Weight machine ?s

V.H. wrote:
Lately, I've just been using weight machines at the gym such as those
manufactured by Cybex, Hammerstrength, Trotter, etc. The question that I
have for the group is this. In addition to strict dieting, how many sets,
and reps per set, should I perform for optimum body fat reduction when using
machines only for my weight training routine? Due to my work schedule and
family life, I can't commit to a free weight training schedule with a
workout partner. It wouldn't be fair to them if I can't make it to the gym
when they can on a consistent basis. I have to travel, run kids to soccer
practice, etc. I still make it to the gym regularly, but at varying times
depending on my career and family-related obligations. I'm most interested
in using weight machines to lean up. No interest in getting H-U-G-E. Since
January I have lost 4 inches in my waist, but would like to lose 2 more to
reach my goal.

At any rate, I thought that I would check with some of the weight training
experts on here to get some additional opinions on this topic.

See, the thing is, putting on muscle is by far the easier route.
Muscle is high maintenance tissue. Muscle burns calories just
maintaining its self. You can run your self to death and you'll lose
some fat, but not easily. An hour of jogging burns like, what, 150
calories IIRC? A cookie or two and you just blew an hours worth of blood
sweat and tears. On the other hand, you can work out to build muscle and
the muscle will burn calories 24/7 and help slim you down. It's *much*
easier IMO. Looks better too. ;-)
To build muscle you need to lift "heavy". A good rule of thumb is if
you can push it more than 8 times, it's too light. If you can't push it
at least 5, it's too heavy. The last push on any set should be a maximum
effort. Four to five sets is good. Allow 72 hours recovery before
working that muscle set again. That's healing and growing time. If you
don't allow the muscle to heal and grow you do more damage than good and
won't put on muscle nearly as fast.
I'm not saying give up cardio... not at all, I'm just saying that
your weight loss will be faster and much easier if you work to put on
muscle in addition to the cardio.


Here's an excellent article (I thought) that goes into some detail on
the concept of muscle vs fat:

BODY FAT: HARD FACTS ABOUT SOFT TISSUE

by M. Doug McGuff, MD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fat is an amazing tissue. It has ensured survival of our species through
two ice ages and never ending drought and famine. A mere pound of fat
stores an astounding 3,500 Calories for delayed use at any time in the
future. As dormant tissue, there is almost no metabolic cost for keeping
it on the body. As a member of the human species we all owe our
existence to fat. Even more amazing than fat's capabilities are the
number of misconceptions surrounding this specialized body tissue.

Probably the biggest misconception regarding fat is the idea that it is
unhealthy. Actually, fat is probably the main reason we are even here in
the first place. Throughout human history, the ready availability of
food was the exception rather than the rule. Our ability to eat when
food was available and to store excess caloric energy for future use
allowed us to survive when food was not available. Fat storage is the
sign of good health, it signals that metabolic resources are abundant
and the organism is healthy. An extreme overabundance of bodyfat places
stresses on the body and can be unhealthy. However, the degree of
leanness (or lack of bodyfat) that is currently in vogue is probably
just as unhealthy for up to 80% of the population. Unhealthy levels of
bodyfat have been increasing every decade. It seems that an adaptation
that has allowed us to survive through history is now killing us in
modern times.

Ask almost anyone why modern man is becoming more obese and you will get
a similar answer from just about everyone. Most people believe that the
labor-saving technologies of modern life have made us more sedentary,
and we are much less physically active than our predecessors. Since
physical activity burns calories, and we are less physically active than
we once were, we are unable to burn off the calories like we used to.
This argument seems logical, but the argument is incorrect for 2 basic
reasons. First, physical activity burns much less calories than we have
been lead to believe (we will discuss this in detail later in this
chapter). Suffice to say that to survive we must be able to use our
energy efficiently lest we starve to death in the process of hunting and
gathering food. Secondly, our ancestors were not as physically active as
we think they were. The work of anthropologists who observe primitive
peoples in various regions of the globe show that a primitive
hunter/gatherer lifestyle is much less physically active than that of
modern man. In Australia, aborigines alternate between the modern world
and traditional aboriginal life. While in their more primitive mode,
these aborigines are noted to be much less active. So, despite popular
opinions to the contrary, it does not appear that increased activity is
the solution to modern obesity.

The real problem with modern obesity is food abundance. If I were to
give you a jumbo industrial role of toilet paper and allowed you to hold
it while I unraveled it, we wound end up with a very long strand of
toilet paper. If I tore of the last square of toilet paper and gave you
the entire rest of the strand, we could use your long strand of toilet
paper to represent the length of human history where starvation was a
real day to day threat. The single square in my hand would represent the
length of human history where starvation was not much of a threat. Not
since the end of the Great Depression and World War II has starvation
not been a real possibility. We have about 150,000 generations where
efficient fat storage was essential for survival, and 3-4 generations
where efficient fat storage can lead to obesity. The problem is not that
we are inactive, the problem is that calories are so readily available
to be consumed. An hour of jogging will burn only about 150 calories
above your basal metabolic rate, but it only takes about 30 seconds to
eat 150 calories of cookies. We judge the value of our meals on the size
of the portions we are given. When we go out to eat, we want to leave
full. Studies show that there are about 1,000 Calories between being
satisfied and feeling full. Even more frightening is that there are
between 2,000 and 3,000 calories between feeling full and feeling
stuffed. If you go out to an all-you-can-eat food bar and leave feeling
stuffed, you may have consumed as many as 4,000 unneeded calories. When
this happens we typically go out for a jog the next day to "burn off
those calories". But to burn off that many calories would require you to
jog continously for 27 hours. The problem is not that we don't burn
enough calories, it's that we put too many calories down our neck.


Leptin: the genetics of fat storage
As anyone with a bodyfat problem knows, there seems to be a strong
setpoint for how much body fat a particular individual has. This
setpoint is controlled by a gene called the ob gene that produces a
protein called Leptin. Leptin is a strong suppressor of appetitie and
food intake. As your bodyfat rises, more leptin is produced and your
appetite declines so that your bodyfat stabilizes. If your body fat
falls, your leptin production declines and your appetite is
disinhibited. It seems that we inherit a bodyfat setpoint that is most
effecient for our environment and the environment of our ancestors.

Why exercise doesn't burn many calories
Go to the health club and climb on a stair stepper or treadmill. Program
the machine by plugging in your weight, select your speed or program and
begin your workout. As you plod along on the apparatus you are driven
along by the ever-increasing number on the screen that indicates the
number of calories that you have burned. Eventually you go long enough
to burn 300 calories and you are left with a feeling of accomplishment.
Now, as you wipe the sweat from your brow and catch your breath, let me
ask you a question. Why did the machine ask you to program in your
weight? If you answered to calculate how many calories you burn you are
right. What you most likely failed to consider is the main reason it
needs your weight is to calculate your basal metabolic rate. The average
male will maintain his weight on about 3200 calories a day. That is
about 140 calories an hour at rest. So the 300 calories burned are not
calories burned above your basal metabolic rate, they are calories
burned including your basal metabolic rate. So for your time on the
treadmill, you burned about 160 calories above your baseline. If you eat
just 3 cookies, you have completely undone about an hour's worth of
work. Think about it...if we were so metabolically inefficient as to
burn 300 calories at the rate the exercise equipment says you do, would
we ever have survived as a species. The calories burned hunting and
gathering would have caused us to die of starvation before we could ever
have found anything to eat. At that rate of calorie burn, we would
barely have enough metabolic economy to survive a trip to the grocery
store. Most people have accepted blindly the information displayed on
exercise equipment and as such have turned exercise into a form of guilt
absolution. Have dessert (600 calories of pie) and feel guilty? Just go
to the health club and work on the stepper until 600 calories tick by on
the screen. Other than the fact that this simply seems pathetic, it also
just doesn't work.


Let us assume that you have the determination and time to do such a
workout 7 days a week. If we take the 300 calories burned and subtract
out your basal metabolic rate of 140 calories, we are left with 160
calories burned. There are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat. If your
appetite is not spurned by the exercise (as it commonly is) and you keep
a stable calorie intake, it would take you 21.875 days to burn off a
pound of fat with the extra activity. This is assuming that no other
variables are present. Unfortunately there is a big variable that almost
no-one accounts for...muscle loss. In order to exercise long enough to
reach the 300 calorie mark on the stepper or treadmill, you have to
perform low intensity steady state activity. Steady state activity does
not place much demand on the muscles, that is why it can be carried out
for so long. Rather than demanding use of a large percentage of your
muscle fibers, you are actually using a small percentage of your
weakest, slow-twitch fibers over and over. When you perform this type of
exercise your body can adapt by actually losing muscle. Since you use
such a small percentage of your muscle mass to do the work, additional
muscle is perceived as dead weight, useless and burdensome. If a person
persisted in 7 day a week steady state training they could easily lose
about 5 pounds of muscle tissue. Muscle tissue is the most metabolically
expensive tissue we have; it takes between 50 and 100 calories a day
just to keep a pound of muscle alive.



Let's assume the lower number of 50 calories a day. If you lose 5 pounds
of muscle over time as you perform your calorie burning exercise that
will result in a loss of 250 calories per day that would be used to keep
that muscle alive. The 160 calories you burned would probably now be
more like 100 burned because with practice, your running or climbing
economy improves and requires less effort (most of the perceived
conditioning in steady state activity is actually the exercise getting
easier not because of improved cardiovascular condition, but because of
improved economy of motion. This is why if you take a runner and have
him perform another steady state activity such as cycling he will be
gasping for air. Indeed, runners who train on treadmills in the Winter
notice a large decrease in perceived condition when they hit the road in
the Spring). So now if we do the math we will find that you burned about
100 calories above your baseline per day, but we must subtract out 250
calories due to muscle loss. For all your effort you are now 150
calories in the wrong direction. Furthermore, the stress hormones that
result from such overtraining also stimulate fat storage. Anyone who has
attempted such a program of weight loss can confirm...you will end up
feeling washed out, moody, and (worst of all) fatter. The truth is this:
you cannot use physical activity to negate excess caloric intake.

Muscle: the real key to burning calories
Remember when you were a teenager and could eat everything in sight and
not get fat? Somewhere in your 30's things changed. Now it seems like
just looking at food can make you fat. What happened?

The main difference for most people is that they have less muscle in
adulthood than they had in their late teens and early twenties. As we
age there is a natural tendency to lose muscle and we also are less
vigorous in our physical activity, which results in further muscle loss.
This loss of muscle tissue results in a decreasing metabolic rate. Lose
5 pounds of muscle and your calories burned per 24 hours decreases by
about 250 calories. While this may not sound like much, it adds up. If
you continue to eat like you did when you were younger, you will gain a
pound of fat in about 14 days. Over a 20 week period you will gain 10
pounds.


The key to getting rid of accumulated body fat is to get back your
youthful metabolism by getting back your muscle. You have probably heard
people say that "muscle has memory". Well, this is one popular saying
that is actually true. With a proper exercise stimulus that dormant
muscle can be reclaimed. When you get back the muscle that requires 250
calories a day to keep alive, what used to be an insidious weight-gain
problem will become an insidious weight-loss technique. As you become
stronger you will have a natural tendency to partake of more vigorous
activities. This situation will allow you to lose weight with less
attention paid to calorie counting and food selection. The more
reasonable your diet can be, the greater your chance to stick with it.
As you ride this spiral of success, you may be able to eat more like you
did as a teenager. Putting just 5 pounds of calorie burning muscle on
your body can really turn things around for you.


Proper exercise and discriminant weight loss
SuperSlow inventor Ken Hutchins was the first person to ever explain the
idea of discriminant weight loss to me. He told me to picture the human
body as a corporation that is run by a board of directors. He told me to
assume that a body operating on a calorie deficit is like a corporation
running at a budget deficit. Each of the body tissues could represent a
different department within that corporation. He then presented two
scenarios. In the first scenario there is a budget deficit and no
department has any unusual demands. In this scenario layoffs can occur
in all departments. So your body lays off some fat, some muscle, some
bone and connective tissue, as well as nervous tissue . Your corporation
(or body) becomes a smaller version of its former self. In the second
scenario, there is a large demand placed on the muscle department. In
this scenario, no layoffs can occur in the muscle department. Indeed,
more muscle has to be hired on. This results in a larger layoff in the
fat department. We cannot produce cutbacks in the bone or connective
tissue department because we need their support because muscle is not
helpful unless it is attached to strong bone by strong connective
tissue. This means more fat has to be let go. We cannot lay off any
nervous tissue, because our new muscle is useless unless it is
innervated by new nervous tissue. This means more fat has to be let go.
Under this scenario, all weight loss is shunted toward fat loss. In this
scenario, your corporation (body) takes on a dramatic shape change. You
have added a modest amount of shape-improving muscle and jettisoned a
large amount of shape-ruining fat.


Don't put that in your mouth
It should now be evident to you that the easiest way to create the
calorie deficit you need to lose bodyfat is to simply avoid putting the
extra calories in your mouth in the first place. Even a very modest
calorie reduction of 150 calories will result in significant fat loss
over time. In the long run, the self-discipline required is much easier
to produce than the effort of running on a treadmill for an hour every
day (which is a losing proposition anyway). A calorie intake deficit of
500 calories a day is still fairly easy to achieve, and if you have
added some muscle to your body the shape change you can produce in 6-12
weeks can be amazing. Initially, you may have to be very compulsive
about counting calories, but within a few weeks you will probably learn
to manage simply by controlling the portion size of the foods you eat.


Superhydration
Ellington Darden, PhD (Author and former Research Director for Nautilus
Sports/Medical Industries) came up with this concept. The food calories
that you count are actually Kilocalories or Calories. A Calorie is the
amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a liter of
water by one degree celsius. The calories that you count are actually
just units of heat-energy.


Dr. Darden developed a program of drinking large volumes of ice-cold
water throughout the day. The ice water that goes into your system has
to be warmed to body temperature. Thus a liter of water at 1 degree
celsius that ultimate leaves your body at 37 degrees celsius and thus
requires 36 calories of heat energy. If you manage to consume 5 liters
of water per day this results in roughly 180 extra calories burned.


According to Dr. Darden, superhydration helps fat loss in another way.
If you are well hydrated most of your body's waste products can be
eliminated through the kidneys. When you are underhydrated much of this
burden is assumed by the liver. One of the liver's main functions is the
processing of stored bodyfat for use as energy. If your liver is
occupied processing waste products it is less efficient at mobilizing
bodyfat. Superhydration not only burns calories, it allows your liver to
be more efficient at mobilizing fat off of your body.


Plenty of Sleep
Dr. Darden also discovered that plenty of sleep was essential to fat
loss. In his research he noted that subjects who were sleep deprived did
not lose fat as easily as those who were well rested. It seems that
calorie restriction is fairly stressful to the body and any further
stressors can result in a protective slowing of the metabolism. My own
theory is that a calorie restriction sends a biological signal of
starvation and decreased sleep sends a signal that the organism is
having to stay up to search for food, or it has to be vigilant because
its environment is unsafe. These are probably powerful biological
signals that cause a protective slowing of the metabolism.


Simple Dietary Guidelines and Recommended Diets
There are literally thousands of diet books out there. Many of these
books make extraordinary claims or involve complex regimines that cannot
be carried out long term. By far the best diet books written are those
by Ellington Darden, PhD. His books are no-nonsense and have precise
regimines that are easy to follow. Most importantly, his diets easily
adapt into lifelong eating habits that will keep you lean. Some of Dr.
Darden's best books include Soft Steps to a Hard Body, Living Longer
Stronger, and A Flat Stomach A.S.A.P. Protein Power by Dr's. Michael and
Mary Dan Eades is well written and makes a compelling argument for
control of carbohydrate intake. Many of my clients have found that
producing a calorie deficit on this program is easier for them than many
other diets. The bottom line is that you will need to devise a system of
reducing calorie intake that seems to work for you.


My own dietary guidelines for people are actually quite simple. It
involves looking at your hand. You have five fingers that represent five
meals to eat in a day (3 meals and 2 snacks). The serving size of any
food you choose should be either the size of your palm or able to fit in
the palm of your hand. Meals can have 4 servings from any categorie of
food. Snacks have 2 servings. Your five fingers also represent the 5
liters of water you should drink over the course of the day. If you
follow these guidelines you will limit your portion sizes so that you
should be able to produce weight loss without excessive attention to
detail. If you want a more detailed way of portioning your intake, I
also suggest the "Food Mover" sold by Richard Simmons on his
informercial (although I do not recommend his aerobics-based exercise
program that comes with it).


The Bottom Line
The bottom line for fat loss is as follows: 1) Build some calorie
burning muscle through proper exercise. 2) Create a modest calorie
deficit through dietary restraint. 3) Superhydration. 4) Get some extra
sleep. 5) Avoid overactivity or steady-state activities that are
popularly thought to "burn calories". If you have the discipline, these
simple steps will prove successful beyond your expectations.

V.H. wrote:
Lately, I've just been using weight machines at the gym such as those
manufactured by Cybex, Hammerstrength, Trotter, etc. The question that I
have for the group is this. In addition to strict dieting, how many sets,
and reps per set, should I perform for optimum body fat reduction when using
machines only for my weight training routine? Due to my work schedule and
family life, I can't commit to a free weight training schedule with a
workout partner. It wouldn't be fair to them if I can't make it to the gym
when they can on a consistent basis. I have to travel, run kids to soccer
practice, etc. I still make it to the gym regularly, but at varying times
depending on my career and family-related obligations. I'm most interested
in using weight machines to lean up. No interest in getting H-U-G-E. Since
January I have lost 4 inches in my waist, but would like to lose 2 more to
reach my goal.

At any rate, I thought that I would check with some of the weight training
experts on here to get some additional opinions on this topic.

See, the thing is, putting on muscle is by far the easier route.
Muscle is high maintenance tissue. Muscle burns calories just
maintaining its self. You can run your self to death and you'll lose
some fat, but not easily. An hour of jogging burns like, what, 150
calories IIRC? A cookie or two and you just blew an hours worth of blood
sweat and tears. On the other hand, you can work out to build muscle and
the muscle will burn calories 24/7 and help slim you down. It's *much*
easier IMO. Looks better too. ;-)
To build muscle you need to lift "heavy". A good rule of thumb is if
you can push it more than 8 times, it's too light. If you can't push it
at least 5, it's too heavy. The last push on any set should be a maximum
effort. Four to five sets is good. Allow 72 hours recovery before
working that muscle set again. That's healing and growing time. If you
don't allow the muscle to heal and grow you do more damage than good and
won't put on muscle nearly as fast.
I'm not saying give up cardio... not at all, I'm just saying that
your weight loss will be faster and much easier if you work to put on
muscle in addition to the cardio.


Here's an excellent article (I thought) that goes into some detail on
the concept of muscle vs fat:

BODY FAT: HARD FACTS ABOUT SOFT TISSUE

by M. Doug McGuff, MD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fat is an amazing tissue. It has ensured survival of our species through
two ice ages and never ending drought and famine. A mere pound of fat
stores an astounding 3,500 Calories for delayed use at any time in the
future. As dormant tissue, there is almost no metabolic cost for keeping
it on the body. As a member of the human species we all owe our
existence to fat. Even more amazing than fat's capabilities are the
number of misconceptions surrounding this specialized body tissue.

Probably the biggest misconception regarding fat is the idea that it is
unhealthy. Actually, fat is probably the main reason we are even here in
the first place. Throughout human history, the ready availability of
food was the exception rather than the rule. Our ability to eat when
food was available and to store excess caloric energy for future use
allowed us to survive when food was not available. Fat storage is the
sign of good health, it signals that metabolic resources are abundant
and the organism is healthy. An extreme overabundance of bodyfat places
stresses on the body and can be unhealthy. However, the degree of
leanness (or lack of bodyfat) that is currently in vogue is probably
just as unhealthy for up to 80% of the population. Unhealthy levels of
bodyfat have been increasing every decade. It seems that an adaptation
that has allowed us to survive through history is now killing us in
modern times.

Ask almost anyone why modern man is becoming more obese and you will get
a similar answer from just about everyone. Most people believe that the
labor-saving technologies of modern life have made us more sedentary,
and we are much less physically active than our predecessors. Since
physical activity burns calories, and we are less physically active than
we once were, we are unable to burn off the calories like we used to.
This argument seems logical, but the argument is incorrect for 2 basic
reasons. First, physical activity burns much less calories than we have
been lead to believe (we will discuss this in detail later in this
chapter). Suffice to say that to survive we must be able to use our
energy efficiently lest we starve to death in the process of hunting and
gathering food. Secondly, our ancestors were not as physically active as
we think they were. The work of anthropologists who observe primitive
peoples in various regions of the globe show that a primitive
hunter/gatherer lifestyle is much less physically active than that of
modern man. In Australia, aborigines alternate between the modern world
and traditional aboriginal life. While in their more primitive mode,
these aborigines are noted to be much less active. So, despite popular
opinions to the contrary, it does not appear that increased activity is
the solution to modern obesity.

The real problem with modern obesity is food abundance. If I were to
give you a jumbo industrial role of toilet paper and allowed you to hold
it while I unraveled it, we wound end up with a very long strand of
toilet paper. If I tore of the last square of toilet paper and gave you
the entire rest of the strand, we could use your long strand of toilet
paper to represent the length of human history where starvation was a
real day to day threat. The single square in my hand would represent the
length of human history where starvation was not much of a threat. Not
since the end of the Great Depression and World War II has starvation
not been a real possibility. We have about 150,000 generations where
efficient fat storage was essential for survival, and 3-4 generations
where efficient fat storage can lead to obesity. The problem is not that
we are inactive, the problem is that calories are so readily available
to be consumed. An hour of jogging will burn only about 150 calories
above your basal metabolic rate, but it only takes about 30 seconds to
eat 150 calories of cookies. We judge the value of our meals on the size
of the portions we are given. When we go out to eat, we want to leave
full. Studies show that there are about 1,000 Calories between being
satisfied and feeling full. Even more frightening is that there are
between 2,000 and 3,000 calories between feeling full and feeling
stuffed. If you go out to an all-you-can-eat food bar and leave feeling
stuffed, you may have consumed as many as 4,000 unneeded calories. When
this happens we typically go out for a jog the next day to "burn off
those calories". But to burn off that many calories would require you to
jog continously for 27 hours. The problem is not that we don't burn
enough calories, it's that we put too many calories down our neck.


Leptin: the genetics of fat storage
As anyone with a bodyfat problem knows, there seems to be a strong
setpoint for how much body fat a particular individual has. This
setpoint is controlled by a gene called the ob gene that produces a
protein called Leptin. Leptin is a strong suppressor of appetitie and
food intake. As your bodyfat rises, more leptin is produced and your
appetite declines so that your bodyfat stabilizes. If your body fat
falls, your leptin production declines and your appetite is
disinhibited. It seems that we inherit a bodyfat setpoint that is most
effecient for our environment and the environment of our ancestors.

Why exercise doesn't burn many calories
Go to the health club and climb on a stair stepper or treadmill. Program
the machine by plugging in your weight, select your speed or program and
begin your workout. As you plod along on the apparatus you are driven
along by the ever-increasing number on the screen that indicates the
number of calories that you have burned. Eventually you go long enough
to burn 300 calories and you are left with a feeling of accomplishment.
Now, as you wipe the sweat from your brow and catch your breath, let me
ask you a question. Why did the machine ask you to program in your
weight? If you answered to calculate how many calories you burn you are
right. What you most likely failed to consider is the main reason it
needs your weight is to calculate your basal metabolic rate. The average
male will maintain his weight on about 3200 calories a day. That is
about 140 calories an hour at rest. So the 300 calories burned are not
calories burned above your basal metabolic rate, they are calories
burned including your basal metabolic rate. So for your time on the
treadmill, you burned about 160 calories above your baseline. If you eat
just 3 cookies, you have completely undone about an hour's worth of
work. Think about it...if we were so metabolically inefficient as to
burn 300 calories at the rate the exercise equipment says you do, would
we ever have survived as a species. The calories burned hunting and
gathering would have caused us to die of starvation before we could ever
have found anything to eat. At that rate of calorie burn, we would
barely have enough metabolic economy to survive a trip to the grocery
store. Most people have accepted blindly the information displayed on
exercise equipment and as such have turned exercise into a form of guilt
absolution. Have dessert (600 calories of pie) and feel guilty? Just go
to the health club and work on the stepper until 600 calories tick by on
the screen. Other than the fact that this simply seems pathetic, it also
just doesn't work.


Let us assume that you have the determination and time to do such a
workout 7 days a week. If we take the 300 calories burned and subtract
out your basal metabolic rate of 140 calories, we are left with 160
calories burned. There are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat. If your
appetite is not spurned by the exercise (as it commonly is) and you keep
a stable calorie intake, it would take you 21.875 days to burn off a
pound of fat with the extra activity. This is assuming that no other
variables are present. Unfortunately there is a big variable that almost
no-one accounts for...muscle loss. In order to exercise long enough to
reach the 300 calorie mark on the stepper or treadmill, you have to
perform low intensity steady state activity. Steady state activity does
not place much demand on the muscles, that is why it can be carried out
for so long. Rather than demanding use of a large percentage of your
muscle fibers, you are actually using a small percentage of your
weakest, slow-twitch fibers over and over. When you perform this type of
exercise your body can adapt by actually losing muscle. Since you use
such a small percentage of your muscle mass to do the work, additional
muscle is perceived as dead weight, useless and burdensome. If a person
persisted in 7 day a week steady state training they could easily lose
about 5 pounds of muscle tissue. Muscle tissue is the most metabolically
expensive tissue we have; it takes between 50 and 100 calories a day
just to keep a pound of muscle alive.



Let's assume the lower number of 50 calories a day. If you lose 5 pounds
of muscle over time as you perform your calorie burning exercise that
will result in a loss of 250 calories per day that would be used to keep
that muscle alive. The 160 calories you burned would probably now be
more like 100 burned because with practice, your running or climbing
economy improves and requires less effort (most of the perceived
conditioning in steady state activity is actually the exercise getting
easier not because of improved cardiovascular condition, but because of
improved economy of motion. This is why if you take a runner and have
him perform another steady state activity such as cycling he will be
gasping for air. Indeed, runners who train on treadmills in the Winter
notice a large decrease in perceived condition when they hit the road in
the Spring). So now if we do the math we will find that you burned about
100 calories above your baseline per day, but we must subtract out 250
calories due to muscle loss. For all your effort you are now 150
calories in the wrong direction. Furthermore, the stress hormones that
result from such overtraining also stimulate fat storage. Anyone who has
attempted such a program of weight loss can confirm...you will end up
feeling washed out, moody, and (worst of all) fatter. The truth is this:
you cannot use physical activity to negate excess caloric intake.

Muscle: the real key to burning calories
Remember when you were a teenager and could eat everything in sight and
not get fat? Somewhere in your 30's things changed. Now it seems like
just looking at food can make you fat. What happened?

The main difference for most people is that they have less muscle in
adulthood than they had in their late teens and early twenties. As we
age there is a natural tendency to lose muscle and we also are less
vigorous in our physical activity, which results in further muscle loss.
This loss of muscle tissue results in a decreasing metabolic rate. Lose
5 pounds of muscle and your calories burned per 24 hours decreases by
about 250 calories. While this may not sound like much, it adds up. If
you continue to eat like you did when you were younger, you will gain a
pound of fat in about 14 days. Over a 20 week period you will gain 10
pounds.


The key to getting rid of accumulated body fat is to get back your
youthful metabolism by getting back your muscle. You have probably heard
people say that "muscle has memory". Well, this is one popular saying
that is actually true. With a proper exercise stimulus that dormant
muscle can be reclaimed. When you get back the muscle that requires 250
calories a day to keep alive, what used to be an insidious weight-gain
problem will become an insidious weight-loss technique. As you become
stronger you will have a natural tendency to partake of more vigorous
activities. This situation will allow you to lose weight with less
attention paid to calorie counting and food selection. The more
reasonable your diet can be, the greater your chance to stick with it.
As you ride this spiral of success, you may be able to eat more like you
did as a teenager. Putting just 5 pounds of calorie burning muscle on
your body can really turn things around for you.


Proper exercise and discriminant weight loss
SuperSlow inventor Ken Hutchins was the first person to ever explain the
idea of discriminant weight loss to me. He told me to picture the human
body as a corporation that is run by a board of directors. He told me to
assume that a body operating on a calorie deficit is like a corporation
running at a budget deficit. Each of the body tissues could represent a
different department within that corporation. He then presented two
scenarios. In the first scenario there is a budget deficit and no
department has any unusual demands. In this scenario layoffs can occur
in all departments. So your body lays off some fat, some muscle, some
bone and connective tissue, as well as nervous tissue . Your corporation
(or body) becomes a smaller version of its former self. In the second
scenario, there is a large demand placed on the muscle department. In
this scenario, no layoffs can occur in the muscle department. Indeed,
more muscle has to be hired on. This results in a larger layoff in the
fat department. We cannot produce cutbacks in the bone or connective
tissue department because we need their support because muscle is not
helpful unless it is attached to strong bone by strong connective
tissue. This means more fat has to be let go. We cannot lay off any
nervous tissue, because our new muscle is useless unless it is
innervated by new nervous tissue. This means more fat has to be let go.
Under this scenario, all weight loss is shunted toward fat loss. In this
scenario, your corporation (body) takes on a dramatic shape change. You
have added a modest amount of shape-improving muscle and jettisoned a
large amount of shape-ruining fat.


Don't put that in your mouth
It should now be evident to you that the easiest way to create the
calorie deficit you need to lose bodyfat is to simply avoid putting the
extra calories in your mouth in the first place. Even a very modest
calorie reduction of 150 calories will result in significant fat loss
over time. In the long run, the self-discipline required is much easier
to produce than the effort of running on a treadmill for an hour every
day (which is a losing proposition anyway). A calorie intake deficit of
500 calories a day is still fairly easy to achieve, and if you have
added some muscle to your body the shape change you can produce in 6-12
weeks can be amazing. Initially, you may have to be very compulsive
about counting calories, but within a few weeks you will probably learn
to manage simply by controlling the portion size of the foods you eat.


Superhydration
Ellington Darden, PhD (Author and former Research Director for Nautilus
Sports/Medical Industries) came up with this concept. The food calories
that you count are actually Kilocalories or Calories. A Calorie is the
amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a liter of
water by one degree celsius. The calories that you count are actually
just units of heat-energy.


Dr. Darden developed a program of drinking large volumes of ice-cold
water throughout the day. The ice water that goes into your system has
to be warmed to body temperature. Thus a liter of water at 1 degree
celsius that ultimate leaves your body at 37 degrees celsius and thus
requires 36 calories of heat energy. If you manage to consume 5 liters
of water per day this results in roughly 180 extra calories burned.


According to Dr. Darden, superhydration helps fat loss in another way.
If you are well hydrated most of your body's waste products can be
eliminated through the kidneys. When you are underhydrated much of this
burden is assumed by the liver. One of the liver's main functions is the
processing of stored bodyfat for use as energy. If your liver is
occupied processing waste products it is less efficient at mobilizing
bodyfat. Superhydration not only burns calories, it allows your liver to
be more efficient at mobilizing fat off of your body.


Plenty of Sleep
Dr. Darden also discovered that plenty of sleep was essential to fat
loss. In his research he noted that subjects who were sleep deprived did
not lose fat as easily as those who were well rested. It seems that
calorie restriction is fairly stressful to the body and any further
stressors can result in a protective slowing of the metabolism. My own
theory is that a calorie restriction sends a biological signal of
starvation and decreased sleep sends a signal that the organism is
having to stay up to search for food, or it has to be vigilant because
its environment is unsafe. These are probably powerful biological
signals that cause a protective slowing of the metabolism.


Simple Dietary Guidelines and Recommended Diets
There are literally thousands of diet books out there. Many of these
books make extraordinary claims or involve complex regimines that cannot
be carried out long term. By far the best diet books written are those
by Ellington Darden, PhD. His books are no-nonsense and have precise
regimines that are easy to follow. Most importantly, his diets easily
adapt into lifelong eating habits that will keep you lean. Some of Dr.
Darden's best books include Soft Steps to a Hard Body, Living Longer
Stronger, and A Flat Stomach A.S.A.P. Protein Power by Dr's. Michael and
Mary Dan Eades is well written and makes a compelling argument for
control of carbohydrate intake. Many of my clients have found that
producing a calorie deficit on this program is easier for them than many
other diets. The bottom line is that you will need to devise a system of
reducing calorie intake that seems to work for you.


My own dietary guidelines for people are actually quite simple. It
involves looking at your hand. You have five fingers that represent five
meals to eat in a day (3 meals and 2 snacks). The serving size of any
food you choose should be either the size of your palm or able to fit in
the palm of your hand. Meals can have 4 servings from any categorie of
food. Snacks have 2 servings. Your five fingers also represent the 5
liters of water you should drink over the course of the day. If you
follow these guidelines you will limit your portion sizes so that you
should be able to produce weight loss without excessive attention to
detail. If you want a more detailed way of portioning your intake, I
also suggest the "Food Mover" sold by Richard Simmons on his
informercial (although I do not recommend his aerobics-based exercise
program that comes with it).


The Bottom Line
The bottom line for fat loss is as follows: 1) Build some calorie
burning muscle through proper exercise. 2) Create a modest calorie
deficit through dietary restraint. 3) Superhydration. 4) Get some extra
sleep. 5) Avoid overactivity or steady-state activities that are
popularly thought to "burn calories". If you have the discipline, these
simple steps will prove successful beyond your expectations.

"V.H." wrote in message
...
Lately, I've just been using weight machines at the gym such as those
manufactured by Cybex, Hammerstrength, Trotter, etc. The question that I
have for the group is this. In addition to strict dieting, how many sets,
and reps per set, should I perform for optimum body fat reduction when
using
machines only for my weight training routine? Due to my work schedule and
family life, I can't commit to a free weight training schedule with a
workout partner. It wouldn't be fair to them if I can't make it to the gym
when they can on a consistent basis. I have to travel, run kids to soccer
practice, etc. I still make it to the gym regularly, but at varying times
depending on my career and family-related obligations. I'm most interested
in using weight machines to lean up. No interest in getting H-U-G-E. Since
January I have lost 4 inches in my waist, but would like to lose 2 more to
reach my goal.


Everyone has stuff to do outside the gym - kids, work, etc. If you're
comfortable with the machines, fine - but free weights don't necessarily
require a training partner, and have the advantage of not locking you into
an unnatural range of motion, plus helping with stabilizers, balance, blah,
blah...

At any rate, getting lean is going to be a function of your diet much more
than any particular set/rep scheme.

"V.H." wrote in message
...
Lately, I've just been using weight machines at the gym such as those
manufactured by Cybex, Hammerstrength, Trotter, etc. The question that I
have for the group is this. In addition to strict dieting, how many sets,
and reps per set, should I perform for optimum body fat reduction when
using
machines only for my weight training routine? Due to my work schedule and
family life, I can't commit to a free weight training schedule with a
workout partner. It wouldn't be fair to them if I can't make it to the gym
when they can on a consistent basis. I have to travel, run kids to soccer
practice, etc. I still make it to the gym regularly, but at varying times
depending on my career and family-related obligations. I'm most interested
in using weight machines to lean up. No interest in getting H-U-G-E. Since
January I have lost 4 inches in my waist, but would like to lose 2 more to
reach my goal.


Everyone has stuff to do outside the gym - kids, work, etc. If you're
comfortable with the machines, fine - but free weights don't necessarily
require a training partner, and have the advantage of not locking you into
an unnatural range of motion, plus helping with stabilizers, balance, blah,
blah...

At any rate, getting lean is going to be a function of your diet much more
than any particular set/rep scheme.

Lately, I've just been using weight machines at the gym such as those
manufactured by Cybex, Hammerstrength, Trotter, etc. The question that I
have for the group is this. In addition to strict dieting, how many sets,
and reps per set, should I perform for optimum body fat reduction when using
machines only for my weight training routine? Due to my work schedule and
family life, I can't commit to a free weight training schedule with a
workout partner. It wouldn't be fair to them if I can't make it to the gym
when they can on a consistent basis. I have to travel, run kids to soccer
practice, etc. I still make it to the gym regularly, but at varying times
depending on my career and family-related obligations. I'm most interested
in using weight machines to lean up. No interest in getting H-U-G-E. Since
January I have lost 4 inches in my waist, but would like to lose 2 more to
reach my goal.

At any rate, I thought that I would check with some of the weight training
experts on here to get some additional opinions on this topic.

Thanks in advance!

V.H.

Me wrote in message ...
V.H. wrote:
Lately, I've just been using weight machines at the gym such as those
manufactured by Cybex, Hammerstrength, Trotter, etc. The question that I
have for the group is this. In addition to strict dieting, how many sets,
and reps per set, should I perform for optimum body fat reduction when using
machines only for my weight training routine? Due to my work schedule and
family life, I can't commit to a free weight training schedule with a
workout partner. It wouldn't be fair to them if I can't make it to the gym
when they can on a consistent basis. I have to travel, run kids to soccer
practice, etc. I still make it to the gym regularly, but at varying times
depending on my career and family-related obligations. I'm most interested
in using weight machines to lean up. No interest in getting H-U-G-E. Since
January I have lost 4 inches in my waist, but would like to lose 2 more to
reach my goal.

At any rate, I thought that I would check with some of the weight training
experts on here to get some additional opinions on this topic.

See, the thing is, putting on muscle is by far the easier route.
Muscle is high maintenance tissue. Muscle burns calories just
maintaining its self. You can run your self to death and you'll lose
some fat, but not easily. An hour of jogging burns like, what, 150
calories IIRC? A cookie or two and you just blew an hours worth of blood
sweat and tears. On the other hand, you can work out to build muscle and
the muscle will burn calories 24/7

The amount of calories that the extra muscle burns is insignificant.
However, your metabolism is raised a bit by heavy weight workouts for
a few hours, and that is significant.





The last push on any set should be a maximum
effort.

No. Going to failure is not something we all "should" do all the
time.


Four to five sets is good.

Unneccessary

Allow 72 hours recovery before
working that muscle set again.

Tons of people do just fine with 48, or even less. I'm doing HST (
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html ) and it's going
just fine.

That's healing and growing time. If you
don't allow the muscle to heal and grow you do more damage than good and
won't put on muscle nearly as fast.

If the OP is eating for a caloric defecit, they won't put on much
muscle anyway - the goal is to maintain the muscle. Unless if you're
talking about having him/her switch to a bulking cycle.

Regardless, 72 hours isn't needed.

I'm not saying give up cardio... not at all, I'm just saying that
your weight loss will be faster and much easier if you work to put on
muscle in addition to the cardio.


The OP didn't mention a peep about cardio. Those machines he/she
mentioned are weight training machines.

Jake

Me wrote in message ...
V.H. wrote:
Lately, I've just been using weight machines at the gym such as those
manufactured by Cybex, Hammerstrength, Trotter, etc. The question that I
have for the group is this. In addition to strict dieting, how many sets,
and reps per set, should I perform for optimum body fat reduction when using
machines only for my weight training routine? Due to my work schedule and
family life, I can't commit to a free weight training schedule with a
workout partner. It wouldn't be fair to them if I can't make it to the gym
when they can on a consistent basis. I have to travel, run kids to soccer
practice, etc. I still make it to the gym regularly, but at varying times
depending on my career and family-related obligations. I'm most interested
in using weight machines to lean up. No interest in getting H-U-G-E. Since
January I have lost 4 inches in my waist, but would like to lose 2 more to
reach my goal.

At any rate, I thought that I would check with some of the weight training
experts on here to get some additional opinions on this topic.

See, the thing is, putting on muscle is by far the easier route.
Muscle is high maintenance tissue. Muscle burns calories just
maintaining its self. You can run your self to death and you'll lose
some fat, but not easily. An hour of jogging burns like, what, 150
calories IIRC? A cookie or two and you just blew an hours worth of blood
sweat and tears. On the other hand, you can work out to build muscle and
the muscle will burn calories 24/7

The amount of calories that the extra muscle burns is insignificant.
However, your metabolism is raised a bit by heavy weight workouts for
a few hours, and that is significant.





The last push on any set should be a maximum
effort.

No. Going to failure is not something we all "should" do all the
time.


Four to five sets is good.

Unneccessary

Allow 72 hours recovery before
working that muscle set again.

Tons of people do just fine with 48, or even less. I'm doing HST (
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html ) and it's going
just fine.

That's healing and growing time. If you
don't allow the muscle to heal and grow you do more damage than good and
won't put on muscle nearly as fast.

If the OP is eating for a caloric defecit, they won't put on much
muscle anyway - the goal is to maintain the muscle. Unless if you're
talking about having him/her switch to a bulking cycle.

Regardless, 72 hours isn't needed.

I'm not saying give up cardio... not at all, I'm just saying that
your weight loss will be faster and much easier if you work to put on
muscle in addition to the cardio.


The OP didn't mention a peep about cardio. Those machines he/she
mentioned are weight training machines.

Jake

On 14 May 2004 08:32:00 -0700, (Jake) wrote:

The amount of calories that the extra muscle burns is insignificant.

Not so. Muscle will burn 2-5x its weight in fat per year,
depending on who you ask and what your assumptions
are. That's significant.

However, your metabolism is raised a bit by heavy weight
workouts for a few hours, and that is significant.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

On 14 May 2004 08:32:00 -0700, (Jake) wrote:

The amount of calories that the extra muscle burns is insignificant.

Not so. Muscle will burn 2-5x its weight in fat per year,
depending on who you ask and what your assumptions
are. That's significant.

However, your metabolism is raised a bit by heavy weight
workouts for a few hours, and that is significant.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Helgi Briem wrote:
On 14 May 2004 08:32:00 -0700, (Jake) wrote:


The amount of calories that the extra muscle burns is insignificant.


Not so. Muscle will burn 2-5x its weight in fat per year,
depending on who you ask and what your assumptions
are. That's significant.

Caloric burn for muscle at rest is 13 kcal/kg/day or ~ 6 cal/lb (Source:
McClave SA and HL Snider. Dissecting the energy needs of the body.
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 4:1430147. 2001).

1 lb * 6 cal/lb/day * 365 days = 2190 cal/ 3500 cal/lb fat = .62 lbs fat.

So other than being off by an order of magnitude, you're totally correct.

Lyle