Friday, August 02, 2013


8/2 - pushups, pullups/chins -- abs/kneeups & crunches -- 25 chins/50 pushups for time 2:11 - [and then again for 2:19] -- grease the groove/neutral grip chins

#AdaptationIsSpecific -- The only thing long, slow cardio is good for is getting good at doing long, slow cardio.  For guys and girls, to be lean, strong, fit [and to look good] then lift weights/do strength training/resistance work, do intervals & sprints and clean up your diet. -- T NATION | The Final Nail in the Cardio Coffin
"It is time to bury the myth of using long, slow steady-state cardio to burn up fat, for good. No more spending hours and hours on a treadmill, elliptical, or bike...

Feeling soft around the midsection? Can't see your abs anymore? Feel the need to get lean in a hurry? Slacking off on your diet and workouts can do that to you. In my case, training for an Ironman triathlon can do that, too. What? Yeah, you heard me right...  My body was soft, with no definition, and had definitely changed due to spending the majority of my training in the steady-state aerobic zone – the same "fat burning zone" many books and magazine still talk about...
Body built by Cosgrove, strength training, and intervals.

I was able to increase my mileage until I could go for a 16-mile run or a 112-mile bike ride like it was "just another workout." It was amazing to see how the body adapts to demands and how far you can push yourself. Unfortunately, this was also exactly why I didn't lose much fat – my body was adapting to what I was doing. My goal was to get my body super-efficient at running 20 miles and riding a bike for 100 miles, so when it came time for my race, I'd be able to do it. However, the more your body adapts the fewer calories you burn. So, I was doing more and more exercise without burning as many calories, and therefore I wasn't losing any fat...

In seven months of training, I calculated that I worked out for 374 hours – that's an average of over thirteen hours a week! If I burned just ten calories a minute, it adds up to 224,400 calories. Doing the math (at 3,500 calories per pound), 224,400 calories should equal sixty four pounds lost! Needless to say, I did not lose 64 pounds. Over those seven months, training an average thirteen to fourteen hours a week, I lost all of five pounds. That... was... it. Now, we've heard many of the fitness experts tell us that, "steady-state aerobics is not effective for fat loss, and we've heard the scientific research that interval training is more effective. But, still, I thought it would've been more effective than this! A lousy five pounds after doing 374 hours of training, while keeping tabs on what I'm eating! It's enough to make a girl give up the gym...

Fortunately, I now have first-hand experience that steady-state aerobics is absolutely, completely, utterly ineffective for fat loss. After working my way up to twenty training hours a week, I can tell you that long, steady-state endurance is not the answer for a defined, lean physique and it's a waste of time if your goal is fat loss. It's only the answer if your goal is to complete an endurance event.

R.I.P. Aerobics
Get off the treadmill, stop spinning your wheels, and push yourself in the gym if you want to lose some serious fat. Take it from me, I finally learned first hand. It's time to put the last nail in the coffin of using aerobics for fat loss, bury it for good, and do some high intensity, interval dancing on its overdue grave."

No comments:

Post a Comment