burn fat 2

Aerobic vs Weight Training: Which is Better For Fat Loss (The Duke Study – Was it Wrong?)

continue... (II part)

-Diet: The crucial (missing?) element

More than likely, one of the biggest reasons for less fat loss and weight loss than you’d want or expect in 8 months is lack of tight control over the subject’s diets.

A cursory skimming of the study suggests that they did have the subjects report their food intake. However, a closer look at the full text shows it was done with 3-day food records and 24-hour food recalls. It’s a well-proven fact that self-reporting of food intake by research subjects is horribly unreliable. A lack of weight loss can very often be chalked up to more calories being eaten than were reported. No exercise program – weights or aerobics or both – works well without proper nutrition.

Granted, studies with true control for food intake are difficult to perform, especially for extended periods of time. But fortunately, we don’t need more studies to understand what happened in this case.

We already know that the key to fat loss is the calorie deficit, not aerobic training per se and not resistance training per se. It’s possible to create a calorie deficit with ANY type of training program – cardio or weights. However, is it possible to do aerobics and not have a deficit? Of course. Is it possible to lift weights and not have a deficit? Of course! Is it possible out-eat ANY training program? Of course.

The biggest question in my mind is why the researchers drew the conclusions they did: Here’s what they said, word for word:

“If increasing strength and muscle mass is the goal, a program including resistance training is required… (So far so good… we’re still cool)…

“However, balancing time commitments against health benefits accrued, it appears that aerobic training alone is the optimal mode of exercise for reducing fat mass.” (Based on this data? Really? Okay, now we have a difference in opinion).

I believe, and actually the absolute data seems to confirm it, that resistance training plus aerobic training together trumps either type of training by itself. The study authors themselves point out that each type of training has its own set of benefits. But apparently, factoring in the increased time commitment of doing both, they judged in favor of aerobics only as the preferred option for decreasing fat mass.

That raises yet another question: Should losing weight or even just losing fat be your only goal or your primary focus?

-Weight training: Key to the world’s fittest, leanest, healthiest and most attractive bodies?

I’m not sure what is the background of the authors of this study. Some researchers have done mostly academic work, others have a practical background in strength and conditioning. Here’s mine: I come from the trenches of a personal training and competitive bodybuilding career, with a degree in exercise science and I’ve held many personal trainer and strength coach certifications. So, I’m definitely partial to weight lifting and muscle-building as the best tool for transforming the body. However, I’m not alone in my “bias”…

I’ve been surrounded by other professionals in the fitness trenches my entire life and I don’t know a trainer worth his salt (one who actually transforms other people’s bodies every day) who agrees that aerobic training should be the sole focus of a fat loss program or even that fat loss should be the sole focus of a health and fitness program.

Mind you, I’m not knocking aerobics – not at all. I’m a big fan of including cardio as one part of the mix. That’s my whole point: It’s practically common knowledge among experienced trainers that better body composition is produced from combining weight training with cardio training.

There is a group of strength coaches and diet gurus today who insist that weight training combined with very strict diet is sufficient to produce fat loss. Surely that is true, but isn’t it also true that most people seem to get better results when adding cardio on top of weight training? Aren’t there “endomorph”body types where weight training alone doesn’t seem to produce the fat loss/ weight loss results wanted at the rate they are wanted? Didn’t this study seem to bear that out? I can side with the researchers as far as that goes: Weight training alone may not be optimal for fat loss for most people. Put cardio into the mix.

I suppose a good question is how do we prioritize and allocate our time to each activity? Following the same rationale as the researchers – balancing time commitments with health benefits – shouldn’t weight training be higher in the hierarchy than aerobics? Given the huge benefit list for weight training (which includes better health), shouldn’t an ideal program start with weight training plus nutrition as the core elements and then add cardio in to increase fat loss and conditioning as needed? That’s how I see it.

For those with real time commitment issues, it’s comforting to know that fat loss really can be achieved just by dialing in the diet (being meticulous about caloric deficit), and that a calorie deficit can be achieved with any choice of exercise. In a perfect world, I’d have you doing all three elements, with that order of priority: Nutrition, weight training and cardio training and adjust the prescription for the two types of training based on your goals and time available.

-The muscle and metabolism argument: Was this point overlooked?

Although this study had limitations and subjects had less than stellar results, it did have its strengths and it did raise some good questions. For example, it has been widely believed for years, especially in the bodybuilding world, that if increasing lean mass increases metabolism, then increasing your lean mass will help you lose weight. It has sometimes even been implied or stated directly that you can sit on the couch or sleep and (with your new muscle), you’ll burn more calories and lose more fat from that alone.

The Duke researchers questioned this. They wrote:

“It may be time to seriously reconsider the conventional wisdom that resistance training alone can induce changes in fat mass due to an increase in metabolism.”

It’s well known that an increase in lean body mass leads to an increase in basal metabolic rate. Therefore, for years, we have promoted the idea that gaining lean mass helps with fat loss – and it does to some degree. However, does it help so much that we can say increasing lean mass, by itself, is a great fat loss strategy? If you only gain a few pounds of lean body mass, the increase in metabolism is nothing to write home about. Without dietary control, it’s no help at all.

It seems to me that the researchers could have made this their primary conclusion. Instead, they said, “Aerobics is better than weight training for fat loss.” That’s where I think they mixed up their message, because weight training does help with fat loss in the short term, directly and significantly, from increased calorie expenditure. Over the long term it helps too, but maybe not as much as we thought purely from increased basal metabolism.

-Conclusions

Because the research is so inconclusive and opinions always vary due to personal preferences and ideaologies, the weights versus cardio (and what kind of each) debates are likely to continue. But if you consider the entire body of research we have today on improving body composition, combined with the real world experience of the top trainers and athletes who are in the trenches, you can find it very easy to conclude that the optimal method of fat loss is a combination of cardio training and resistance training.

Is more time required to do both resistance and aerobic training? Yes, but with proper program design, time efficiency can be greatly increased. And isn’t it worth doing both, so you can gain ALL the benefits: burning more calories, increasing your strength, gaining lean muscle, decreasing your body fat, improving your health and transforming your entire body shape?

Aerobics helps increase fat loss and you can lose body weight and body fat with aerobics alone. But pumping iron should stay high on your fat loss strategy list. Which of these two – cardio or weights – gets the most priority and time from you may depend on your personal goals, but almost everyone can agree that either way, controlling your diet is critical.

When you add in motivation and accountability, that increases compliance to those first three elements, and you have as close to a “no fail” program as you’ll ever have…Hey… doesn’t that sound a lot like Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle?

References:
Effects of aerobics and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults. LH Willis et al, Journal of Applied Physiology, 1831-1837, December 2012. Duke University Medical Center.

till next time!

BY TOM VENUTO BURN THE FAT, FEED THE MUSCLE

burn fat!

Aerobic vs Weight Training: Which is Better For Fat Loss (The Duke Study – Was it Wrong?)

A recent study from Duke University comparing aerobic versus weight training to see which is better for fat loss was one of the most publicized studies of the year. My in-box was bursting with emails from Burn the Fat readers sending me links from news websites, and asking me, “What do you think of this Tom? Should I stop lifting weights and focus on aerobics until I get the fat off?” I think the researchers missed the mark when they concluded that “Aerobic exercise is better” … Read on to find out why and see what the top trainers, best bodybuilders and hottest fitness models in the world really say is the best way to burn fat the fastest…

-Duke’s press release headline said:

“Aerobic exercise trumps resistance training for weight and fat loss.”

The New York Daily News picked up the story and published this headline:

“Aerobic training may burn more fat than a combination of weights and aerobics.”

Medical News Today published this one:

“Aerobic exercise best way to burn fat, not weights.”

These were the messages getting passed all around the Internet, usually by people who clicked a “retweet” or “share” button and didn’t even read the entire research paper. But what did the study really tell us?

-What’s better for fat loss: aerobics, weight training or both?

After reading the news blurbs, you might be led to believe that if your goal is fat loss, you should focus on aerobics like running or cycling, not resistance training. Although aerobics (aka cardio) is a proven way to help burn fat, I believe that saying, “Aerobics alone is best” is sending the wrong message and taking us backwards into the dark ages of fitness.

After decades of being ignored or even shunned by the health and medical communities, and after an era of aerobics dominating the fitness scene, weight training finally got its due respect as a key element in a total fitness program, including for fat loss. In the strength and conditioning community, we were thrilled when institutions like the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) finally added resistance training to their position statements.

We want to see that positive message continue to be spread widely to the public. Unfortunately, we still have researchers and the media running you around in circles: First recommending aerobic training only, then it was aerobics training plus resistance training, and now they’re saying it’s just aerobics again.

Confused? Trust me, they had it right at aerobics plus resistance training, especially when you look at the big picture and not just the body fat percentage alone. Strength training is the unsung hero in achieving total health and fitness.

Of course, the media loves stories like these because there is nothing better for getting attention than controversy and contradiction. While it’s important to keep an eye on new research and balance those academic findings with real world results, in this case, I don’t agree with all the conclusions of the study authors.

-Study design

The study, known as STRIDE-AT/RT (Studies of a Targeted Risk Reduction Intervention Through Defined Exercise – Aerobic and Resistance Training) was conducted at Duke University in North Carolina. In this randomized controlled trial, 211 test subjects were assigned to one of three groups:

1. Resistance training

2. Aerobic training, or

3. Aerobic plus resistance training

Aerobic training included treadmill, elliptical trainers or bicycle equivalent to 12 miles per week at 65% – 80% of peak VO2. Resistance training included 3 days per week of weight training exercises for 3 sets of 8-12 reps. There was a ramp-up period with 1-2 sets during the first month. Exercises were not specified, but they covered all major muscle groups and workouts were supervised or confirmed.

-These were the general findings:

• All three groups lost fat mass and body fat percentage
• The aerobic training group lost more total body mass (body weight) than the other two groups
• The resistance training group increased lean body mass more than the other two groups (confirmed by body composition and thigh circumference measurements)
• The resistance training group did not reduce body mass. Weight went up slightly. (However, body fat went down slightly. The lack of decrease in scale weight was due to an increase in lean mass).
• The resistance training plus aerobic training group decreased body fat percentage and fat mass more than the other two groups.

Looking at these results, it actually appears as though the resistance training plus aerobic training group had the best fat loss results: Similar total body weight loss as the aerobic only group, but greater loss in body fat percentage and greater loss in body fat mass.

The researchers seem to discount this fact by qualifying their “aerobics is best” conclusion based on time efficiency or what they believed was the most important outcome for health benefits.

However, the truth is – and even Duke’s own press release didn’t mention this – when you read the full research paper and analyze the actual change scores, NONE of the results of ANY group were very impressive…

-These were the specific findings, by the numbers:

• The aerobics only group (deemed “most successful”), lost a mere 3.8 pounds of body weight and 3.6 pounds of fat in 8 months.
• The resistance training group gained 2.3 pounds of lean body mass and lost only .57 pounds of fat mass.
• The aerobic plus resistance group lost 5.36 pounds of fat mass and gained 1.78 pounds of lean body mass. That looks like the winner to me for overall body composition improvement, but even that is nothing to get excited about.

Suppose the press release had said, “Study shows that aerobic training produces almost 4 pounds of fat loss in 8 months,” or “Aerobic training burns three-tenths of a pound more than aerobics plus resistance training.” Do you think there would have been so many headlines? Well, those are the numbers! Why was there any buzz or hoopla about these study results at all?

With proper program design, shouldn’t you be able to lose a lot more than 4 pounds in 8 months? In fact, since this study was conducted on overweight and obese subjects, wouldn’t you have expected more weight loss than average? (Isn’t it common to see an obese person lose 4 pounds of bodyweight in the first week?) Regardless of your starting point, if your goal is fat loss, would you be happy with less than 4 pounds for 8 months of effort?

-Why the poor results? There are many possible explanations.

For one, we don’t have that many specifics about the program design, progression or energy expended from the weight training workouts. The exercises may have been all low-energy expenditure machine movements like leg extensions. There may have been poor application of progression and periodiziation. And in the aerobic group, the volume and/or intensity of training may may not have been enough.

will continue…                                                                                    till next time!

BY TOM VENUTO BURN THE FAT, FEED THE MUSCLE

fat loss tip 10

The “2 Pounds” Per Week Rule and How to Burn Fat Faster

By Tom Venuto

-Why do you always hear that 2 pounds per week is the maximum amount of fat you should safely lose? If you train really hard while watching calories closely shouldn’t you be able to lose more fat without losing muscle or damaging your health? What if you want to lose fat faster? How do you explain the fast weight losses on The Biggest Loser?

-These are all good questions that I’ve been asked many times. With the diet marketplace being flooded every day with rapid weight loss claims, these questions desperately need and deserve some honest answers. Want to know where that 2 pounds per week rule comes from and what it really takes to burn more than 2 pounds of fat per week? Read on.

Why Only 2 Pounds Per Week?

-The truth is, two pounds is not the maximum amount you can safely lose in a week. That’s only a general recommendation and a good benchmark for setting weekly goals. It’s also sensible and realistic because it’s based on average or typical results.

-The actual amount of fat you can lose depends on many factors. For example, weight losses tend to be relative to body size. The more body fat you carry, the more likely you’ll be able to safely lose more than two pounds per week. -Therefore, we could individualize our weekly guideline a bit by recommending a goal of 1-2 lbs of fat loss per week or up to 1% of your total weight. If you weighed 300 lbs, that would be 3 lbs per week.

Body Weight Vs Body Composition

-Weight loss is somewhat meaningless unless you also talk about body composition; the fat to muscle ratio, as well as water weight. Ask any wrestler about fast weight loss and he’ll tell you things like, “I cut 10 lbs overnight to make a weight class. It was easy - I just sweated it off.”

-You’ve also probably seen people that went on some extreme induction program or a lemon juice and water fast for the first week and dropped an enormous amount of weight. But once again, you can bet that a lot of that weight was water and lean tissue and in both cases, you can bet that those people put the weight right back on.

-The main potential advantage of any type of induction period for rapid weight loss in the first week is that a large drop on the scale is a motivational boost for many people (even if it is mostly water weight).

-Why do you hear so many diet and fitness professionals insist on 2 lbs a week max? Where does that number come from? Well, aside from the fact that it’s a recommendation in government health guidelines and in position statements of most nutrition and exercise organizations, it’s just math.

-The math is based on what’s practical given the number of calories an average person burns in a day and how much food someone can reasonably cut in a day.

How Do You Lose More Than 2 Pounds Per Week?

-Can you lose more than 2 lbs of pure fat in a week? Yes, although it’s easier in the beginning. It gets harder as your diet progresses. How do you do it? My rule is, extraordinary results require extraordinary efforts.

-An extraordinary effort means a particularly strict diet, as well as burning more calories through training because you can only cut your calories so far from food before you’re starving and suffering from severe hunger.

-Simply put, you need a bigger calorie deficit.

-If you have a 2500 calorie daily maintenance level, and you want to drop 3 lbs of fat per week withe diet alone, you’d need a huge daily deficit of 1500 calories, which would equate to eating 1000 calories per day. You would lose weight rapidly for as long as you could maintain that deficit (although it would slow down over time).

-Most people aren’t going to last long on so little food and they often end with a period of binge eating. It’s not practical (or fun) to cut calories so much and in some cases it could be unhealthy.

-The other alternative is to train for hours and hours a day, literally. People ask me all the time, “Tom, how is it possible for the Biggest Loser contestants to lose so much weight? Well first of all they’re not measuring body fat, only body weight.

-Then you have the high starting body weights and the large water weight loss in the beginning. After that, just do the math – they’re training hours a day so they’re creating a huge calorie deficit.

-But without that team of trainers, dieticians, teammates, a national audience and all that prize money, do you think they’d be motivated and accountable enough to do anywhere near that amount and intensity of exercise in the real world?

- Would it even be possible if they had a job and family? Not likely, is it? It’s not practical to do that much exercise, and it’s not practical to cut your calories below a 1000 a day and remain compliant. If you manage to achieve the latter, it’s very difficult not to rebound and regain the weight afterwards for a variety of physiological and psychological reasons.

For Fast Fat Loss: Less Food Or Harder Training?

-Trainers are becoming more inventive these days in coming up with high intensity workouts that burn a large amount of calories and really give the metabolism a boost. This can help speed up the fat loss within a given amount of time.

-But as you begin to utilize higher intensity workouts, you have to start being on guard for overtraining or overuse injuries.That’s why strict nutrition with an aggressive calorie deficit is going to have to be a major part of any fast fat loss strategy.

-Unfortunately, very low calorie dieting has its own risks in the way of lean tissue loss, slower metabolism, extreme hunger, and greater chance of weight re-gain.

-My approach to long term weight control is to lose weight slowly and patiently and follow a nutrition plan that is well balanced between lean protein, healthy fats and natural carbs and doesn’t demonize any entire food group.

-To lose fat, you simply create a caloric deficit by burning more and eating less (keeping the nutrient density of those calories as high as possible, of course).

-But to achieve the extraordinary goals such as photo-shoot-ready, super-low body fat or simply faster than average fat loss, while minimizing the risks, I often turn to a stricter cyclical low carb diet for brief “peaking” programs.

-I explain this method in chapter 12 of my e-book Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle (it’s my “phase III” or “competition” diet).

-The cyclical aspect of the diet means that after three to six days of an aggressive calorie deficit and strict diet, you take a high calorie / high carb day to re-feed the body and re-stimulate the metabolism.

-Essentially, this helps reduce the starvation signals your body is receiving. It’s also a psychological break from the deprivation which helps improve compliance and prevent relapse.

-The higher protein intake can help prevent lean tissue loss and curb the hunger.

-A high protein diet also helps by ramping up dietary thermogenesis. A high intake of greens, fibrous vegetables and low calorie fruits can help tip the energy balance equation in your favor as fibrous veggies are very low in calorie density and some of the calories in the fiber are not metabolizable.

-Healthy fats are added in adequate quantities, while the calorie-dense simple sugars and starchy carbs are kept to a minimum except on refeed days and after (or around) intense workouts.

There’s No Magic, Just Math

-In my experience, a high protein, reduced carb approach in conjunction with weights and cardio can help maximize fat loss – both in terms of increasing speed of fat loss and particularly for getting rid of the last of the stubborn fat. It helps with appetite control too.

-But always bear in mind that the faster fat loss occurs primarily as a result of the larger calorie deficit (which is easily achieved with sugars and starches minimized), not some type of “low carb magic.” If your diet were high in natural carbs but you were able to diligently maintain the same large calorie deficit, the results would be similar.

-I’m seeing more and more advertisements that not only promise rapid weight loss, but go so far as saying that you’re doing it wrong if you’re losing “only” two pounds per week. “Why settle” for slow weight loss, they insist.

-Well, it’s certainly possible to lose more than two pounds per week, but it’s critically important to understand that there’s a world of difference between rapid weight loss and permanent fat loss.

-It’s also vital to know that there’s no magic in faster fat loss, just math. All the new-fangled dietary manipulations and high intensity training programs that really do help increase the speed of fat loss all come full circle to the calorie balance equation in the end, even if they claim their method works for other reasons and they don’t mention calories burned or consumed at all.

Beware of The Quick Fix

-Faster Fat Loss IS Possible. My question is, are you willing to tolerate the hunger, low calories and high intensity exercise for that kind of deficit?

-Do you have the work ethic? Do you have the supreme level of dietary restraint necessary to stop yourself from bingeing and putting the weight right back on when that aggressive diet is over?

-Or would you rather do it in a more moderate way where you’re not killing yourself, but instead are making slow and steady lifestyle changes and taking off 1-2 lbs of pure fat per week, while keeping all your hard-earned muscle?

-Remember, 1-2 pounds per week is 50-100 pounds in a year. Is that really so slow or is that an astounding transformation?

-You don’t gain 50-100 pounds over night, so why should anyone expect to take it off overnight? Personally, I think short-term thinking and the pursuit of quick fixes are the worst diseases of our generation.

-If you want to be one of those “results not typical” fat loss transformations, it can be done and it may be a perfectly appropriate short-term goal for the savvy and sophisticated fitness enthusiast.

-It’s your call. But when you set your goals, it might be wise to remember that old fable of the tortoise and the hare, and buyer beware if you go shopping for a fast weight loss program in today’s shady marketplace.

>>Train Hard And Expect Success<<

 

TOM VENUTO Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

TOM VENUTO is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle.

°Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle Is Available For Mobile Device.

fat loss tip 9

How To Repair A Damaged Metabolism

By Tom Venuto

-If you've caused metabolic damage as a result of following starvation diets or losing weight too rapidly in the past, it can be extremely difficult to achieve any further fat loss at all. The good news is, metabolic damage can be repaired. All it takes is the right combination of metabolism stimulating exercise and metabolism stimulating nutrition (NOT just a diet), all done consistently over time.

-The big irony is that most of the diet programs that claim to help you get rid of excess weight, only end up making it harder for you in the long run because they use harsh metabolism-decreasing diets and not enough exercise (almost never any weight training).

-It may take a little longer if you have really messed things up with severe starvation dieting in the past, especially if you've lost a lot of lean body mass, but it is never hopeless. Anyone can increase their metabolism.

-Most people get an almost immediate boost in metabolic rate when they start the Burn The Fat program. However, the results are not going to be "overnight." Give it a little time...

-Within 3 weeks your metabolism will already be more efficient. Within 6-8 weeks, it's burning hot. Give me 12 weeks of consistent diligent effort, sticking with all the metabolism boosting strategies I teach, and your metabolism really will become like a turbo charged engine, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that.

-What’s most important for upping your metabolism is CONSISTENCY in applying the Burn The Fat nutrition and training principles every single day.

-That Includes:

1.    Meal Frequency: eat 5-6 small meals per day	2.        Meal Timing: eat approximately every 3 hours, with a substantial breakfast and a substantial post workout meal.	3.        Sufficient Caloric Intake: maintain a small calorie deficit and avoid starvation-level diets (suggested safe levels for fat loss: 2100-2500 calories per day for men, 1400-1800 calories per day for women; adjust as needed)
4.   Food Choices: Select natural, unprocessed foods with high thermic effect (lean proteins like chicken, turkey, egg whites and fish are highly thermic, as are all green vegetables, salad vegetables and other fibrous carbs)	5.        Cardio Training: Push up the intensity a bit if you really want to get a metabolic boost. Walking and low intensity cardio is fine, but higher intensity is more metabolism-stimulating	6.       Weight Training: The basic exercises that include the largest muscle groups or even call into play the entire body as a unit (squats, front squats, split squats, deadlifts, stiff legged deadlifts, overhead presses, all kinds of rows and core-activation exercises) will have a much greater metabolism stimulating effect than isolation exercises (concentration curls, calf raises, etc)

 

-The weight training is extremely important in cases of "metabolic damage" because this is the stimulus to keep the muscle you have and begin rebuilding new muscle tissue, which is the engine that drives your metabolism.

-The men don't usually have a problem with the weight training, but I still hear women say they don't want to lift weights as part of their fat loss programs. Well, people who wont lift weights can expect a very, very long metabolism "repair process" if they achieve it at all.

-CONSISTENCY IS THE KEY.

-Nothing will undermine the "re-building" of your metabolism like inconsistency. If you stop and start, or skip meals and workouts often, you will not even get off the ground.

-After your metabolism is back up where it should be, it takes continued "stoking" of the metabolic furnace to keep it there. Once you get your metabolic engine running, you've got to keep feeding it fuel or the fire will die down.

-Picture an old fashioned wood burning stove...

-Imagine you're in a cabin up in the mountains in the winter. It's cold in there and you want to keep the cabin warm. Can you achieve this by feeding the fire once or twice per day? Nope. Not enough fuel to burn, so not much heat is generated.

-What if you just toss an entire pile of wood in the stove all at once? Will that work? Nope. Lots of fuel, but can't all be used at once... it just smothers the fire and the excess just sits there.

-How about if you throw some tissue paper or crumpled newspaper in the stove, will that work? Nope - too quickly burning.

-You have to keep putting small amounts of wood (the right type of fuel) on the fire at regular intervals or the fire burns out.

-It's also difficult to get the fire lit again. In the case of metabolism, it's like going through that initial few weeks of overcoming inertia all over again.

-Your goal is to get your metabolism burning hot and keep it burning and this cannot be achieved by missing meals, missing workouts or with sporadic, infrequent training.

-I have only seen a handful of cases where all these things were done properly and there was still a longer "repair" process.

-For example, one case was former ballet dancer. At 5' 5", she was previously 110 lbs and had increased to about 145 or so. She didn’t want to reach her previous 110, but find a happy medium of about 125 lbs.

-I figured with 20 lbs to cut, this would be a simple and predictable process, but she had a challenging time (and I didn't know why at first).

-I later found out that she had been anorexic and bulimic for many years. This had caused a lot of damage, and although she did reach her goal, it took about twice as long as we had anticipated.

-The good news is, even in this extreme case, the same nutrition and training principles worked! It just took a little longer. And by the way her program included some serious training with free weights and she ate a lot more (clean) food than she had ever eaten before. No "starvation!"

-That’s the power of burning the fat and feeding the muscles... Trying to starve the fat with crash diets is what causes the metabolic damage in the first place!

-If you’re interested in the healthy, sensible way to take off the fat, while keeping all your muscle and actually increasing your metabolism in the process, then my Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle program can teach you how. No gimmicks or false promises. Just the truth - you have to work at it and you have to be patient. Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle.

TOM VENUTO
Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

TOM VENUTO is a fat loss expert, lifetime natural (steroid-free) bodybuilder, independent nutrition researcher, freelance writer, and author of the #1 best selling diet e-book, Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle: Fat-Burning Secrets of The World’s Best Bodybuilders & Fitness Models (e-book) which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world's best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle.