Ever watch that show on the Discovery channel called “Myth Busters?” In short, two dudes separate truth from urban legend with the aid of modern-day science. Some past episodes include:

1. Can the unaided human voice shatter glass?

2. Can a penny dropped from a tall building kill someone on ground level?

3. Is it possible to break off a lock by shooting it with a gun?

4. Is it true that no woman can resist my uncanny charm and wit?

It’s a great show, and it’s always interesting to find out what is fact and what is fiction. In the case of #4 on the list above, it’s totally fact. I wrote it on the internet, so it must be true.

”

Nevertheless, I’d like to take this opportunity and play Myth Buster for some common myths and fallacies that we often come across in the fitness world. First on the hit list: The addition of aerobic training (ie: step class, endless hours on the elliptical machine) to a caloric deficit (through diet) will increase calories burned and therefore increase fat loss. True or false?

This is a myth that my good friend Alwyn Cosgrove tackled in his book “Real World Fat Loss: Destroying the Dogma.” In short the answer is undoubtedly FALSE.

How can this be? Personal trainers and group training instructors have always advocated that aerobic exercise is great for fat loss. We add in aerobic exercise, which increases calories burned, which burns more fat, which brings sexy back. Everyone wins.

Problem is, there is a plethora of research out there which states that aerobic exercise is inferior in regards to fat loss:

“Influence of diet and/or exercise on body composition and cardio respiratory fitness in obese women,” International Journal of Sports Nutrition. 1998 Sep; 8(3): 213-22.

Conclusion: the addition of 45 minutes of aerobic exercise at 78% Maximum Heart Rate (MHR), five days per week for twelve weeks had NO EFFECT over dieting alone.

“Does (aerobic) exercise give an additional effect in weight reduction regimens?” International Journal of Obesity. 1987; 11(4): 367-75.

Conclusion: the addition of of four hours of aerobic exercise per week had no effect on weight loss.

“Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1997 Sep; 66(3): 557-63.

Conclusion: in an isoenergetic comparison, the strength training group lost significantly more fat than the aerobic training group. Additionally the aerobic training group lost significantly more lean body mass than the strength training group.

Despite all the research (and real world evidence), many fitness professionals still advocate aerobic exercise for fat loss. Isn’t it a bit ironic that a large percentage of “fitness or group exercise instructors” have a high body fat percentage themselves? Walk into any class and see for yourself.

Now before I get the hate mail, let me first say that there are many health benefits to including aerobic exercise into one’s weekly routine. But it we’re referring to strictly fat loss, it’s just not going to cut it. End of story.

That being said you need to look at an entire 24 hour day when talking about fat loss. Sure you will burn more calories performing an hour of aerobic exercise compared to an hour of lifting weights. However in a 24 hour period, it’s been shown time and time again that the body will literally burn HUNDREDS more calories through lifting weights due to what is called EPOC (Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption). Long story short, once you’re done doing aerobic exercise, you’re done burning calories. On the flip side, after a strength training session, the body’s metabolism will be elevated for upwards of 24-48 hours, which burns far more calories (and fat).

As Alwyn Cosgrove states in his book, “Someone talking about the benefits of the fat burning zones or fasted cardio is a sure sign that the individual has stopped looking at the end of the exercise session. They have come to the conclusion that lower intensity, steady state exercise (aerobic) burns the most fat and made a massive leap of faith to suggest it is best for real world fat loss.”

Myth Busted: Aerobic exercise does not increase fat loss.

I’m not a big fan of the word “core.” Unless of course, your name happens to end with “core,” then it’s completely awesome. However in the fitness world, the term “core” is often misused and misunderstood.

Your “core” is not just the front of Mens Health or Oxygen Magazine, with the cover model sporting a six pack that you could wash your clothes on. Walk into any gym in America and you will find many trainees seemingly working their core by performing endless repetitions of crunches or any other multitude of machines in an effort to attain said six pack. Walk into any gym in America and you will find that most trainees are still fat, despite training their “core.”

Walk into my gym (Cressey Performance Center, located in Hudson, MA) and you will find trainees performing deadlift variations, pull-throughs, glute-ham raises, supine bridges, squat variations, lots of single leg work, and as I have alluded to on several times in the past with this blog, ANTI-rotational movements. No crunches. No gimmickey machines. People look good.

Everyone looks at rear ends. Guess what? That’s your “core” too.

I am in total agreement with physical therapist/strength coach Gray Cook when he says that people need to pay more attention to “training the backside of the core” (ie: glutes, hips).

We should be hip based creatures. The hips are the engine of the core. Everything from force, power, to strength is transferred through the hips. The engine of your car does the same thing; gives your car horsepower. Your mid-section (abdominals) can be seen as the transmission or drive shaft of the core. You’re not supposed to bend or twist the drive shaft/transmission of your car. So why do we seem to think that that is the best way to train our core? Why do we totally neglect the engine?

In the end, training the backside of your core will lead to better PERFORMANCE. Learn to use your hips and glutes, and you will be able to handle more weight in the gym. You handle more weight, you burn more calories. You burn more calories, you burn more fat in any given 24 hour period (assuming your diet is dialed in). Presto: lean, firm mid section (and a nice rear end to boot. Yay you). No crunches involved.

Awhile back I wrote a blog on how much I dislike the abdominal crunch. If I had to make a list of things that I dislike the most, it would look like this:

1. Ben Affleck

2. Abdominal Crunch

3. People who don’t say thank you when you hold open the door for them.

4. Nutritionist who claim that diets high(er) in protein will result in your kidneys exploding

5. Poodles (my apologies to those who own a Poodle; but seriously, I’d rather have a rat as a pet before a Poodle).

As you can see, I’m not a big fan of the abdominal crunch. As for why, you can read that from the link above. Cliff Notes Version: when one performs an abdominal crunch, they’re essentially pulling the sternum closer to the pelvis hundreds, if not thousands of times, promoting a kyphotic posture (rounded back).

I’m a firm advocate of ANTI-rotational training when it comes to the abdominals, but another great exercise I like to implement with my clients is the REVERSE crunch.

Here, you get ALL the benefits of the crunch but without the disadvantages (which are many). With the reverse crunch, we’re able to train the entire abdominal wall (rectus abdominus, internal/external obliques), but without promoting all of the postural imbalances caused by traditional crunches.

A few key points to remember:

1. Keep your knees tucked to your chest throughout the duration of the movement.

2. Try NOT to use momentum to finish the movement.

3. You can start by holding onto a pole or table to assist you (for leverage). From there, use a medicine ball or 10 lb dumbbell (placed on the floor, above your head) as a counterbalance.

4. I routinely perform charity work rescuing puppies (not Poodles) from animal shelters and fight forest fires with my shirt off. Just wanted to let you know.

5. As you progress, you will soon be able to perform the movement without any “leverage” or assistance. Shoot for 2-3 sets of 12-15 reps two to three times per week.

I come across a lot of people who seem to think that they’re special. Don’t get me wrong, we’re ALL special in our own way. I mean, anyone who can sit through an entire evening of listening to the Presidential Debates and not want to punch their television would certainly constitute as someone “special.” That being said, I am here to tell you that you’re not that special.

You don’t have a thyroid issue and you’re not “pre-disposed to being fat,” despite what you may think (my apologies to those people who have actually gone to a physician and have been clinically diagnosed with hypo or hyper-thyroidism). Contrary to what many people believe, you can’t self diagnose yourself with a rare condition . Unless of course you happen to be me, and you self diagnose yourself as the sexiest man this side of the Mississippi River. It’s a curse that I have to live with. True story.

Nonetheless, it dumbfounds me that I come across so many people who seem to think that they’re the one case in all of human history that defies the laws of basic thermodynamics and physiology. The First Law of Thermodynamics (read: it’s a law, not a theory. In other words, it’s a fact) states: “The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.”

In our context: calories in vs. calories out.

If you’re expending (exercise) more calories than you’re ingesting, you lose weight. If you ingest more calories than you expend, you gain weight. If your caloric expenditure equals your caloric intake, weight stays the same. Granted it is a bit more complicated than this, but I am sure you get the point. And if you don’t get my point, let me break it down in more simpler words. Quit lying to yourself and making excuses. It’s been shown time and time again that when left to their own vices, people will OVER-report how much they really exercise and UNDER-report how much they really eat. Remember that piece of chocolate cake you had last night? How bout that six pack of beer over the weekend? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

As I stated above, you don’t have a thyroid issue and you’re body was NOT meant to be fat, and you’re not a human anomaly. You’re not that special.

Minutia: small or trivial details.

Setting diets up based on percentages just doesn’t make sense (think The Zone Diet). When someone places protein, carbohydrate, or fat requirements in terms of percentages for a diet, it doesn’t necessarily have any relevance to what that person actually needs. A diet consisting of 30% protein may be too little for one person (ingesting only 1000 kcals per day) and too high for someone else (ingesting 5000 kcals per day). Two extremes I know, but I’m just trying to make a point.

Using the above example, someone who “needs” 150 grams of protein would only be ingesting 75 grams of protein per day on a 1000 kcal per day diet (half of what he actually needs), and 375 grams of protein per day (more than double what he needs) on a 5000 kcal per day diet (again, assuming 30% protein).

Additionally, many diets are often labeled “high carbohydrate or high fat” when a specific macronutrient is over a certain percentage. Most dieticians would be quick to label a diet consisting of 35% fat as “high fat.” However, if we were to take a 2000 kcal diet (with 35% of calories coming from fat) and add 200 grams (800 kcals) of carbohydrate to it without changing anything else (total calories are now 2800), a “high-fat” diet all of a sudden becomes a “low-fat” diet because the percentage of fat dropped from 35% to 25%, even though total grams of fat stayed the same.

No need to worry about trivial minutia such as macronutrient percentages.

Tony Gentilcore

For the past five years I have had the opportunity to work at various types of gyms/facilities. Some good, some bad. And by “bad,” what I really mean is Bally Total Fitness. I keed I keed. Seriously though, that place stinks.

Right now I feel like a kid on Christmas morning. I remember back in the day, I would get so excited and the anticipation of that Christmas morning where I would hightail it down the stairwell to see all my new toys under the tree was undoubtedly the best day of my life. Well, I kind of have that feeling now.

I have always wanted to work at a gym that allowed me to take full advantage of my abilities as a trainer. A place where I didn’t have to wait for certain pieces of equipment while working with a client (yes I am talking to you Mr. I curl in the squat rack guy), or a place where there aren’t massive crowds every single night. Essentially I have always wanted to work at a place that I would be proud of and kicks major ass.

Cressey Performance Center folks. My good friend Eric Cressey opened up his own facility recently and I can honestly say that I DO feel like a kid on Christmas morning.

Here’s a brief bullet point rundown of the facility:

1. Located on 43 Broad St in Hudson, MA (with easy access to Mass Pike, 495, Rt. 9, etc)

2. Private and Semi-private training only. No annoying crowds.

3. Cutting edge training techniques with top notch equipment for training athletes as well as soccer moms and “weekend warriors.”

4. Sprint track (and yes, we have cardio machines too).

5. You will never hear John Mayer or Celine Dion playing in the background.

Feel free to stop by the facility and stay tuned for updates at www.cresseyperformance.com. You can also e-mail me at [email protected]

Tony Gentilcore