Rate of fat loss - what do you think (Cosgrove email)
So I subscribe to Cosgrove's email. His last one was what I pasted below. I didn't realize until a follow up msg the next day that they were selling something (bc I didn't follow the link), so now that makes me not like this as much, but I figure everyone has to earn a living, and just try to read it at face value:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've been talking this over with Mike Roussell over the past year. How fast can someone lose fat? Is there a limit that's based on physiology ? If so, what's the rate limiting step ? And can we circumvent it and speed up the entire process? It always bothered me that we'd be told - a good diet could results in 2lbs of fat loss per week. "Any more than that and you'll lose muscle". Or a good exercise program could result in the same. But if you had a good diet AND a good exercise program - your results didn't double - they canceled each other out! It was still "2lbs per week...". Diet worked. Exercise worked. But diet and exercise didn't seem to work much better. We've all been told that 2lbs a week is the magic number... yet there are actual scientific studies (not just anecdotes) showing losses way higher than that. What about losing muscle and slowing metabolism when you create too much of a deficit? Again it's another myth. There are studies showing actual metabolism increases and muscle gains on programs with intakes as low as 800 calories per day. Is it just about calories? Nope. There are studies showing that interval training, while burning less calories during the session, results in a significantly greater fat loss than a higher volume of calorie burning exercise... There are also studies showing the same total calories burned from weight training and cardio results in drastically different amounts of fat loss. So it's not just calories in vs calories out ... Mike shared some nutrition studies with me -- one showing that changing the source of protein intake doubled the lean mass gains and increased fat lost - without changing total calories or activity levels. Another one showed the same thing when you changed the source of dietary fat. Again - no change in total calories in, or activity levels (calories out) -- but there was a pronounced reduction in body fat. The more Mike and I exchanged information - both from studies that we'd read, and people that we'd worked with -- we came to a conclusion -- that the physiological limit for fat loss - if it even existed - was definitely way higher than we first thought. And if we did everything right - looking for synergy between the different components as opposed to incompatibility and canceling each other out. - we could ramp all the processes up, and "front-load" the program so that instead of training and dieting for 12 weeks -- you'd get great results in 28 days. We ran three different experimental groups through the program - getting feedback and tweaking it every time. And now it's ready. Let's face it -- training for fat loss sucks. Dieting sucks. And we all usually leave it until the last minute. Bad news - it already is the last minute! Memorial Day - the unofficial start to US Summer time is in 3 weeks time! July 4th is only 8 weeks away... If you're ready to make fat loss your number one priority for the next 28 days - check it out -- Warp Speed Fat Loss. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I found this timing amazing, bc I had just this day done a comparision at which burns more calories, 3 different routines on the treadmill, one with really good HIIT but shorter, one with moderate HIIT, and one with a low HIIT and s/s combo for the longest time. That one actually had the highest calorie output at 282, compared to like 220 and 202 for the others, respectively. So I was just all set to stick to my combo/long time set, and then this little jewel arrived in my in box. Now I'm all confused again.
So the most calories burned isn't necessarily the one that will do you the most good. Hmmm. What say YOU? Stick with my hi cal/longer combo or give this a whirl?
I found this timing amazing, bc I had just this day done a comparision at which burns more calories, 3 different routines on the treadmill, one with really good HIIT but shorter, one with moderate HIIT, and one with a low HIIT and s/s combo for the longest time. That one actually had the highest calorie output at 282, compared to like 220 and 202 for the others, respectively. So I was just all set to stick to my combo/long time set, and then this little jewel arrived in my in box. Now I'm all confused again.
So the most calories burned isn't necessarily the one that will do you the most good. Hmmm. What say YOU? Stick with my hi cal/longer combo or give this a whirl?
The jury still seems to be out on the HIIT vs SS cardio. In the past little while I've seen so many conflicting comments about them (sometimes using the same study, which had a very small number of people in it). Part of the appeal of HIIT is that you can get perhaps the same benefit in a shorter period of time. This is assuming people are actually doing HIIT. I remember seeing someone post about doing an hour of HIIT and all I could think of is either they were freakin' amazing, or they weren't really doing HIIT. I've done some intervals, but they are mostly mid-range. 20 mins of HIIT and I'm whipped (of course that could be my level of fitness).
From another board I post on I do know someone who is starting the program (Monday), and I'll likely follow her progress. However, a comment from someone else leads me to believe it's targeted towards people looking to drop 20lbs. She's got more to lose than that so it will be interesting to see how she goes in the next 20 days.
I do wonder if I'm truly fit enough for a plan aimed towards people perhaps looking to get rid of their last stubborn 20lbs. I'm also not sure I could stick the diet portion of the plan, which I don't know that much about, but from her comments in which she was very much simplifying the plan: "The plan is 10% carbs on a normal day, 20% carbs on a high day, and "no" carbs one day a week (except for what occurs naturally in nuts and other fats)."
I can drop the bread (usually only take a small piece at breakfast), I might have a potato once every two weeks. Rice maybe once a week at most, and perhaps the same for pasta. However I do take in a fair amount from vegetables and fruit. I looked at her basic plan for this next week (simplified so she doesn't have to prep too much) and it only includes a small apple each day and a plum every other day.
Having said all that I might break down and purchase it in the fall if I feel it works well for her and if I'm looking for a boost. This also corresponds for a time I'll be cooking for myself only for three weeks (so a radical change in food would be easier).
Thanks Anne. AFter reading the full pitch for his $77 plan, I'm also sure I won't be able to stick to the diet portion for being such a picky eater. I don't like any fish, cottage cheese, stuff like that. I have a small list and am usually unable to follow anyone else's plan - which I guess is best bc I have had to learn to do right from the start. He did also mention this is not for someone who needs to lose 50 lbs, but heck, why not? We should actually up his success rates, having more fat to lose more quickly I would think. Is the other site you're referring to his NROL site? I have that bookmarked too and should check it out. (or is it skwigg?)
Funny, but we sound a little alike on the food issues. I can't swallow fish, it literally sticks in my throat (texture, not so much the taste) and I don't eat cottage cheese or yogurt. It's a good thing I like meat.
I suspect the point is that it's meant to be a 4-week plan that limits your food choices. Most people probably couldn't stick limited choices for longer. As well, you might not be getting complete nutrition, so it might not be such a great choice.
I remember seeing someone post about doing an hour of HIIT and all I could think of is either they were freakin' amazing, or they weren't really doing HIIT.
I've wondered the same thing. DH & I had a conversation about this today. Whenever I do cardio I do intervals - to keep myself from keeling over dead with boredom. But when I do HIIT it is totally different experience.
Here is a link found: http://www.squidoo.com/GuidetoHIIT I like that it explains HIIT very simply (which many sites just don't) & if you read it accurately there is just no way anyway could do HIIT for an hour. If you figure a 1:2 ratio of all out to recovery an hour would mean 20 minutes of going ALL OUT! That would about kill most people!
But still - cardio is a good thing - even if it is dreadfully boring!
I have a soft spot for anything by Alwyn Cosgrove. His programs are the only programs that have ever given me results! I just started his new program today and it will be a very challenging month!!
Personally I prefer HIIT because of the amount of time it DOESN'T take.
But when I do HIIT it is totally different experience.
My only true attempt at HIIT was 4 mins (in 15) and looking at the HR monitor after I actually hit my theoretical max (178). Although with my current fitness level, I suspect my future attempts will be more likely medium intervals, with a heart rate that may look like HIIT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogguruami
I have a soft spot for anything by Alwyn Cosgrove. His programs are the only programs that have ever given me results! I just started his new program today and it will be a very challenging month!!
Good, I'll be looking at your log/blog to see how you do as well. The only reason I hesitate about it is (a) current fitness level, and (b) not sure I could stick a pretty low carb diet for even 4 weeks. I'm working through NROL4W at the moment, but may pick up NROL instead when finished. Later, if I feel I'm physically stronger (and maybe 50lbs lighter) I'll give it a shot.
So the most calories burned isn't necessarily the one that will do you the most good. Hmmm. What say YOU? Stick with my hi cal/longer combo or give this a whirl?
Why don't you do both? I do intervals (although I sincerely doubt they are truly 'HIIT' but intervals just the same) on the TM and also SS cardio. Just depends on how I feel that day. Sometimes I'll do incline intervals walking instead of running but crank the thing up to level 15 (highest it goes). WOW you should see the cal count thingy go! And my butt is rock hard (ok, still covered in fat but rock hard underneath). Today I really didn't feel like running so I walked/slow jogged at 4.4/4.6mph at a 5/6% icline. All I know is that my HR was where it needed to be and I was pretty sweaty. I get too bored doing the 'same old thing' so I do something different all the time. So far, so good. Variety in exercise and food works ok for me!
Rate of fat loss - what do you think (Cosgrove email)
but rock hard underneath). Today I really didn't feel like running so I walked/slow jogged at 4.4/4.6mph at a 5/6% icline. All I know is that my HR was where it needed to be and I was pretty sweaty. 
