Thursday, December 3, 2009

MORE STUDIES WHY WHAT WE DO IS THE BEST

Study #1: Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on
excess post-exercise oxygen consumption: implications for
body mass management.

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar;86(5):411-7. Epub 2002
Jan 29.

In this study a 30-minute circuit style metabolic resistance
training session was put to the test. The result was a 38 hour
increase in metabolism - massive AFTERBURN.

Let’s put this in perspective: Say that you worked out at 8AM
on Friday. By way of metabolic resistance training, you’d still
be burning calories from that workout while out at the movies on
Saturday night.

You want to burn calories by watching New Moon? Now you can.


Study #2: Influence of exercise training on physiological
and performance changes with weight loss in men.

Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 1320-1329, 1999.

This study showed that those who added metabolic resistance
training to a reduced calorie diet burned up to 44% more fat than
those who dieted alone.

Don’t get me wrong, diet is the NUMBER ONE component of the
fat loss puzzle, but once you’ve got that down, metabolic
resistance training can really take your results to a whole new
level.


Study #3: Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined
with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting
metabolic rate.

J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr;18(2):115-21.

This study compared “slow-go” aerobic exercise to metabolic
resistance training and found that the resistance group lost
significantly more fat without losing ANY lean muscle even at an
extremely low calorie intake (not so for the aerobic group).

In fact, believe it or not, while the aerobic group experienced
a decrease in metabolism (and lost muscle), the resistance
training group actually increased overall metabolic rate.

1 comment:

  1. I like the idea of 'afterburn,' so I was disappointed when I read this article:

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/?scp=1&sq=afterburn&st=cse

    What do you think? Is there a conflict here, or are these guys studying different things?

    ReplyDelete