. It is NOT true that aerobic training is an efficient way to burn off extra energy. IN REALITY, AEROBICS ARE THE LEAST EFFICIENT MODE OF EXERCISE POSSIBLE TO BURN EXTRA CALORIES AND/OR FAT.

All activity, even standing in line at the DMV, burns calories above your resting metabolic rate (RMR) - what you burn if you were to be on bed rest 24/7. In addition, standing in line will actually burn a higher percentage of calories from fat than jogging in your "fat burning zone" (FBZ) ever will, but we'll get to that in due time. If you do 30 min of FBZ aerobics you get essentially a 30 min increase in the rate at which you burn calories, so it is in fact better than watching TV. BUT, if you were to kick butt for 30 min. in the weight room you would:
*A) Burn significantly more calories during the actual exercise session
*B) Create a very significant metabolic boost for the next 12+hrs from the oxygen debt (EPOC) you have created with your high intensity workout (that you cannot get from aerobic training)
*C) Create a second metabolic boost from your body working to repair the muscle you broke down during your lifting session, AND
*D) Help to maintain or increase your metabolic rate for life. Every single pound of muscle you gain will burn lots of calories 24/7/365. With more muscle mass every activity you do now becomes more caloricaly demanding because of your extra muscle. Plus, muscle is the only tissue that can burn significant quantities of fat. For the ladies, muscle is denser than fat. So, if you lose 5lbs of fat and gain a 5lbs of muscle, even though on the scale you will weight the same, you will be smaller, firmer and have a faster metabolism which will help you continue to get smaller and firmer. You can't get "big" unless you take drugs; it's just not in the gonads, as they say.

As if that wasn't enough, if you do enough aerobic training to get any real progress on the scale, you will probably end up burning off muscle - meaning that you will now burn fewer calories 24 hours a day, seven day per week and 365 per year. Say it with me, "Aerobics suck!"

B) The "fat burning zone" is fat burning BS. While it is true that you burn a larger total PERCENTAGE of calories during lower intensity exercise, what they don't tell you is that it is a larger percentage of a much SMALLER number.

So, the net result is less fat-loss, it's boring, you have to do it forever to get any benefit from it, and you get zero residual benefit - i.e. EPOC, energy expenditure from repairing damaged muscles and the metabolic boost from maintaining or increasing your lean body mass (you will probably lose muscle doing it.)

On top of all that you should know that aerobic training is NOT necessary for cardiovascular health and fitness. You can get the equivalent (if not superior) benefits from circuit training or interval training (below) in a lot less time and with improved muscle tone/size and reduced boredom.

Burn More Fat In Less Time

The solution? Interval training! Interval training is a form of energy work that alternates periods of high and low intensities to produce a more intense and efficient workout.

Energy work is exercise designed condition your energy producing systems and usually burns a ton of calories during and after as a nice side effect. Steady state aerobics would fall into this category also, but it's just poorly designed for fat-loss. 1-2 pounds of fat-loss per week is realistic if this is used in conjunction with sound nutrition and a well-designed resistance training program (90-120 min/week should get the job done). In addition to actually getting results, your interval workouts will never take more than 20 min. to complete.

Weeks 1-4: 4 Intervals (60 sec "up"/120 sec "down"), 4 days/week (17 min)
Weeks 5-8: 5 Intervals (60/120), 4 days/week (20 min)
Weeks 9-12: 5 Intervals (60/120), 5 days/week (20 min)
Weeks 13-16: 6 Intervals (60 sec "up"/90 sec "down"), 5 days/week (20 min)

Example (weeks 1-4)

Warm-up 3 min.

Interval #1 1 min as fast/hard as you can go (9 or 10 on a scale of 1-10), 2 min recovery (about a 6) Interval #2 1 min as fast/hard as you can go (9 or 10 on a scale of 1-10), 2 min recovery (about a 6)

Interval #3 1 min as fast/hard as you can go (9 or 10 on a scale of 1-10), 2 min recovery (about a 6)

Interval #4 1 min as fast/hard as you can go (9 or 10 on a scale of 1-10), 2 min recovery (about a 6) Cool down 2 min

Grand total 17 min (more energy consumed during the workout and the "after burn" - I stole that word from Alwyn Cosgrove)

You should be sucking wind big time on the "up." This is not lollygag cardio that you can read a magazine while doing. Your goal is to work as hard as you safely can to stimulate hours of fat-loss. Maybe you can get away with reading during warm up and cool down, but when you are "up" you need to be completely focused on what you are doing and on sustaining a kick-butt interval. Not watching TV. Not chatting (you should not physically be able to carry on a conversation during the "up" because you're breathing so hard). Focus, work hard and work smart.

Article Source: http://www.lowcarbdietarticles.com

Josef is also the author of The Body You Want, and a Washington, DC based nominee for 2009 Personal Trainer of the Year from Personal Fitness Professional Magazine. He specializes in helping normal, busy people create the bodies they want in the time they actually have. Visit Pharmacy to find out more.

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated