FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What can I do to get rid of this excess fat (man
points to his "love-handles" at the sides of his
abdomen, woman points to her hips)?

Fat reduction cannot be achieved in a spot-specific
fashion: There is no way to affect which adipose
stores will be accessed when you’re reducing your
body-fat. All you can do is expend more energy than
you ingest, which necessitates the liberation of fat
from existing stores to make up the difference. Your
genetic proclivity for fat storage will dictate where
you’re more likely to carry fat and which stores will
be used first. The places mentioned above are often
the last areas to be affected.
While high-intensity resistance exercise can be used
to spot-specifically enhance muscular development (a
necessary component of a muscular, defined
appearance), it will have no effect on existing fat
stores. The emphasis for reduction, therefore, should
be on the maintenance of a negative energy balance
(predominantly by maximizing expenditure) to decrease
overall body-fat to a level at which the problem areas
will be reduced. The key component when taking this
approach is cardiovascular exercise, which results in
significant energy usage.

I’ve reduced my overall body-fat to an appropriate
level, but I’m still not happy about this area (man
points to the "love-handles" at the sides of his
abdomen, woman points to her hips). What can I do?

If your body-fat is at the advisable level and you’re
still unhappy about one specific area, you must
evaluate what the problem in that particular place is.
It’s unhealthy to maintain a body-fat percentage that
is excessively low. If you have a sufficient amount of
stored fat and it’s distributed evenly throughout your
body, you’ll probably appear lean everywhere. If, on
the other hand, all of your fat is clustered in one
section, it may prevent you from achieving the
appearance for which you aspire. It’s essential to
understand your genetic predisposition for fat storage
and work within that framework.
Another factor to consider when appearance-related
goals aren’t being met is your actual skeletal
structure. Some men just have wider waists, women
wider hips. In such a case, needless to say, there’s
nothing you can do to reduce the area, since fat
accumulation is not the problem. You can, however, use
spot-specific resistance training to build other
muscles (the latissimus dorsi, teres major and medial
head of the deltoids, for example) to create the
illusion that the problem area is narrower than it
really is.

How many repetitions per set should I do in my
resistance training workouts?

While many quantify intensity by considering
repetition range, the cadences at which different
people lift weights vary, so one person’s six reps may
be equivalent to another’s 12, from an intensity
standpoint. It’s also misleading, since a weight done
for 10 reps shouldn’t be considered a 10-rep weight if
the set was terminated voluntarily before failure
occurred (if it could have been done for 20, for
example, it would be a 20-rep weight that was only
done for 10 reps).
The important thing to consider when attempting to
quantify intensity is duration to failure - how long
can the particular load you’re using be handled before
exhaustion forces cessation of the set. The proper
duration-to-failure range during resistance exercise
is dependent upon your objectives, as well as your
physical capacity and any health-related limitations
you may have. For an apparently healthy adult, a rep
range that brings failure and inability to continue a
set within a relatively short period of time (45-90
seconds) should be used if the goal is to increase
muscle size and strength. If your goals are to simply
maintain the amount of muscle you currently have, the
same range would be used, but the load would not be
progressed so continued adaptations would not be
induced.
Those looking to enhance muscular endurance, on the
other hand, would do sets of longer duration. This
would include athletes (a boxer, for example, would
want to condition his shoulders and arms for
three-minute efforts, in addition to training for the
explosiveness needed to throw effective punches) and
those looking to decrease injury risk by developing
the muscles responsible for the maintenance of proper
postural alignment.

Which is the better method for resistance training -
machines or free weights?

As is the case with most different types of training,
the appropriate mode is the one that is most specific
for the adaptations you’re trying to induce. If you’re
goal is to develop functional strength for everyday
activities, free-weight exercises would be more
specific, since three-dimensional control is required.
Many who lack such coordination restrict themselves to
exclusive machine use when, in actuality, they should
focus on more free-weight movements to enhance their
proprioceptive capabilities.
If maximal muscular stimulation is the goal, on the
other hand, machines are often superior because they
allow for an increased ability to isolate and, in some
cases, vary resistance in accordance with muscular
potential as dictated by the typical strength curve
for that particular muscle.
Since variety is an essential component of any program
designed to bring continued adaptations over the long
term, a combination of free weights and machines is
usually the best approach to stay physically and
mentally stimulated.

As an athlete, I avoid resistance training because I
heard it could adversely affect my performance. Is
that true?

The old theory that athletes should not train with
weights because it will make them muscle-bound has
been proved false time and time again: Many successful
participants in all types of sports train with the
weights to enhance their performance. Resistance
training won’t make you inflexible if you continue to
include regular range of motion enhancement work in
your exercise regime. There are, for example, a number
of competitive bodybuilders with huge legs that can
still do full splits!
Added muscle provides a number of advantages in many
sports. In those where bodyweight is important
(football, for example), adding muscle is the better
way to increase your bodyweight, as compared to adding
fat. Stronger muscles also decrease injury risk, both
by augmenting the integrity of the joints, as well as
providing a type of armor to lessen the severity of
impact-related traumas.
It is important, however, to train in a manner that is
appropriate for improving the skills in your
particular sport. Since most sports involve explosive
power, a typical resistance-training program, where
near-maximal weights are moved at very slow speeds, is
not specific to that attribute. Conventional weight
training can be utilized to increase strength and
build muscle, but explosive exercises should also be
included to translate those gains into a
sport-specific enhanced force-generating potential at
high speeds. Plyometrics and power movements, like
cleans and push presses, are suited well for this
purpose. It’s also essential to continue to perform
the actual high-speed movements involved in the sport
itself (swinging the bat and throwing the ball in
baseball, for example) as the muscle is being gained.

Which cardiovascular exercises are the best for losing
body-fat?

First and foremost, the best exercise to do is always
the one you enjoy and that you can do in a safe
fashion. If I told you that jogging was the most
effective cardio activity, but you hated running and
you frequently injured yourself when you tried, then,
needless to say, it would not be the best one for you.
That having been said, since fat loss requires
establishing a negative energy balance, the most
effective cardiovascular activities for losing
body-fat are the ones that allow you to burn the
highest number of calories per minute given your level
of conditioning. Since calorie burn during aerobic
exercise is proportionate to how much oxygen you
assimilate, exercises that allow you to use the most
oxygen at the lowest perception of exertion (how
taxing it feels to you) should be stressed when fat
loss is the goal.
Just like a specific job is less difficult if you have
more workers contributing to the task, assimilating a
given amount of oxygen is easier if more muscles are
involved. It is less challenging, therefore, to burn a
given amount of calories per minute jogging than it
would be riding a stationary bike. What’s more,
difficulty will be further reduced if all of the
workers are working at about the same level of
exertion, as opposed to some working harder than
others. In keeping with this fact, it’s easier to
assimilate a given amount of oxygen jogging on a flat
surface at a particular speed than it would be moving
at a slower pace on an incline. This is because the
incline would skew the effort toward the lower body
and increase the perception of exertion
disproportionately.
In accordance with the aforementioned criteria,
jogging is probably the best activity for burning the
most calories at the lowest perception of exertion. It
is, however, one of the worst activities when
considering injury risk. Performing exercises that are
similar, but of a low-impact nature, would be more
prudent if jogging was not feasible. I believe one of
the best aerobic exercises for offering the advantages
of jogging with little of the injury-related concerns
is the Nordic Track ski machine.

When doing cardiovascular exercise, how hard should I
work?

Cardiovascular exercise is dependent on the fact that
your oxygen-delivery network can provide an adequate
amount of oxygen to the working cells so that they can
produce energy aerobically. Such is the case anywhere
from a state of complete inactivity all the way up to
the anaerobic threshold - the point dictated by your
level of conditioning above which an adequate amount
of oxygen can’t be delivered and an increased reliance
on anaerobic sources to make up the difference
results.
Where within this range you should work depends upon a
number of factors. If maximizing energy usage is your
goal, as would be the case for anyone looking to lose
body-fat by establishing a deficit in their
intake-expenditure balance, working close to the
anaerobic threshold would be advantageous. This would
be the exertion level that would require the most
energy per minute, while still allowing continuance
for a long duration. Exercise done above the anaerobic
threshold uses more energy per minute, but can only be
maintained for a short period of time before
breathlessness and burning in the muscle forces
cessation or a reduction of intensity. Those looking
for maximal stimulation of their cardiovascular
systems for conditioning and to derive the health
benefits associated with such improvements would also
find exercise done at this level to be the most
beneficial.
There are, however, some potential drawbacks to doing
all your aerobic training efforts at such a high
intensity. For the de-conditioned, the overweight or
those just beginning an exercise program, the level of
difficulty might make such exhaustive work
inappropriate. What’s more, the risk of injury
increases considerably when such taxing workouts are
done regularly.
The prudent approach often is to cycle the intensity
of your efforts, doing longer, less intense sessions
interspersed with shorter ones of a higher aerobic
work-rate. Interval training, where the intensity is
varied during the actual session, is also a good
approach - especially for those looking to improve
their capacity to a level where they can eventually do
the whole session at an intensity that brings them to
their anaerobic threshold. Reducing the low-intensity
intervals gradually, while increasing the time spent
at the higher work-rate, will move one with this
objective toward their goal.

Does creatine really work and, if so, how?

In the world of bodybuilding, one of the most
controversial topics is performance enhancement via
supplement usage. Many bodybuilders swear by a wide
variety of products, while legitimate research proving
their efficacy is lacking. Creatine is one of the few
supplements that is recognized in some general
research literature as effective for its designed
purpose.
When high-power output activities (those that have a
high energy requirement per unit time) are undertaken,
the body must rely on anaerobic sources to supply the
needed energy, since oxygen assimilation limitations
prevent aerobic predominance. The initial means used
by the muscle cell to provide quick energy in an
oxygen-deficient environment is to utilize the stored
phosphagens within the cell (adenosine triphosphate
and creatine phosphate). Regular ingestion of a
creatine supplement bathes the cells with more
creatine than would normally be the case, resulting in
an increased ability to store the high-energy
compound. Once such increased levels are induced
(after the loading phase, 20-30 grams per day), these
levels can be sustained by taking in a daily
maintenance dose (5-10 grams per day).
While the use of a creatine supplement would seem
relatively harmless, sufficient long-term studies
haven’t been performed to ensure that such use carries
no inherent risks. As is the case with most things
that are ingested that are naturally occurring within
the body, continued intake of excessive amounts of a
creatine supplement may result in the body decreasing
its own processing of the compound. In addition,
creatine has been implicated in various
dehydration-related problems as a result of it
inducing increased cellular water retention, a
phenomenon known as cell volumizing (a benefit for
those looking to fill out their muscles).
The jury is still out on the use of creatine
supplements. While they are probably an important
component in the supplement program of any top-notch
competitive bodybuilder, especially those who train
drug free, the appropriateness of their use for the
average person who just wants to add some muscle is
questionable. It certainly isn’t necessary for a
beginner, who can experience significant gains by
increasing their training efforts progressively before
the plateaus where creatine ingestion may be helpful
arise.

How much protein should I be ingesting if my goal is
to add muscle to my body?

Adding muscle is a slow process, even for a beginner
whose window of opportunity for growth is relatively
large. While the protein requirements for one looking
to add muscle are greater than simply ingesting enough
to account for the normal recuperative processes
occurring on a daily basis within the body, the
assumption that very high intake will result in
greater gains is false. Assuming adequate carbohydrate
ingestion (ensuring conditions where protein use as a
fuel source is negligible), only a small quantity
above maintenance requirements is necessary for the
additional amount needed to be synthesized to increase
muscle mass.
The RDA (recommended dietary allowance) for protein
for the average adult is .8 grams per kilogram of
bodyweight. It’s now accepted that those involved in
exercise need more, with estimates ranging between 1.2
to 1.8 grams per kilogram.
Many athletes whose metabolisms are very fast will
take in much more than the recommended values, even if
restricting protein ingestion to 25-30 percent of
their daily caloric intake. Since enough calories are
left over for adequate carbohydrate and fat ingestion,
doing so as a type of insurance is understandable.
There are, however, certain possible health problems
associated with excessive protein ingestion. Such
intake results in the kidneys being taxed, since they
must eliminate excessive amounts of urea, a byproduct
of protein breakdown. Adequate water intake when
protein ingestion is very high is essential to help
prevent kidney-related problems.

Do carbohydrates make you fat?

Fat stores are increased when energy ingestion exceeds
usage: Whether that intake comes from protein,
carbohydrates or fat is irrelevant. The key to not
increasing adipose stores on your body is not
ingesting more energy than you’re expending. Once the
proper intake level (daily caloric requirements) for
your particular objectives is established,
macronutrient proportions (how much protein, carbs and
fat to ingest) should be set up to allow for
maximizing both physical and mental performance at
that particular quantity of intake. Since
carbohydrates are the body’s preferred fuel source
during exercise and the most efficient supplier of
glucose, the fuel that the central nervous system runs
on, adequate intake is essential for exercisers
interested in maximizing their performance, as well as
their health.
Since a positive energy balance makes you fat,
attempts to prevent such deposition should be focused
on keeping expenditure high. This includes
maintaining, or better yet, increasing the amount of
muscle on your body, being as active as possible and
using more energy for digestion by spreading your
intake over more frequent feedings. Intake reduction
also helps keep intake less than or equal to
expenditure, but care should be taken because
excessively low or dramatically lowered intake levels
can slow the metabolism, both by bringing a wasting of
existing muscle and invoking the body’s natural
starvation mechanism.

I want to be a successful bodybuilder. Should I use
steroids?

This is a very difficult question to answer. On the
one hand, steroids and other performance-enhancing
drugs that are routinely used in bodybuilding, have
numerous side effects - some of which can actually be
fatal. It is also now a felony offense to use such
drugs for that purpose. It seems like it would be a
no-brainer: Avoid the use of any such substances at
all costs.
On the other hand, whether you like it or not,
performance-enhancing drugs are a major part of
competitive bodybuilding, as well as many other
sports. People who don’t know much about bodybuilding
are always surprised when I say I compete in the
drug-free arena: They usually ask, "You mean drug use
is legal in some competitions?" I explain that while
that assertion is not stated outright, as is the case
during any highly competitive athletic endeavor, any
means is used to perform as well as possible.
To many athletes, health and ethics are secondary -
winning is the ultimate objective. There are numerous
non-drug-related examples of this in the sports world.
The quarterback is lauded for leading his team to
victory when injured, in spite of the fact that the
health ramifications of his doing so will be
considerable. How about the cagey leadoff hitter who
tries to "sell" being hit by an inside pitch to take
first base. If no bodybuilders ever used drugs to
improve their condition, it wouldn’t be an issue. Once
some do, anyone wishing to compete on a level playing
field against them will have to follow suit. The drug
users are not evil cheaters; they’re just highly
competitive athletes doing everything they can to
achieve victory.
The resulting paradox is that bodybuilding, a pursuit
that used to be considered the quest for ultimate
health, becomes, in actuality, quite unhealthy. Those
looking to go to the top in the untested bodybuilding
world have no choice but to play by these rules. There
are, however, some other factors to consider.
In the ‘70s and ‘80s, while drug-tested shows did
exist, they were small-time in comparison to the
mainstream ones where no testing was done. During the
‘90s, that changed with the birth of the World Natural
Bodybuilding Federation and professional drug-tested
bodybuilding. An athlete that doesn’t want to use
drugs, but aspires to be a pro bodybuilder, can now do
so in this very prestigious organization. While the
notoriety and financial rewards in the WNBF are
relatively small when compared to the opportunities
available to untested competitors, they’re growing and
still sufficient to provide the motivation necessary
to live the bodybuilding lifestyle without using
drugs.
Regardless of which direction you decide to pursue, a
couple of things are certain. Even if you can justify
using drugs and are prepared to deal with any of the
possible repercussions associated with their use, you
should only do so if you wish to compete and only
after you reach your genetic potential and have
achieved success in some entry level shows. Training
drug-free is one option, being a drug-using highly
successful participant in the untested world is
another - but there’s no justification for using a lot
of potentially dangerous substances and never even
being able to win a small show. Even worse, accepting
those risks simply to walk around looking good on the
beach and never even compete is completely
unnecessary.
Whether or not to use steroids is an extremely
important decision that should be approached in a very
responsible manner. With the advent of professional
drug-free bodybuilding, one should no longer feel
compelled to have to do something that they are not
comfortable doing. Hopefully, as drug-free
bodybuilding continues to evolve and the opportunities
available for natural athletes further increase, the
incentives for staying drug free will keep growing.

back to top