Thought this might be a good place to dump some excerptions from evernote:
Review: Energetics of Obesity and Weight Control: Does Diet Composition Matter?
...Greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets (25% of energy) diets. Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets. We speculate that it is the protein, and not carbohydrate, content that is important in promoting short-term weight loss and that this effect is likely due to increased satiety caused by increased dietary protein. It has been suggested that the increased satiety might help persons to be more compliant with a hypocaloric diet and achieve greater weight loss.
...energy deficits realized by a person will be smaller than the energy restriction because the three components of total energy expenditure (thermic effect of food [TEF], resting metabolic rate [RMR], and the energy expended in physical activity) decrease in response to an energy deficit and weight loss. If a person decreases energy intake, the TEF will decrease by an amount roughly equal to about 10% of the de
Review: Diet in the management of weight loss.
...Low-calorie diets can lower total body weight by an average of 8% in the short term. These diets are well-tolerated and characterize successful strategies in maintaining significant weight loss over a 5-year period. Very-low-calorie diets produce a more rapid weight loss but should only be used for fewer than 16 weeks because of clinical adverse effects. Diets that are severely restricted in carbohydrates (3%–10% of total energy intake) and do not emphasize a reduction of energy intake may be effective in reducing weight in the short term, but there is no evidence that they are sustainable or innocuous in the long term because their high saturated-fat content may be atherogenic. Fat restriction in a weight-loss regimen is beneficial, but the optimal percentage has yet to be determined.
Which diets result in safe weight loss, have positive long-term consequences for chronic disease risk factors, and are sustainable in the long term? This question has been only partially answered. Comparing dietary trials is difficult for several reasons: diet compositions vary in the amount and type of carbohydrates and fats, amount of protein, and degr
My general impression, based on the post and the general tone and content of the author's responses, is that this is yet another attempt at spouting advice without the backing of theory. Main points:
Why should anyone believe this ad-hoc program has a chance of working for them better than, e.g., SS?
Why is improving cardio capacity the only reason to do cardio?
Why subscribe to calories in calories out when it is painfully, obviously wrong?
Calories in calories out is a blatantly absurd over-simplification. Anecdotally, I have lost weight far more easily cutting carbs than I ever did counting calories.
I know you said you don't want to put in the effort to justify this program, but I'm curious what your evidence is that it works close to as well as Starting Strength. SS was optimized empirically over the course of years and large numbers of people, so just porting over the theory from SS seems unlikely to be enough to get good results. Note I'm not claiming that's what you're doing, just explaining why I'm initially skeptical. I currently am in a position where many newbies ask me for workout recommendations, so I would love to be able to recommend something easier than SS, as long as it actually works.
Note that I think SS (with Power Cleans substituted out) is not actually very difficult, provided you have someone competent around to critique your form. The main disadvantage I see is that many gyms don't have a squat rack, so it's harder to find a good place to do the necessary lifts.
Luckily nutrition is fairly easy, there are only 2 rules to follow
Bullshit. Nutrition is complicated, and has many failure modes. Simple heuristics like this act more as curiosity stoppers than guidelines, and they prevent people from figuring out what's really wrong with their diets.
I have yet to see someone fix the two things listed and not have a hugely dramatic improvement. I also see "it's complicated" as an action stopper quite a bit.
I suggest that people go check out the Less Wrong Fitocracy group. Lots of people of all different fitness levels busting ass and making progress in almost every way you can dream up. Experience is everything when it comes to fitness. Pick something that looks doable and give it a few weeks, months, or years.
In general this post looks to me like an example of the typical mind (and body) fallacy.
Calories in calories out
Likely true, but instrumentally useless (one cannot reliably count the latter).
Cardiovascular capacity (V02 max) has shown a high degree of correlation to all cause mortality.
You mean inverse correlation I presume?
What is your opinion on jumping rope? It has several advantages in terms of laziness, and makes me completely exhausted in just a few minutes.
If you are not having fun, there is little chance of long-term success. Personally, I hate workouts, and any kind of weight lifting bores me out of my skull. Instead I go play ping-pong, or badminton, or beach volleyball (when in season) instead. The downside is that you need a partner or a team, and your workout is not overly scientific, the upside is that the time passes quickly as you socialize as well as exercise. Which leads me to the most important upside: looking forward to doing it again, instead of dreading it. YMMV.
I'm at the gym daily, for a bit over an hour; and in addition, doing some running (training for a marathon).
The one effective way I have found to combat boredom is audiobooks. The amount of 'reading' I get done like this quite amazing. Of course, it's not useful for technical texts, but pop-sci or most fiction can be enjoyed really well this way.
To fight procastination (spelled 'akrasia' here I think), I use good-old discipline/guilt -- I have tought myself to feel bad when not training, and having concrete goals (e.g. a marathon in August) really help as well. Every drop of sweat today will reduce the suffering on marathon day...
Thanks for sharing this - from my understanding of exercise response it seems like an excellent program for building fairly significant improvements in strength, muscle mass and thereby weight loss. I'll endorse almost any program that advocates:
I like this post, since it is pretty useful content, and, based on my limited knowledge, seems reasonable. However, there are many nearby recommendations in this space that would probably not be as reasonable, and many people would be unable to judge. I think it would be good to have some community norm around "recommendation" posts like this that filters for reasonable advice. I'm not entirely sure what the best thing to do is, but one idea would be to ask such posts to make concrete predictions, and have people follow up with their reports late...
Minimum viable workout routine
Kettlebell swings tabata. 4 minutes. Every second day. Will raise V02 max at a rate acceptably close to as fast as possible and give a strength adaption that is fairly general. Fat burning is increased both from the metabolic effect from the high intensity work and the increase in muscle mass.
This is minimal in terms of time, the complexity of the routine and materials needed. For the 4 minutes in question it is not minimal. It is more brutally intense than most things you can do short of physical combat.
I've recently been thinking about making a home gym. Would a barbell, bench, exercise mats, Starting Strength book, and rowing machine be appropriate for a 'good enough' setup? Or is this the type of stuff you can only do in a real gym?
I agree that compound lifts should form the bulk of your training, but I think most people will eventually need some isolation exercises too. If one muscle needed in the lift is less developed, people naturally compensate with other muscles, letting the weak muscle stay weak and the others grow until it becomes impossible to maintain good form.
My back squat and deadlift both stalled because of weak abs. They did not resume improving until I started doing ab wheel rollouts and various types of planks. Likewise, my bench was bottlenecked by relatively weak t...
This is probably the best all round training article on LW.
Still, I wonder if most people here would/could do even this. Perhaps a video tutorial that explains how to build a tire weight sled and shows someone dragging it would be more accessible. Sled dragging is basically walking on steroids, and as it seems the typical LWer has almost no athletic or movement base whatsoever, walking is a good place to start.
Perhaps even EY could improve his physical health and work capacity with sled dragging, despite his absolutely absurd claim that he is unable to ada...
80% of body composition is diet.
Counter-claim: 80% of body composition is genetics. (Potentially unfortunate obstacle to be overcome, not an excuse.)
Review: Diet in the management of weight loss.
Low-calorie diets can lower total body weight by an average of 8% in the short term. These diets are well-tolerated and characterize successful strategies in maintaining significant weight loss over a 5-year period. Very-low-calorie diets produce a more rapid weight loss but should only be used for fewer than 16 weeks because of clinical adverse effects. Diets that are severely restricted in carbohydrates (3%–10% of total energy intake) and do not emphasize a reduction of energy intake may be effective in reducing weight in the short term, but there is no evidence that they are sustainable or innocuous in the long term because their high saturated-fat content may be atherogenic. Fat restriction in a weight-loss regimen is beneficial, but the optimal percentage has yet to be determined.
Which diets result in safe weight loss, have positive long-term consequences for chronic disease risk factors, and are sustainable in the long term? This question has been only partially answered. Comparing dietary trials is difficult for several reasons: diet compositions vary in the amount and type of carbohydrates and fats, amount of protein, and degree that energy intake is restricted, all of which have intricate bearings on weight regulation; diets have specific actions on appetite and food preference that affect drop-out rates; study populations may have different associated diseases that modify outcomes; and the choice of statistical analyses can bias results.
The National Institutes of Health reviewed 34 randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of low-calorie diets for lowering body weight, decreasing abdominal fat and improving cardiorespiratory fitness.8 The review concluded that low-calorie diets can lower total body weight by an average of about 8% during a period of 3–12 months (evidence category A). Weight-loss and weight-loss maintenance interventions lasting 3–4.5 years (4 studies only) resulted in an average weight loss of 4%, well below the definition proposed for successful weight loss (a decrease in 10% of body weight sustained for more than 1 year).7 Low-calorie diets resulting in weight loss also lower the amount of abdominal fat, as shown by a reduction in waist circumference of 1.5–9.5 cm (evidence category A). The National Institutes of Health review also concluded that low-calorie diets alone do not improve cardiorespiratory fitness as measured by maximum rate of oxygen consumption (evidence category B),8 which reinforces the importance of combining diet and exercise programs in weight-loss interventions. Behaviour therapy in conjunction with dietary interventions (including low-calorie diets) has been shown to result in additional weight loss in the short term (1 year) but not in the long term (3–5 years) (evidence category B).
There is a debate regarding the effectiveness of low-fat diets in weight reduction.23–28 Astrup and colleagues26 conducted a meta-analysis of 16 trials of 2–12 months' duration, of which 14 were randomized. They reported that low-fat diets without intentional restriction of energy intake resulted in greater weight loss (3.2 kg, 95% confidence interval 1.9–4.5 kg, p < 0.001) than did habitual, or medium-fat, diets ad libitum. ... The National Institutes of Health review also concluded that lower-fat diets (20%–30% of total energy intake) contribute to lower energy intake; there is little evidence that low-fat diets with no reduction in energy intake result in weight loss.
We still have no definitive answer as to which diets sustain long-term weight loss. The National Weight Control Registry in the United States provides useful information regarding successful weight-loss maintenance strategies.81 This registry includes people who have lost more than 13 kg of body weight and successfully maintained that weight loss for over 5 years. Over 4000 people are in the registry. The dietary pattern generally shared among participants included low amounts of fat (about 24% of the total daily energy intake), high amounts of carbohydrate, and a low energy intake (5460–6300 kJ/d). Most eat breakfast daily, self-monitor weight and are physically active. Other studies report similar strategies for successful weight-loss maintenance, such as monitoring food portion sizes, energy and fat intake, and body weight, and avoiding the use of food to regulate mood.
Overall, low-calorie diets are a safe strategy for weight loss. A sample 5040-kJ diet plan based on Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating is outlined in the online appendix (available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/1/56/DC1). A sedentary woman 45 years of age with a body mass index of 31 kg/m2 (height 167.6 cm [5'6"], weight 87.5 kg [192.5 pounds]) and an energy requirement of 7988 kJ per day (calculated using the Harris–Benedict equation) can achieve a body mass index of about 26 kg/m2 after 6 months on a 5040-kJ/d low-calorie diet. ... Low-carbohydrate diets and diets high in saturated fat are not recommended.
Successful Weight Loss Among Obese U.S. Adults
Purpose: To identify strategies associated with losing at least 5% and 10% of body weight.
Sciamanna and colleagues identifıed 14 strategies reported to be successful for 10% weight loss among a national mail panel survey, reporting the strongest associations for weight loss programs, eating fruits and vegetables, eating healthy snacks, limiting carbohydrates, controlling portions, doing different kinds of exercises, and focusing on the progress they had made. Among members of the National Weight Control Registry, the most common strategies associated with success included restricting types of foods, limiting quantity of food, and counting calories.
Results: Of 4021 obese adults, 2523 (63%) reported trying to lose weight in the previous year. Among those attempting weight loss, 1026 (40%) lost ?5% and 510 (20%)lost ?10% weight. After adjustment for potential confounders, strategies associated with losing 5% weight included eating less fat ; exercising more; and using prescription weight loss medications. Eating less fat; exercising more; and using prescription weight loss medications were also associated with losing 10% weight, as was joining commercial weight loss programs. Adults eating diet products were less likely to achieve 10% weight loss. Liquid diets, nonprescription diet pills, and popular diets had no association with successful weight loss.
The present study has several limitations. Because this is a cross-sectional observational study based mostly on self-reported information, results suggest associations and do not signify causality.Although there is likely reporting bias for body weight,this study demonstrates a high correlation between self-reported current body weight and measured body weight.
Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter?
I wish I could upvote you so much more than I can.
So you want the longevity benefits of regular exercise but you've hit some snags. Every routine pretty much makes you miserable. In addition, because of all the conflicting information out there, you aren't even sure if you're getting the full benefits. This post is for you. And don't worry about your current physical circumstances. It works equally well for the overweight, the underweight, and women (no you will not turn into a gross she hulk the moment you touch a weight. Those women take steroids and train hard for years)
A sub-optimal plan you stick to is better than the perfect routine you abandon after the first week. This routine is not perfect. This routine is optimized for simplicity and low time/mental effort commitment while still getting excellent results. It is strongly based on the routines from Beyond Brawn by Stuart McRobert, and some of the principles of Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe both of which have much anecdotal evidence of effectiveness in the training logs of various forums. If you're looking for published research to back up my claims I have some bad news for you, the literature on resistance training is basically worthless. A 5 minute perusal of google scholar will show that atrocious methodology such as having "subjects act as their own control" are common, and accepted by the relevant journals. And that's if you're lucky enough to find studies that aren't about diabetics, or elderly japanese women. But I'm not going to spend excessive time trying to justify this routine, anyone can do it for a month and see that the results are significant. (I'm open to arguing about it in the comments however.)
A note about cardio:
Cardiovascular capacity (V02 max) has shown a high degree of correlation to all cause mortality. Why aren't I recommending cardio? Because the only way to increase V02 max is with high intensity exercise. Between high intensity weight lifting and high intensity cardio, high intensity weightlifting easily wins for a newbie. A newbie, especially a significantly out of shape one, will not be capable of a level of cardio exertion that results in a significant adaptation. This can result in a lot of effort with very little in the way of improvement. This is soul-destroyingly frustrating. They can however lift a weight a few times and this will result in an adaptation that allows them to lift more next time. A few months of a weightlifting routine is going to put any person in a much better position to do longevity affecting cardio if that is their goal. Cardio is also generally a terrible fat burner for the exact same reason.
Edit: there seems to be some confusion about this. The primary problem of exercise is not the optimality of results but instilling the habit of exercising. I believe that cardio is terrible for overcoming this habit forming stage.
The point of the below program is to get you in the habit of exercising and give you immediate results. Once you have achieved some basic measure of fitness (~3 month time frame) you can maintain, or use the fact that exercising is now much easier to move on to any program you want.
The nitty gritty:
You are going to do three exercises 2-3 times per week. Each session will take ~45 minutes to an hour. The exercises are
* 3x5 trap bar deadlift
* 3x5 incline bench press
* 3x5 bent over row (possible substitution for cable rows see below)
What does 3x5 mean?
3 sets of 5 reps each. You will assume the correct form, go through the full range of motion for the exercise 5 times, then rest before repeating twice more.
What weights do I use?
You will start with the empty bar and add 5lbs every workout for the trap bar deadlift and 5lbs every other workout for the incline bench press and bent over row. Many are tempted to increase weights faster than this. You can do what you want but don't come crying when your progress stalls more quickly. A slow progression that continues for a long time beats a fast increase followed by a time wasting plateau.
Why these three exercises?
This routine hits the most muscle mass possible in the smallest number of exercises. All decent routines include hip extension exercises, pushing exercises, and pulling exercise. This ensures that you don't create an imbalance that messes up your posture or limits you unnecessarily. In addition, these exercises require very little in the way of technique coaching, which is really this routine's primary advantage over more popular programs such as starting strength. It took me 8 months to learn to squat well, but I learned to trap bar deadlift in a single session. Similarly with the incline press, it carries with it a much smaller chance of injury from poor form than either the bench press or overhead press that are the mainstays of many programs.
I have no idea what these exercises are, how do I do them?
Here is an article for trap bar deadlift, which is so easy that there aren't really many tutorials online:
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_trap_bar_deadlift
The key is a neutral spine. You take a big breath at the bottom, squeeze everything tight, and stand up pushing through your heels while maintaining the lumbar arch. Note not to use the raised handles that many trap bars have which reduces the range of motion.
Incline is similarly straightforward:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dynoKEIcpoU
note that you DO want to touch your chest at the bottom, but do not bounce the bar off your chest. The cue that works for most is to imagine touching your shirt but not your chest.
Bent over row can feel a little weird, but it's not too hard to learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boxbOSGwD4U
Note that after more real world testing bent over rows seem to cause the most issues of the three lifts. As the potential for injury is slightly higher with poor form for this exercise than the others I would recommend seated cable rows for those who find they can not perform bent over rows correctly. I'd additionally strongly recommend that if one is forced to make this substitution they should also do some chinups at the end of each workout. The goal of this substitution should be as a temporary measure. One should strive get back to doing bent over rows once physically able to.
Cable row form video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJSVR_63eKM
How do I warmup/cooldown?
the best warmup and cooldown is 5 minutes on the rowing machine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0r_ZPXJLtg
But you can also do an exercise bike or treadmill.
After the first couple weeks you should also warmup with the empty bar before jumping to your 3x5 work weight on each exercise. Add additional warmups as the weights get heavier.
e.g.
1x5 45lbs
1x5 75bs
3x5 105lbs
don't worry excessively about this, it's hard to screw up. The key is just to prepare yourself, remind yourself of proper form, and get blood flowing. Don't skip warmups, you're increasing your chance of injury and ensuring that you won't get strong as fast.
Can I do this once week? or sporadically?
You can but you won't see hardly any benefit other than maintenance of your current fitness level. 2 times a week is the bare minimum to disrupt homeostasis to any appreciable degree and 3 is better. Make no mistake, even 2 times a week on this will get you miles ahead of most people fitness wise. You should program it like AxxAxxx or AxAxAxx, where A is a workout session and x is a rest day.
Can I sub in X exercise?
No, the bare minimum nature of this program leaves no room for changes. Any change necessitates more complicated programming. If you want to do that just do Starting Strength. Likewise if you want to add stuff, like ab work. It isn't necessary. Edit: cable row substitution for bent row is permissible but only if one finds they absolutely can not maintain good form with barbell rows.
I didn't complete all my reps this session, what do I do?
Back off the weights by 10-20% and work your way back up. Make sure you're eating and sleeping right. If you keep hitting a wall over and over again it will be time for a more complex routine.
My gym doesn't have a trap bar.
Find a gym that does or do a different program. There is no replacement for the trap bar. One option that is non-obvious is buying a trap bar for your current gym. You might be able to negotiate a free month of membership or something but even if that isn't the case the investment is worth it.
What sort of results can I expect?
Most people should expect to be trap bar deadlifting their body weight within 3 months. This will have several effects.
Strenuous physical activity becomes drastically less taxing.
Chance of injury during said activity reduced.
V02 max increased.
Bone density and joint health improvements.
Increase in lean body mass.
Improved insulin sensitivity.
Improved blood markers and pressure (increases HDL and lowers LDL)
Decreased chance of back problems.
Improved posture.
Mental benefits: Most people find the quality of their sleep improved as well as an increase in general energy levels.
A note on nutrition:
80% of body composition is diet. This won't do much for your body composition if your diet is crappy. Luckily nutrition is fairly easy, there are only 2 rules to follow:
*Calories in calories out
*Eat micronutrient dense foods
if you follow these rules it's actually surprisingly difficult to mess up. Most people also find that following the 2nd one makes following the 1st one much easier.
That's about it, I will answer questions about anything I forgot. I hope this gets some fence sitters exercising.
“No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training…what a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.”
-Socrates
If anyone is going to do this recording your results and sharing them would be much appreciated.
As detailed as you want, but even qualitative results would be useful to have.
Habit building:
Speaking of recording your results, logging is helpful for forming habits. Use this link to join the fitocracy LessWrong group.
http://ftcy.me/veXNdz
Fitocracy is a social website for tracking your workouts. Hat tip to jswan for reminding me.