4
Things Your Girlfriend Should Know
by Tony Gentilcore, CSCS, CPT
Tech note: This article contains videos delivered in Flash. You will need
the latest version of the Flash Player (at least version 7) to view them. If
you cannot see the videos, please
CLICK HERE to
download and install the latest player now. It is free, quick, and easy.
Being a man in today's society is darn tough. We're inundated with constant
struggles and frustrations:
1. Deciding which is the
best trilogy ever made: the original Star Wars or Lord of the
Rings?
2. Which Jessica to
choose from: Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba, or Jessica Simpson?
Jessica
Alba. Hands down.
3. Pre-mature
ejaculation (poor souls)
4. Trying our very best
to not throw the television out the window every time we see Jared (from
Subway) espousing the benefits of eating a low-fat diet.
5. Trying to convince
our girlfriend or wife that lifting weights won't make her look like a
she-man.
Being a guy myself, I feel your pain.
I know how frustrating it can be to try to convince a woman (let alone your
significant other) that doing endless hours of aerobics or spending the
majority of her gym time using those hip abductor/adductor machines is a
fruitless endeavor from a body composition standpoint.
If you're in the same situation as
most guys, the likelihood that your girlfriend will accompany you to the gym
on deadlift day is about as slim as Rosie O'Donnell keeping her big yapper
shut.
Needless to say, this is for all the
guys out there who are losing the battle. This article will help you
convince that special lady in your life that what she's been doing in the
gym is flat-out wrong. You can thank me later.
I can only imagine how much hate mail
I'm going to receive after saying what I'm about to say, but it has
to be said. Ready?
Yoga stinks.
Well, it doesn't stink entirely; it
just mainly stinks. Guess I just blew my shot at ever dating a yoga
instructor.
Women are fascinated with yoga. Given
the claims the majority of yoga "gurus" tout, it's no wonder all these women
are under the assumption that yoga will do everything from help them lose
weight and get stronger to bringing sexy back.
The fact is, when it comes to general
fitness and body compositional goals, most females want and/or need the
following:
Decreased body fat
Increased strength
Improved daily/athletic
function
Increased bone density
Increased flexibility
Lets break these down one by one and
compare yoga to resistance training:
In order to decrease body fat, you
have to provide some sort of caloric deficit either through dieting or
through increased caloric expenditure from physical activity (or some form
of both). I'm going to leave the dieting component alone for now (I think
women tend to drastically under-eat as it is), but I do want to elaborate on
the latter component.
Yoga doesn't cause a high (or acute)
or post-exercise calorie expenditure, which is one of the main factors in
fat loss. Many people equate sweating to burning a lot of calories. Sorry
ladies, but just because you sweat a lot while taking a class in a 105
degree room doesn't mean you're burning a lot of calories. You wouldn't say
you're burning that many calories sun bathing on the beach would you?
Not exactly
what I'd call a calorie burning activity.
How many calories do you think you can
burn standing or sitting in one spot for an hour, which is essentially what
you do in a typical yoga class? Numerous studies have shown that resistance
training elevates EPOC (Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption) for upwards
of 24 to 48 hours after you're done training.
Simply put, not only will you burn
more calories during one hour of resistance training compared to one hour of
yoga, but you'll also burn more calories even when you're not in the
gym. More calories burned equals more body fat lost. I've yet to see one
study which shows yoga does anything to increase EPOC significantly (if at
all).
Additionally, yoga doesn't provide
resistance sufficient enough to increase or preserve lean body mass (LBM),
which is directly correlated with metabolism and thus the rate at which you
burn calories. Yes, beginners might see transient increases in LBM in the
beginning, but that's mainly because most women who go from doing nothing to
participating in yoga classes are so de-conditioned that their body weight
elicits enough of a stimulus to cause a slight change.
Careful
honey, ya might get "too big!"
As Vladimir Zatsiorsky states in his
book, Science and Practice of Strength Training, muscular strength is
defined as "the ability to overcome or counteract external resistance by
muscular effort; also, the ability to generate maximum external force." (1)
In order to generate maximum force (get stronger), a trainee needs to
incorporate one of three methods:
1. Maximum Effort
Method: Lifting a maximum load (exercising against maximum resistance).
2. Repeated Effort
Method: Lifting non-maximal load to failure (albeit still taking into
consideration the rule of progressive overload. Relying on one's body weight
will only take you so far).
3. Dynamic Effort
Method: Lifting a non-maximal load with the highest attainable speed.
The fact is, yoga isn't easily
"modifiable" to facilitate constant adaptation for strength gains, unless of
course your girlfriend wants to gain weight (highly unlikely). Yoga will in
fact develop strength to a point, but soon thereafter you're just training
strength endurance. If bodyweight is constant, then progressive resistance
isn't possible without adding an external load.
Well,
that's one way to increase resistance.
This is especially important for women
because they're at higher risk of developing osteoporosis compared to men
(especially if they're Caucasian, Asian, or slight of build).
In terms of stimulating new bone
formation, what's needed is something called a minimal essential strain
(MES), which refers to a threshold stimulus that initiates new bone
formation. "A force that reaches or exceeds this threshold and is repeated
often enough will signal osteoblasts to migrate to that region of the bone
and lay down matrix proteins (collagen) to increase the strength of the bone
in that area." (2)
Furthermore, physical activities that
generate forces exceeding the MES are those activities that represent an
increase in intensity relative to normal daily activities. For sedentary or
elderly individuals, this might be where yoga could be enough of a stimulus
to cause an MES and new bone formation (bodyweight exceeds the threshold).
However, you still have to take into
consideration the rule of progressive overload (bodyweight will only take
them so far) and for younger or more active people, higher intensity
activities such as sprinting, jumping, and heavy resistance training will
need to be included to exceed MES.
Regardless of one's training history
or lifestyle, it's clear that the activities chosen to increase bone density
need to be progressive and weight bearing in nature. Yoga doesn't do this.
During a yoga class, you're sitting
and/or standing in one spot for 45 to 60 minutes. This will not
equate to better efficiency or performance in daily life or on the athletic
field. As an athlete your time is better spent elsewhere.
This one I'll concede to yoga. It does
help to improve flexibility, which is a good thing (sort of). Unfortunately,
it tends to promote flexibility/mobility in areas of the body where it
doesn't need it!
If we were to take a joint-by-joint
look at the body, we'd notice that there's a delicate balance between
mobility/stability:
|
Joint |
What It
"Needs" |
|
Ankle |
Mobility |
|
Knee |
Stability |
|
Hips |
Mobility |
|
Lumbar Spine |
Stability |
|
Thoracic Spine |
Mobility |
|
Scapulae |
Stability/Mobility |
I've worked with many clients with
extended histories of lower back pain who start participating in yoga
classes through the recommendation of a friend or worse yet, an uninformed
physician. Their rationale: "All you need to do is stretch out your back."
Quite possibly the worst piece of advice to give.
As you can see from above, the lumbar
spine (lower back) generally needs to be trained with stability in mind.
Many of the poses in yoga promote hyperextension of the lumbar spine, which
is the last thing it needs. Most back issues are extension-based, which just
means that an individual is getting more ROM (range of motion) at the lumbar
spine due to lack of ROM at the hips. Essentially with yoga, you're
promoting more ROM (and thus instability) in a place where it needs less ROM
(more stability).
What are
you talking about? My back feels great!
Furthermore, what good is it to have
all this extra mobility or ROM if you can't stabilize in that range of
motion in the first place? Having excessive ROM (in the wrong places)
without the strength to stabilize that ROM actually predisposes people to
injury.
So while yoga does enhance flexibility
and mobility, resistance training actually facilitates movement through that
range of motion, and provides the dynamic control to allow you to utilize
the range of motion safely.
I realize that what I wrote above is
going to rub a lot of people the wrong way, but like I stated in the
beginning, it had to be said. While yoga is an excellent modality to help
improve the mind-body connection, and it certainly is a valuable tool in the
"overall fitness toolbox," it doesn't hold a flame to resistance training as
far as what the majority of women want/need from their time in the gym.
A good rule of thumb most women should
follow would be to train three times per week while incorporating a healthy
dose of soft tissue work and dynamic flexibility. Once all of that is met,
then she can incorporate yoga into the mix.
I love low rep training. I love low
rep training almost as much as I love Justin Timberlake's "Dick in a Box"
parody he did on SNL not too long ago.
Sorry
fellas. I had to include some eye candy for the ladies here.
Unfortunately, most women (including
your girlfriend) are obsessed with "dieting" and love the color pink. As a
result, they love to perform endless repetitions with those 8 pound pink
dumbbells every chance they get, thinking that this will elicit more fat
loss. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Ditch the light weights
(especially when you're dieting). You'll just end up with a fragile, weak,
and soft looking body, otherwise known as the "skinny-fat" look. Your
muscles will lack what's known as good neurogenic or myogenic tone
(basically fancy words used to express muscle hardness).
What's with
the pink dumbbells!
Simply put, there are
two types of muscle tone: myogenic and neurogenic. The former refers to your
muscle tone at rest; the latter refers to muscle tone that's expressed when
muscular contractions occur.
Low(er) rep training
increases the sensitivity of various motor units resulting in increased
neurogenic tone. On the other hand, myogenic tone is correlated with the
overall density of your muscles (specifically the contractile proteins
myosin and actin) and is vastly improved by lifting heavier weights.
This pink
thing is outta hand!
This is going to come as
a shock to most women, but utilizing light weights (anything above twelve
reps in my book) while dieting will likely result in loss of muscle, which
is the exact opposite of what you want to happen.
When dieting, the body
will adapt to the caloric deficit by down-regulating many of the hormones
involved with metabolism (T3, T4, leptin, etc.), as well as getting rid of
metabolically active tissue (muscle.) Obviously you'd want to prevent this
from happening in the first place, which is why I always recommend that
women drop the 20 rep sets and start training with heavier weights.
"Whatever. All the fitness magazines
say I should use high reps for fat loss when I'm dieting, and they obviously
know what they're talking about. Now when are you taking the garbage out?"
When someone goes on a diet, catabolic
hormones, which promote muscle breakdown, rise (bad). Anabolic hormones,
which promote muscle growth, decline (also bad). Your body is smarter than
you, and it will "slow down" to work at your reduced caloric intake. As a
result, it'll reduce whatever is metabolically active — muscle.
In regards to training, a great way I
like to explain things is from a conversation I had via e-mail with Erik
Ledin, a well known figure coach:
"If you train light, you'll keep
enough muscle to be able to continue to train light. But given this doesn't
take a lot, from a relative and individual standpoint (i.e. it takes more
muscle to lift a weight that limits you to 8 reps than it does to lift a
weight that limits you to 20) you'll keep what you need to accomplish these
generally 'easier' tasks. The key to a lean, hard body is a nice balance
between nutrition, cardio, and low rep, heavy weight training.
What builds muscle is what keeps muscle."
I'm willing
to bet she didn't use pink dumbbells to look like this
Question: "Sugarbottoms,
how 'bout I teach you how to squat today?"
Answer: "But I don't
want to get big and bulky."
Newsflash, ladies: You will not
get "big and bulky" just because you're doing squats and deadlifts. That
statement is akin to me saying, "Eh, I don't want to do any sprints today
because I don't want to win the 100m gold medal next week." Getting big and
bulky isn't easy, just like winning the 100m gold medal isn't easy.
If anything, it's an insult to all
those people who've spent years in the gym to look the way they do. It
didn't happen overnight, which is what you're assuming by saying something
so absurd.
And let's be honest, most people (men
and women) won't work hard enough to get "big and bulky" in the first place.
It's hard enough for a man to put on any significant amount of muscle, let
alone a woman. Women are physiologically at a disadvantage for putting on
muscle due to the fact that they have ten times less free Testosterone in
their bodies compared to men.
That being said, you still need to get
the most bang out of your training buck, and that includes ditching the
glute-buster machine and focusing more on the compound movements. Joe
Dowdell, owner of Peak Performance in NYC, trains many of the top female
models in the city and their programming includes squats, deadlifts,
chin-ups, bench variations, sled dragging, and tons of energy system work.
Yes, Victoria's Secret models are
doing squats and deadlifts. And yes, that's completely hot. Guess what
they're not doing? Watching Oprah every day while walking on the treadmill
for 60 minutes.
If Giselle
can do Romanian deadlifts, so can you.
Just because you're a woman doesn't
mean you can't train like a man and lift some serious weight. I never bought
into this whole mindset that women are these delicate creatures that can't
hang with the boys.
Heck, even my own girlfriend is hooked
now. Two months ago, she never attempted a deadlift, now she's pulling over
200 pounds (209 in this video) and loves it. And she still looks like a girl
no less! In all actuality, since she started training with me occasionally,
she's gotten leaner and stronger. To quote her, "My glutes went from flab to
fab."
Not to beat a dead Barbaro (er, I mean
horse), but steady state cardio/aerobics isn't the most efficient way to
burn body fat. I like lists, so I'm going to use a list to prove my point.
Steady state cardio doesn't elevate EPOC all that much, which again is one
of the main factors in fat loss. Sure, one hour of steady state cardio will
probably burn more calories than one hour of resistance training, but it's
the calories you burn in the other 23 hours outside of the gym that
really matter.
Essentially, once you're done doing
steady state cardio, you're done burning calories. However, with resistance
training and/or with high intensity interval training (HIIT), your body's
metabolism will be elevated for upwards of 24 to 48 hours. Thus, you'll burn
a ton more calories.
Speaking of metabolism, yours is in direct correlation with how much LBM
(lean body mass) you have. The more LBM you have, the higher your
metabolism. Given that long duration, steady state cardio actually eats away
muscle; you're shooting yourself in the foot in that regard.
The
"fat burning zone" doesn't exist. It's true that your body will burn a
greater percentage of fat at lower intensities; however, the total
calories being burned is so small that it doesn't even really matter. Again,
it all comes down to EPOC.
As
Alwyn Cosgrove has pointed out on numerous occasions, your body adapts very
well to cardiovascular exercise (in this case, steady state cardio). This is
a bad thing. As you get more efficient at running a certain distance, the
work required to complete that distance will become less and less as you get
fitter.
To improve, you have to go further in
order to burn the same amount of calories. What once took you 30 minutes to
burn "X" amount of calories, now takes you 45 minutes. Doesn't sound too
efficient in my book.
A
great analogy I like to use is comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter.
Marathon runners do a ton of long distance, steady state work, and yet still
average anywhere from 11 to 14% body fat (still somewhat lean, but not very
muscular at all. Many of them still have the "skinny-fat" look).
On the other hand, sprinters do
anywhere from 10 to 120 seconds of "work" and yet average 6 to 8% body fat.
Just goes to show that short, intense bursts of energy (anaerobic work) is
generally far superior to longer, less intense bursts of energy (aerobic)
when taking body composition into consideration.
Elite
Female Marathon Runner
(2+ hours of aerobic activity: skinny, but not impressive)
Elite
Female Sprinter
(10-20 seconds of anaerobic activity: lean and muscular)
Note: I realize that the majority of
women out there don't necessarily want to look like the above example of the
sprinter. But the point I'm trying to make here is that she doesn't spend
hours on end performing drawn out, steady state cardio to look the way she
does. And yet she's a heckuva lot leaner than the marathon runner. Food for
thought.
The
majority of your fat loss should come via diet, not copious amounts of
steady state cardio/aerobics. From a time efficiency standpoint, which makes
more sense? Not eating that bowl of cereal at night (300-500 calories) or
spending 60 minutes on a treadmill to burn that same 300-500 calories every
single day?
Steady state cardio/aerobics does little to change how your body looks.
Sure, you may lose 20 pounds, but you'll still be the same "shape." You
won't look leaner, only smaller (not to mention weaker).
Lets be honest, do you really enjoy spending 45-60 minutes on one
piece of equipment?
• Women need to eat more
protein. Cassandra Forsythe says it best, "When in doubt, eat meat."
• You can't be on
a diet forever. Learn to incorporate
dietary breaks.
• Ladies, you're four
times more likely to have an ACL tear compared to men. Get off the leg
extension and leg curl machines and train your posterior chain more! Perform
various deadlifts, box squats, Anderson squats, pull-throughs, glute-ham
raises, one-legged back extensions, and lots of single leg work.
• Train with your man.
He secretly loves it.
• Get off your cell
phone, for the love of God!
Okay, fellas, all you have to do now
is click the "print" button and strategically place this article in a place
where you know your girlfriend will see it. Your best bet would either be in
between the pages of this week's People magazine or inside the DVD
case of any of the following movies: Steel Magnolias, Dirty
Dancing, or The Notebook. Good luck!
Tony Gentilcore is
a certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) and personal trainer
(CPT) through the NSCA. He currently resides in the Boston area and can be
contacted at
tgentilcore18@yahoo.com.
1. Zatsiorsky, V.
Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
1995.
2. Baechle, T., Earle,
R., and Wathen, D. Resistance Training.. In: Essentials of Strength and
Conditioning (2nd Ed.) Baechle, T.R., Earle, R.W.., ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2000.
© 1998 — 2007 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.