Was it big hair?
Was it shoulder pads?
No, in all fairness I was thinking about training and what was acceptable in the 80’s and not true anymore. So in this and the following article we are going to go over what was acceptable in the 80’s with training and nutrition, but is not true anymore. So lets get started.
Training
Acceptable in the 80’s number 1 – Aerobic training for fat loss
I don’t know if this one has actually gone away, as I keep getting asked questions like “is walking a good method to get in shape?” But the research is definitely debunking this myth.
In the 80’s we believed that endurance training (aerobic training) was the way forward in fat loss training. Fitness professional and researchers were looking at how much fat was being burned during the exercise session itself and not the effect the exercise had on the resting metabolic rate for the other 23 hours and longer, when your not working out. So I am going to put forward a case to debunk these methods and show you a superior method to burn more fat.
But first, what is the definition of aerobic training. Aerobic means "with oxygen", and refers to the use of oxygen in the body's metabolic or energy-generating process. Many types of exercise are aerobic, and by definition are performed at moderate levels of intensity for extended periods of time. So that long walk or run at a steady pace fall into this category.
Lets see what the research is saying about the effectiveness of aerobic training;
- A 1998 study (Int J Sport Nutr. 1998 Sep;8(3):213-22.) once compared the addition of 45 mins at 78% Max Heart Rate of aerobic training, 5 days per week to an already dieting population and found that it had no additional fat loss effect over dieting alone.
- A recent study from the University of Colorado (published in the Journal of Applied Physiology) had participants perform an hour long easy ride and monitored the "afterburn" - to see how much fat they burned post workout.
They didn't burn any more than they did if they hadn't exercised.
From the New York Times:
To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.” They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not.
- A study as regards running and long term adaptations to metabolism was released.
Williams PT, Wood PD.
The effects of changing exercise levels on weight and age-related weight gain.
Int j Obes (lond). 2006 Mar; 30(3):543-51.
The researchers undergoing the study (from the University of California, Berkeley), discovered that men and women who logged the same weekly mileage year after year – regardless of the amount – gained weight.
Case in point: even those who ran more than 40 miles a week were susceptible. “your metabolism slows a little more every year, so you need to increase activity levels as you age,” says study author Paul T. Williams, PH.D. “yet most people do the opposite.” Clearly the effects of aerobic exercise do little to offset this reduction in metabolism. And additional research also suggests that regular running improves your body’s exercise efficiency, meaning the same amount of activity burns fewer calories.
The researchers concluded that to avoid weight gain, male runners need to boost their weekly mileage by 1.7 miles per week, or approximately 88.4 miles per year, every year, with female runners having to boost their mileage by 2.4 miles per week or 125 miles per year, every year.
Conclusion: As you can see in the first 2 studies they add aerobic training to already dieting subject but none of them lost any additional weight compared to the diet only group. With the last study it showed how much more work a year you would have to do to keep in shape running, man that is a lot of extra miles a year, I’m getting tried just reading it!
So, Is their a better way?
Yeah, creating the afterburn effect!
What is afterburn?
EPOC or “excess post-exercise oxygen consumption” is defined scientifically as the “recovery of metabolic rate back to pre-exercise levels” and it’s generally used to describe the “afterburn” effect. A very simple way of thinking about EPOC is that when you do certain types of training you exert yourself beyond what your body is capable of handling (i.e. your body can’t keep up); it then uses the next 12, 24, or even 36 hours to ‘catch up’ metabolically. ‘Catch up’ = burning calories.
How do we create an afterburn effect?
Resistance or strength training as a superior method for fat loss and creating the afterburn effect;
Schuenke MD, Mikat RP, McBride JM.
Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC): implications for body fat management.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2002 Mar;86(5):411-7
This group looked at the effects of circuit weight training on EPOC. EPOC (Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption) is defined scientifically as the “recovery of metabolic rate back to pre-exercise levels”
The exercise routine consisted of three exercises (the bench press, the power clean and the squat), performed with 10RM loads as a circuit. The circuit was performed four times (i.e. twelve total sets) and took 31 mins.
EPOC was elevated for 38 hours post workout (possibly longer as this was when the researchers stopped measuring). The duration and magnitude of the EPOC observed in this study indicates the importance of the role of high intensity resistance training in a fat loss program.
Geliebter A, Maher MM, Gerace L, Gutin B, Heymsfield SB, Hashim SA.
Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Sep; 66(3): 557-63
Conclusion – in an isoenergetic comparison (the same calories consumed as burned in both groups), the strength training group lost significantly more fat than the aerobic training group. Additionally the aerobic training group lost significantly more lean body mass (muscle) than the strength training group.
Interval training as a superior method for fat loss and creating the afterburn effect;
The landmark study on this case is from Tremblay:
The premise of the study was to compare twenty (20) weeks of steady state endurance training and fifteen (15) weeks of interval training.
When comparing total calories burned the researchers found that the energy cost of the endurance training was 28661 calories, while the total calories burned in the interval training program was 13614 calories. In other words the interval training group burned less than half the calories of the endurance training group.
Despite its lower energy cost, the interval training program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity (fat tissue) compared with the endurance training program.
And when the researchers adjusted the results and corrected for difference in energy cost, the interval training group showed a NINE TIMES greater loss in subcutaneous fat than the endurance group.
Additionally the researchers noted that the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the interval training program appear to favour the process of fat oxidation.
Now this is something promising. With a shorter program (fifteen weeks compared to twenty weeks), and burning less calories each time, the interval training program group showed a bigger reduction in subcutaneous fat than the endurance program. And when the researchers adjusted the data to compare similar caloric expenditures the decrease in subcutaneous skinfolds was nine (9) times greater in the interval training group than in the endurance group.
The take home message!
Aerobics training might have been acceptable in the 80’s but with the new research and more coming out all the time backing it up, resistance training and interval training is the future of fat loss.
In part 2 of acceptable in the 80’s we will look at nutrition.
