Go to the link below and look in the article archives for an anrticle by myself called "Summer Six Pack." It will help you get control of your insulin and explain some of the reasoning behind it.

Summer Six Pack

is that bad? for visceral fat?

Your body fat is heaps high brother.For visible six pack your body has to have body fat around 10%(most cases).If you can drop your body fat to that level your problem is solved.

Do cardio after resistance training if possible or just even cardio.Eat more complex carbohydrates with high fibres,less fat and may be little bit more protein.Divide your meals into 5-6 meals a day that will rip up your metabolic rate.Take care of your nutrition you will be ok.

### Research over the last several years indicates otherwise. Fat storage is a function of one's nutritional, hormonal and health profiles and based on those can actually be predicted to a degree.

Do cardio after resistance training if possible or just even cardio.

### Completely counterproductive.....pushes the body into an incredibly catabolic state. Aerobic work isn't the best way to trim excess bodyfat period....after weight work, it compounds the problem.

Eat more complex carbohydrates

### It's not 1985 anymore. For one thing complex and simple carbohydrates are archaic terms, that frankly mean very little. Secondly, the type of carb it is ("complex or simple") has little to do with it's glycemic index and the corrosponding insulin response.

with high fibres,less fat and may be little bit more protein.Divide your meals into 5-6 meals a day that will rip up your metabolic rate.Take care of your nutrition you will be ok.

#####The reason of doing cardio after resistance training is during resistance training you use glucose for fuel whereas in cardio you use glucose and fat for fuel .So after resistance training the glucose and glycogen level is low or even empty doing cardio then fat is the only source.Offourse ,you have to take some BCAA's after resistance training to reduce catabolism.

##### I didnt really get you in this one.In my knowledge it is still the same idea.The word G.I. comes from carbohydrates.Simple carbs spike your insulin so more fat storage is encouraged and complex carbohydrates with low G.I. doesnt effect Insulin spike so the glucose level is steady.It reminds me of the article from Vince Gironda,who beleived that saturated fats is good and carbohydrates is the one that makes you fat ,In general its the excess calories that makes you fat even if it comes protein.

I would like to see your photoes how do you look anyway.

I have just finished my Nutrition Module and i studied basically the same thing Parmesh explained.

Todd i think you need more support either links or something to prove what you are talking about.OR u might need to go back to college dude.From my bodybuilding background,nutrition is very vital and most of them have very good knowledge about nutrition.I also used to do lot of long distance cardio after resistance training before the contest.That worked best for me .In case you like munching bikkies in the couch and try to scratch the fat skin off your belly.

*** Is that the reasoning? Sorry, but pregnancy isn't genetic. The stork has to make a visit. And not all women store fat around the hips and thighs, start looking more carefully, some women have guts, some have back fat. Some have big legs and butts but not so much on the hips or stomach, it's very varied, and not nearly as simplistic as your trying to make it out.

It takes about 80,000 calories to have a baby.My friend if you do more study you will find out what i am talking about.

***Who was talking about having babies? We were talking about fat deposits, that has nothing to do with babies. I'm talking about where women store fat during pregnancy.

#####The reason of doing cardio after resistance training is during resistance training you use glucose for fuel whereas in cardio you use glucose and fat for fuel .

*** Your information is about 40 years old, I would suggest any good physiology book. It's not quite that simple....see my post again about why post resistance training aerobic work is counterproductive to any health or fitness goal.

So after resistance training the glucose and glycogen level is low or even empty doing cardio then fat is the only source.Offourse ,you have to take some BCAA's after resistance training to reduce catabolism.

*** Even with BCAAs the cortisol would be so high that the catabolic environment would prevent optimal morphological changes and hormonal changes which are primarily responsible for morphological changes from occuring.

##### I didnt really get you in this one.In my knowledge it is still the same idea.The word G.I. comes from carbohydrates.

*** No, it doesn't; the "word" G.I. comes from glycemic index, it is a rating for how fast sugar from carb sources enter the blood, "complex andsimple" carbs have nothing to do with it.

Simple carbs spike your insulin so more fat storage is encouraged and complex carbohydrates with low G.I. doesnt effect Insulin spike so the glucose level is steady.

*** Again, your information is from 20 years ago. Go look at a glycemic index list. Bananas have a high glycemic index. Apples, oranges and plumbs have low. Pasta (a complex carb) has a high glycemic index. My article linked above will help with your understanding of this as your nutritional recommendations are 20 years old. Docs zig zag article will help you as well.

It reminds me of the article from Vince Gironda,who beleived that saturated fats is good and carbohydrates is the one that makes you fat ,

*** VInce was an odd guy, but a lot of his stuff worked. Saturated fat isn't ok, but carbs are definitely fat culprits.

In general its the excess calories that makes you fat even if it comes protein.

*** Protein is not converted to fat very readily.

I would like to see your photoes how do you look anyway.

*** I'm single digit bodyfat cowboy, at 220. Last summer, I was single digit at 240.

Bro regarding simple and complex carbohydrates your idea is wrong.Could you show me any links or books that shows what you are saying?

*** No it's not, yours is outdated, consult my article, and Docs zig zag article. A book you might want to check out is "Living the Low Carb Life" By Johnny Bowden For info on fat deposits, check out studies by: the University of minnesota, 30,000 women over 12 years, reviewed by Tufts University nutrition Commentator; UCLA School of Medicine (1995); an article entitled "Obesity Begets Obesity" by U.S. Bariatric's Director of Research, Cynthia Buffington; and Oxygenmagazine (I assume back issues are available), an article by Sydney Loney in the August 2003 issue.

*** Uh, I got a masters, go read the articles I mentioned, what he is talking about is the third grade explanation from twenty years ago, yes in some nutrition classes in colleges, personal trainer certifications etc., they're still talking in these terms, but nutritionist know little about nutrition. You do not have to "burn fat" during a workout in order to burn fat. Fat is our primary source of fuel throughout the day. Secondly, the body doesn't stop burning sugar and switch to fat, it is a continuum. Further more, the hormonal status is just as improtant as the energy system used in porducing morphological changes. In fact, hormonal status (i.e., greater GH release) is better with anaerobic workouts as opposed to aerobic work. Read mine and Doc's article and the book I mentioned would help you immensley.

LOL, I like the "single" part at the end.

Todd's right on in what he's saying. Use the rules Doc outlines in his zig-zag plan, work hard in a well put together resistance training program (read: not much cardio), and you'll be good to go.

BF% around 24% isn't genetic unless your thyroid is out of whack. The handles will go away as the overall fat does.

-Dan

Havent heard before what you are talking about Todd.Are you trying to tell most of the books and nutritionists need to be updated?I hope you are right. Best way to point out what is genetics is look at the father and grandfather.Protein does turn into fat in excess.First glyconeogesis and then lypogenesis if not used.Most of the times its impossible to take that much protein.

Still Love to see you photoes dude and i might somewhat try to beleive you.my email add is golkhadi@yahoo.com

Most men would have lovehandles at that fat %. How do you know your fat %?

Mike

Can you provide a scientific reference for this, Todd? I don't believe it, but I'll reserve judgement until I see some research.

Mike

THANK YOU for setting this straight. I have been confused about this for two years. (Always thought complex carbs were lower-GI.)

If y'all don't mind me trying to figure out some hypotheticals, could I just ask the age-old question once again: how much is "not much"? For example, I lift (as heavy as possible but not to failure) 3x/week, but I do cardio 5-6x/week, 15-20 min, some running and some on the elliptical. Too much? Should I drop that back, do more lifting, leave it as is? (Don't need to lose much fat but would like to lose a little.)

### Well, it's the truth, research came out indicating the old food guide pyramind was essentially a recipe for diabetes, that's one of the reasons they changed it. Nutritionists put every one on a cookie cutter diet. Very few know anything useful about nutrition. Look at most of them, they typically look unhealthy.

Havent heard before what you are talking about Todd.Are you trying to tell most of the books and nutritionists need to be updated?

### YES!

I hope you are right. Best way to point out what is genetics is look at the father and grandfather.Protein does turn into fat in excess.First glyconeogesis and then lypogenesis if not used.

### I never said it wouldn't, but it is less likely to be....

Most of the times its impossible to take that much protein.

### I mentioned several research articles in my post. One from the University of Minnesota, one from UCLA, and a couple of other articles. The one from Minnesota was conducted with over 30, 000 women, and has been the base study for this information. More stuff is coming out all the time.

### Do you honestly think I'm making this up?

### Shannon, you'd be better served by doing intervals.

Actually- you didn't. You still haven't. What is the actual journal article that you refer to? Surely, if someone took the time to conduct a study in Minnesota with 30,000 female subjects, they would have bothered to submit it for publication in a scientific journal. (never mind the fact that the thread started with a GUY with love handles...)

Can you provide a reference?

Mike

http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gm=0!gc=1!l=2!gid2=856

"It is not the “spare tire” (subcutaneous fat) that makes the apple shape insidious, but the visceral fat, a deeper layer of adipose tissue that cushions the abdominal organs."... "Visceral fat has also been associated with insulin resistance."

article

I agree with Todd - intervals better preserve muscle mass, and can sometimes produce hypertrophy.

If you simply enjoy going for a jog once in a while, though, I wouldn't go longer than a mile or two a few times a week. This isn't based on any studies I know of, just a sense of balance. The catabolic environment produced in long-duration, low intensity activity isn't conducive to optimal results, but a little (10, 20 minutes) once in a while isn't going to significantly hinder a non-competitive athlete.

What Todd mentioned earlier is key - we use fat as fuel throughout the day. Sprints and intense lifting raise the amount of energy we burn from fats MUCH longer than traditional aerobic activity, which pretty much just bumps up metabolism for the duration of the activity.

-Dan

Todd brings up a valid point concerning many nutritionists in the field. My girlfriend is currently studying to become an RD (early in the process, but she's been doing a lot of reading prior to college), and getting decent information out of the professors is like pulling teeth. I've taken two classes in our nutrition department at IUP; one of the professors was unfit to teach and couldn't even answer the most basic questions correctly, and one was reasonably on the ball, although a little behind in her reading on heart disease. From what my girlfriend tells me, the grad students are basically inept and have no idea how to interpret research correctly and, thus, choose to ignore it and fall far behind in what is now known to be correct.

I choose to get my nutrition information from researchers or intelligent people interpreting primary sources (some are dietitians, some aren't), not older books and "nutritionists" (that's a junk term, by the way, with no qualifications associated with it except in a few states) far removed from current research, especially concerning performance nutrition. It's a reasonably young field, with more being learned every day.

-Dan

Thanks - that's exactly the guidance I was looking for, because that's exactly what I do with the running. The most competitive I'd ever do is maybe a 5K, but that's down the road.

Yeah. Me neither.

Insulin sensitivity can be tested for pretty easily and fairly cheaply. And it's pretty damn important to your health. And lots of really smart people are working all over the world on the problem. It's the kind of thing that I would expect to know, or at least have heard of. Which is why I question it.

It's a bit of an extraordinary claim, so it requires, at the very least, a specific scientific reference. Otherwise, it sounds like something that was pulled out of someone's butt. But I'll wait. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he'll provide a research article, and not a vague reference.

Mike

### YEs, it does, but I cannot remember every journal citation I read every month, nor the various citations from research reviews. Hell, I don't remember, but with a computer and internet access, and the many literature search engines available on the web, I could probably find either of the ones I mentioned in 20 minutes, on top of that I would encounter several others along the way that discussed specific fat deposits and health problems that are seemingly linked to them. GO to the Tufts medical review publication (not sure of the name), look it up, a high school kid doing a research paper could do it in a half hour.

I'll be patient.

"a high school kid doing a research paper could do it in a half hour."

Unless it doesn't exist. But if it does, you should be able to produce it. A reference. One that backs up the claim that love handles indicate poor isulin sensitivity. No other claims about fat. Just that one. I'm willing to accept it if you produce it and it's credible. Like you said, it shouldn't take long.

Mike

Yeah. Me neither.

### Heaven forbid you guys learn something new. On a discussion board of all things, what with people exchanging information and ideas. Frankly, that in and of itself, isn't completely new or cutting edge but as a whole, this information is less than a decade old, which makes it an infant in medical information.

Insulin sensitivity can be tested for pretty easily and fairly cheaply. And it's pretty damn important to your health. And lots of really smart people are working all over the world on the problem. It's the kind of thing that I would expect to know, or at least have heard of.

### Well, now you have heard of it.

Which is why I question it.

### Question it, do some research on your own, the science behind it is incredibly interesting when it comes to recognizing diabetes warning signs, etc. Well before current medical test can find anything.

It's a bit of an extraordinary claim, so it requires, at the very least, a specific scientific reference.

### With a basic understanding of insulin's role and it's interplay with excessive sugar intake, I fail to see what is so extraordinary about it. Fascinating, yes, but nothing incredible, it makes a lot of sense

Otherwise, it sounds like something that was pulled out of someone's butt. But I'll wait. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he'll provide a research article, and not a vague reference.

### What's vague about the references I gave, do you know how to look stuff up? The Minnesota study found that women who carried excess fat around their middle had a greater chance of heart disease or premature death than women who were generally overweight. Reviewed by the Tufts Nutrition commentaor, look it up! 1995 UCLA School of medicine found fat on the thigh is more difficult to lose than fat from other areas. Cynthia Buffington PHd, the U.S. Bariatric's Director of research wrote an article and quotes tons of research, contact them and I bet you can get a copy....they also have their own supportive research, you might can find some on their web site.....might have to look though (http://www.usbariatric.com/). If you really want some of the latest info on this topic, I would suggest a Biosignature Modulation seminar conducted by Charles Poliquin. Furthermore, 2 or 3 quick pub med searches lists hundreds of articles related directly or indirectly to this topic. But frankly, it's not in the USDA's pamphlet on eating healthy or a 100 level nutrition class in college, nor will any but a handful of "nutritionist" in the country know anything about it.

Here some more info that you can ooo aaah and not dismiss if you want: - umbilical fat deposits is associated with high cortisol

- ciculating insulin levels cause fat deposits not only on the supra-iliac (aka love handle) but also the triceps

- mid-axillary fat can be indicative of thyroid gland health concerns.

Now consider the science that can go along with all of that generalized information. I cannot rememeber the amount of research articles that possibly went into all of that. I am familiar with the basic information, the publication date doesn't help one manage bodyfat, that's information I don't need to remember. Not a lot of people especially "experts" are talking about it now, because they don't keep up with the literature well. It's there, look for it, it's not even hard to find, a few pub med searches will pull up quite a few studies that will provide insight into what you find som difficult to grasp.

### Yeah, I'm making stuff up, I'm making things up about verifiable studies I've mentioned!

But if it does, you should be able to produce it.

### Yeah, just as easily as you can go look it up, I don't care if you believe me or not, but I'm right, I've given you the information to prove or disprove me, any questions about this topic I'll answer, but I'm not going to do homework for you, I don't feel like it!

A reference. One that backs up the claim that love handles indicate poor isulin sensitivity. No other claims about fat. Just that one. I'm willing to accept it if you produce it and it's credible. Like you said, it shouldn't take long.

Not it doesn't here.....This is how easey it is this took me less than a minute! I've never seen this study before.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15687338&query_hl=9

Now, it talks about insulin insensitivity and increased abdominal storage in women....perhaps in the full text it mentions something, but I'm betting they only measured abdominal fat, and failed to take into consideration that increased levels of ciculating insulin raises cortisol, therefore, my assertions from above that increased cortisol impacts umbilical fat is corroborated.

Here's another one with similar conclusions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15687338&query_hl=16

This one directly corroborated the Minnesota study, and my assertion that cortisol (via stress) contributes to abdominal fat and therefore heart disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15988701&query_hl=17

Here's one concerning the supra iliac that you wanted so badly...now, please, I'm already tired of looking at research, please carry on on your own. This took me 5 minutes. On days when I dive into it I can look for hours, theres all kinds of neat thing you can find, but if you wait for others to tell you about them, you simply get left behind.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2662701&query_hl=23

Having body fat in one digit and hate cardio soo much,friend you sound like you rely on extra T from other source.I never said complex carbs is good it depends upon the G.I. go for low G.I. I mentioned low G.I.The reason i said it comes from carb,means you dont take that in matter with protein and fats .Thats all i meant ,even a newbee will know what is G.I.

Again getting fat may not be genetics,I said its the fat storage areas(most cases). If you are scared of cortisol hormones,its body's natural defence.YOU are getting it right now if you know what i am talking about.It is not practical to remain +ve nitrogen level all the time anyway. You are talking about Doc's article.I know he wouldnt make any comments on these,he has got prestige and he is not gonna comment on something like this.

I reckon Doc should basically expand this. Dude all you are trying to do is make conflict and you dropped your pants while trying to drop others'. By the way did you do masters in nutrition?or politics.

And you posted a bunch of other info. None of which was challenged by anyone. I asked you about one claim that I wanted you to back up with research. That having love handles indicates poor insulin sensitivity. I'm not asking you to change the subject, or to use the thread to expound upon other things. I asked for something very specific. I'm still waiting.

"Here's one concerning the supra iliac that you wanted so badly"

And you provided a study abstract that showed that obese pre-pubescent boys (you know, boys aged 10 or so) have "abnormal glucose-insulin homeostasis", compared to non-obese boys. Well, no kidding. And surprise, surprise, they measured body fat levels by using the suprailiac, among other sites. No surprise there. But still nothing indicating that love handles, in particular, indicates poor insulin sensitivity.

I perfectly willing to believe you if you find some real research that indicates that love handles (and not just abdominal fat, or central adiposity in general) indicates poor insulin sensitivity. I'm sure many others are, too. And surely the guy who started this post will want to know if he (and every other guy with love handles) needs to go see a doctor because he's on his way toward Diabetes.

Mike Connell

NO! interval training combined with resistance training is the best way to lose fat.

read above post. anaerobic conditioning (interval training) is superior to "cardio" (I'll take it you mean aerobic training).

Nelson. You are right. One can lose WEIGHT faster with cardio. But one can lose FAT a whole lot faster and keep their gains with resistance training. At 24% bodyfat catabolic aerobic work is the last thing he needs. Raising his lean body mass and getting his diet in order will help him lose his extra fat much faster than by adding cardio. I don't know why you can't compare him to an olympic lifter. Not all lifters use drugs. Look at high school olympic lifters (lower weights) and sprinters and you will find more lean body mass and less bodyfat than the distance runners. What does chuck liquid simple carbs mean? I don't understand this at all.

No one mentioned supersets or giant sets.

certainly, with all the misinformation about aerobic workouts being the best way to lose fat.

Without knowing other health issues about that person,prescribing exercises is not a good idea.

>>>>another hero...Look at the first guy who asked the question....I think he was trying to get information about his problem.There might be some other people like him who might get confused heaps

### And again, cardio after resistance training is one of the least effective ways to lose fat. It raises cortisol too much, look at the studies about cortisol and bodyfat deposits.

By trying to raise enough natural T just by doing weight training enough to be very fat burner you must be kidding yourself.

### WHo said anything about raising T? You want to increase growth hormone.

Research shows watching favourite footy show will raise your T level why dont you give that advice then.Well what about SHBG its gonna come into play as soon as T goes up.(i wish it was that simple)

Having body fat in one digit and hate cardio soo much

### I don't hate cardio, it's just that it's unproductive compared to resistance training and interval training for body composition changes. It's not the 80's anymore. Go read the zig zag article ! UUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH, borrowed that from Doc.

,friend you sound like you rely on extra T from other source.I never said complex carbs is good it depends upon the G.I. go for low G.I. I mentioned low G.I.The reason i said it comes from carb,means you dont take that in matter with protein and fats .Thats all i meant ,even a newbee will know what is G.I.

### You didn't mention anything of the sort.

Again getting fat may not be genetics,I said its the fat storage areas(most cases).

### And I explained that the storage areas are not necessarily genetic.

If you are scared of cortisol hormones,its body's natural defence.YOU are getting it right now if you know what i am talking about.

### I never said you wanted to eliminate it, but cortisol levels that are too high, are unhealthy and prevent making opitmal improvements in fitness and health.

It is not practical to remain +ve nitrogen level all the time anyway. You are talking about Doc's article.I know he wouldnt make any comments on these,he has got prestige and he is not gonna comment on something like this.

### Ask Doc, with respect to the discussion on body composition, carbs, and the type exercise for optimal body composition changes, me and Doc agree fully. He doesn't recommend a bunch or aerobic work and certainly not aerobic work after weights.

I reckon Doc should basically expand this. Dude all you are trying to do is make conflict and you dropped your pants while trying to drop others'. By the way did you do masters in nutrition?or politics.

### No, I corrected some misinformation, defended, and a few people didn't like it, but that's what discussion boards are for, please explain (emphasis on explain) why anything I have said is incorrect.

first off, i think you have the wrong idea of interval training. you can involve resistance if you want to, but it's entirely optional. a beginner can do it too, it's just that they have to be *introduced* to it gradually. your specification of aerobic activity (which i take is what you mean by "cardio") was given the intent of a solution. and as that, it's not optimal.

>Without knowing other health issues about that person,prescribing exercises is not a good idea.

couldn't agree with you more. in the absence of further information (he said "my bodyfat percentage is 24%, 34 waist, 5Ǝ, 25 years of age, single.") we can only assume he's otherwise ok to assume a weight training/aerobic/anaerobic activity (i.e. he has clearance from his doc etc). we can only assume that he doesn't have any health issues (for if we assumed otherwise, we could have endless scenarios), and hence, interval training still remains the optimal solution for losing fat.

### And after several, your still whining about it. Would like for me to write a book with 3,000 references, with all of the references printed in the back of the book for your convienience?

And you posted a bunch of other info. None of which was challenged by anyone. I asked you about one claim that I wanted you to back up with research. That having love handles indicates poor insulin sensitivity. I'm not asking you to change the subject, or to use the thread to expound upon other things. I asked for something very specific. I'm still waiting.

"Here's one concerning the supra iliac that you wanted so badly"

And you provided a study abstract that showed that obese pre-pubescent boys (you know, boys aged 10 or so) have "abnormal glucose-insulin homeostasis", compared to non-obese boys. Well, no kidding. And surprise, surprise, they measured body fat levels by using the suprailiac, among other sites. No surprise there. But still nothing indicating that love handles, in particular, indicates poor insulin sensitivity.

I perfectly willing to believe you if you find some real research that indicates that love handles (and not just abdominal fat, or central adiposity in general) indicates poor insulin sensitivity. I'm sure many others are, too.

### You have an incredible misconception about research. I posted a study that does in fact support what I stated, yeah it's on pre-pubescent boys, you'll find some on post menopausal women as well, but to absorb all of that info that is out there, you have to read 30-40 of those specific types, then 30-40 more on another topic that is somewhat related then you have to induce and deduce the information with excepted physiology. Further, the first few studies and articles I posted about you essentially chalked them up to being non-existent,....again, I'm not doing homework for you, go figure it out! When doing research, sometimes that's all the info you get in order to go find a study that can help with the topic your research. In fact, I gave a bunch of info in order to find it quickly if one is not too lazy to look it up. When doing research you often know that a study done about "X" topic was done in 1978. ANd you have to go find it. That's the nature of research. Spend a half hour research this topic, you'll learn more in a a half hour than you have in six months. Not all research is "European Journal of Physiology Volume 12 page 62 Istonovich, et.al.

And surely the guy who started this post will want to know if he (and every other guy with love handles) needs to go see a doctor because he's on his way toward Diabetes.

### Doesn't need to see a doc, but needs to get his bodyfat down and insulin sensitivity up.

Hope you still gonna stick with your interval training if he has got some other health issues like Hypertension.That case you can plan for his funeral.He has got high bf so never know about his health issues .Peter made the good point there, you need to know other backgrounds first before jumping into conclussion.

### I don't work for Doc, but I've been a regular on this board for quite a while.

Well I believe he is giving wrong informations.

### Can you possibly defend this assertion?

For that particular client(or pal) that exercise priscription makes sense to me.Well i came to this forum to get right information not wrong information.Most of the stuff the other guy is taking about is right

### Aerobic work after weight training (If that is what you are talking about) is as far from right as you get! I think I timed warmed back to ྐ....I gotta go catch a Van Halen show.

but this guy (Todd)is trying to be smart picking on something stupid...GROW UP.

### What have I been picking on.....I have been trying to explain the illogic of some archaic training, as well as intelligently defend my assertions, I have found NO, reasonable objections to them other some going, huh unh!

Next time before i go to see my G.P. i will ask you first so that i dont waste my time.

>Hope you still gonna stick with your interval training if he has got some other health issues like Hypertension.That case you can plan for his funeral.He has got high bf so never know about his health issues .Peter made the good point there, you need to know other backgrounds first before jumping into conclussion.

Please read what I said. In the absence of any issues mentioned, that is optimal. If you want to assume hypertension, why not assume a host of other issues too? I agree hypertension may be a possibility, but there is no mention of it, so why assume? I think you and peter are jumping to conclusions. I only assumed his doc cleared him.

### LOL, I don't get frustrated Mourad, you've been here a while, you've seen me have other....err....lengthy discussion....I just can't stand mis-information....

You have added a lot to the thread. The input from Parmesh and Danny has been laughable and for the most part I agree with your side of the picture. Parmesh sounds like he has been educated as a personal trainer through some various certification, which just proves to me the need for some national system. He has made some wild assertions indeed, is he implying that to maintain single digit bodyfat without cardio you have to be on steroids? Parmesh, have you ever seen a low weight class olympic lifter? A sprinter? Neither does cardio in the traditional sense and both have much lower bodyfat then all endurace athletes (cardio kings). However, Todd, I just have never heard of any correlation specifically between insulin sensitivity and love handles. Sure I have heard of insulin sensitivity and bodyfat, and someone with higher bf is more likely to have love handles, but I just have been looking for a study to back up that specific fat storage.

### Well, that's where the science is headed.....also, understand, yeah when someone is 36% bodyfat, they'll have fat deposits everywhere, but if you take caliper measurements, that is where the most will be, even if they lose weight but have not gotten their insulin under control. ALso, take someone who is fairly lean, but they have a "problem" area, there will be a condition that can predict where that fat will be. Be it thyroid, cortisol, insulin insensitivity, etc.

I haven't found one on web of science, google scholar, pubmed, columbias journal database or through any other means. If you could provide a reference that would be great.

### I've provided a few, this isn't like low carb diets, this is relatively new information....you just have to dig and read, and read, and read.

### It will take longer with "cardio." In every fat loss research paper ever written, the one constat is fat loss is obtained by activity, there is not one study that finds aerobic work is superior to anaerobic work in body composition changes. However, there are studies showing that interval training produces better body composition changes that aerobic work.

This can be a health issues.Is that particular person doing powerlifting or bodybuilding or any other sports???Is he is just wants to get fit and lose his love handles???I think you are just critizing..Its a talk about some guy we dont even know his goals..and everyone is kind of argueing.

### If he eats a diet high in complex carbs and performs aerobic work after resistance training he will get confused. He won't understand why in 10 weeks his bodyfat is 22% (down 2%). However, if he will read my article that I linked to, train in the manner I mentioned in either this thread or the one above entitled "cardio", and perhaps add interval training, he won't be confused at all. Because in 10 weeks, He will be around 15% bodyfat. I've done it time and time and time again.

His goal was to lose fat. since it's not the first time he's posted on this board, we can only assume he lifts to some degree, and if so, wants to retain his muscle. whether he wants to (retain muscle) or not, interval training is still optimal. misinformation is a bad thing. please read up first before you criticize/come to "argue"/discuss.

link........................

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/henkin4.htm

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/babyboom22.htm

Also, I have posted about this 1 or 12 thousand times, but cardio is a misnomer! Weight training is as cardio as running a 10k! No research indicates better cardiovascular health/performance as a result of aerobic as opposed to anaerobic trainin. Yard work is cardio, weight training is cardio, running or biking 10 miles is cardio, sled draggin is cardio, sprinting intervals is cardio.....however, some are aerobic, and some are anaerobic.

There are plenty of articles that show men store fat principally in the midsection ("love handles"), while women store fat primarily in their hips and thighs. Of course, this is a gross generalization, as we all know men and women who store fat elsewhere as well. But the observations BF storage among men and women certainly qualify as a TREND!

Gotta tell ya! Todd did a pretty damn good job of defending his assertions! And yes, you folks ought to do a bit more perusing of the literature. It's easy nowadays. The internet is full of good stuff. Bad stuff too. Consider the source! Just go to google.com...play around with key word input combinations. You'll understand.

Oh, the zigzag stuff and aerobic stuff? Gotta tell ya...Todd is right on the money! Don't you know that you are in all three pathways of muscular endurance 24/7? How you train affects the BALANCE of the three, certainly. But most of the time...during normal activity...you are MOSTLY in the ATP/CP pathway. This means that your muscle size is indeed important in keeping your metabolism reasonably high 24/7! You cannot increase muscle size while training in the aerobic pathway!

nice

Why do people feel a need to resort to personal attacks when they disagree with someone? This forum is all about exchanging ideas.

another interesting article with some references of its own

In terms of complex carbs having a greater glycemic index, according to our One Touch Ultra glucometers, pasta raises our blood sugar higher than maple syrup. I actually have to go to sleep within 30 minutes of eating gravy with flour in it. But even though two cups of strawberries, touted as a low glycemic high fiber good carb (and tasty too) raises my blood sugar to 140 mg/dl, it still does not spike my blood sugar like a starch will.

He's selling something. Something called "Biosignature Modulation". Those who are savvy to the diet scam industry know this as "spot reducing", an idea that appeals to most people. Which is why it doesn't seem to go away, no matter how little progress is made in its pursuit.

And even if he is a doctor, I would want a scientific reference from him, as well. I don't care how much of an expert someone is, I want to know why they believe what they believe. And if they are making an extraordinary claim, one that goes against an entire body of scientific evidence, then they have a fairly high burden of proof.

But, like I said, I'm willing to believe it, if there is good evidence of it.

And be clear, I never accused you of "making up" anything. You could just be repeating something you believe to be true. Something pulled out of someone's butt. I never said it was your butt.

Mike

Let's be clear that we're talking about "love handles", NOT central adiposity, abdominal fat, visceral fat, a "beer belly", a "spare tire", etc...

"love handles"- pockets of subcutaneous fat sitting on the side of the body, right about where your obliques attach to the pelvis.

If you want to know the best current indicator of whether you are at greater risk of developing Metabolic Syndrome, take a waist measurement.

Mike

the one on the left

He's selling something. Something called "Biosignature Modulation".

### How do you sale Biosignature Modulation.....you called something indicating your ignorrant of what it really is. You have continuously questioned my post, but you have not given a reasonable objection to anything I have said, nor have you explained why I am incorrect, now your accusing something that you know nothing of of being a scam.

Those who are savvy to the diet scam industry know this as "spot reducing", an idea that appeals to most people. Which is why it doesn't seem to go away, no matter how little progress is made in its pursuit.

### Your don't have any understanding about what your talking about right here, your just trying to complain. Can you give any reasonable explanation that would go against anything I have said?

And even if he is a doctor,

### Brandy is a her. She Isn't selling anything. She is speaking about a modality she uses in her practice.

I would want a scientific reference from him, as well.

### Well, Mr. Dr. Brandy makes up her research from the same place I make mine up from. Besides, your incredibly near sighted if you want "A" reference. There is not A reference for this information, there are hundreds from which you must extract this information. You seemingly want something or someone you consider authoritative to produce a paper, that you can deem scientific, to corroborate what I have said. Well, everything I have said is accurate, do some homework and eductate yourself (I'll be more than happy to help short of looking stuff up and posting it for you), or......given me reasons why what I am saying isn't so. Emphasis on reasons....I have done so.

I don't care how much of an expert someone is, I want to know why they believe what they believe.

### But when I explain the why you simply reject for seemingly no reason. Give me a reason why one wouldn't believe what I'm saying. I've given reasons why one would.

And if they are making an extraordinary claim, one that goes against an entire body of scientific evidence, then they have a fairly high burden of proof.

### I have shouldered that burden! What body of scientific evidence are you talking about.....produce your references.....Let's have one that indicates that fat deposits are unrelated to circulating insulin or cortisol.....I would LOOOOOOVE to read that one. Just one! I have provided a small body of evidence and included how one can find the larger body, time to produce yours.

But, like I said, I'm willing to believe it, if there is good evidence of it.

And be clear, I never accused you of "making up" anything.

### You implied it by saying my references could have been pulled out of someone's butt, so yes you did. None of my references are hard to find, that's what references are, they're there so that if someone wants more information they can go and look it up, your obviously unwilling to do so. But you will gripe about an "body of science" that goes against what I have been espousing. Give me a reference I'll go look it up.

You could just be repeating something you believe to be true. Something pulled out of someone's butt. I never said it was your butt.

### Whether it's mine or not you basically accused my references of being false. Also, I don't believe what anybody says to be true. I always find the the reasons for belief in something. That way, when I post something....even something that isn't generally known....I can back up and explain my opinion and give reasons for my beliefs. Do you have a reason for your disbelief other than just not wanting me to be correct? Sorry, but I don't knowingly post things that are incorrect. Now if someone can demonstrably correct me, I'm always willing to learn something new.

From the second post:

"love handles"- pockets of subcutaneous fat sitting on the side of the body, right about where your obliques attach to the pelvis.

### It's the supra iliac. On of nine sites where skin folds for bodyfat measurement are taken.

Complicates deadlifting, doesn't it :-)