Tom Venuto/Lyle McDonald " Stubborn Fat And How To Get Rid o
janesmith1
Posts: 1,511 Member
Tom Venuto's BodybuildingSecrets.com
Stubborn Fat And How To Get Rid of It Pt.1
Tom Venuto
Men have big problems with lower abdominal, waist and lower back fat, but women have an even more trouble losing hip, butt and thigh fat. In this revealing interview with Lyle McDonald - the first in our Bodybuilding Secrets Expert Interview series - one of the most knowledgeable science researchers in the field reveals the truth about spot reduction, why fat “sticks” to you in certain places, why women’s lower body fat is so stubborn, how lower and upper body fat are different and the 3-step process for eliminating stubborn fat. .
Stubborn Fat And How To Get Rid of It:
Tom Venuto Interviews Lyle McDonald
In Part I of this cutting-edge interview with Tom Venuto and Lyle McDonald, women will learn how to get rid of stubborn hip, thigh and butt fat. Men will discover how to get rid of annoying lower ab and lower back fat. You’ll learn: The fat-burning ‘Lock and Key’ mechanism, How hormones affect patterns of fat storage, the plan fitness models use to go from low body fat to extremely low body fat, why women tend to have more stubborn lower body fat then men and exactly what to do about it, the truth about the hormone Cortisol and how it affects belly fat storage and a 3-step blueprint for eliminating stubborn fat.
stubborn_fat_book_cover_large.jpg
Tom Venuto: Ok Lyle I finally read your stubborn fat book cover to cover and two things jumped out at me at first. One was the huge implications for women to finally get rid of stubborn hip and butt fat, so we’ll come back to that. The other was that this is cutting-edge, scientific and sophisticated stuff and that raises the first question, who is this book really for in terms of the type of reader and the type of physical condition they’re in?
Lyle McDonald: While I’d love to say that the book is for everyone, it’s really not. The topic discussed in the book, that is stubborn body fat, only really becomes a problem when males and females get to a fairly low level of body fat. On average, this might be 10-12% for men and perhaps 15-17% for women. This is when men start to have problems with abdominal (especially lower abdominal) and low-back fat.
For women, the problem is almost always in the lower body; the hips and thigh fat in women can be notoriously resistant to loss. Generally speaking, those problems will start in about the ranges listed above. A typical female at that point might already have a fairly well defined six pack and a shredded shoulder girdle and pecs. But the lower body, the hips and thighs will still be soft (a polite way of saying ‘fat’).
In some men, of course, there can be problems with lower body fat. And, at least at the competitive bodybuilding level, with striated glutes becoming more and more common, even among naturals, males may have to start worrying about how to target the stubborn lower body fat that has been, up to this point, purely an issue for females.
Tom Venuto: From a male bodybuilder’s perspective, I’ve never really experienced lower ab or lower back fat as “stubborn” per se and I could easily define “stubborn fat” simply as the last fat to come off. But obviously, after someone reads your book, they can see that there’s more to it than that, so what is your definition of “stubborn fat?”
Lyle McDonald: That’s part of it, yes. The body tends to show a distinct pattern of fat loss in terms of where it will draw calories (in the form of stored fat) for energy on a diet. So in that sense, ‘stubborn fat’ is simply the last place to come off.
However, of more interest to me (and keeping with what’s discussed in the book), there are distinct physiological reasons that certain areas of body fat come off before others (or come off slower than others, depending on how you want to look at it). Issues of blood flow, how those fat cells respond to hormones such as insulin and adrenaline/noradrenaline and others all contribute to how easy (or not) it is to get fat out of those areas.
Stubborn fat, and I’d note up front that men’s abdominal and low-back fat is NEVER as stubborn as women’s lower body fat, tends to be stubborn because of number of differences in physiology that not only make it easier for the body to store fat in those fat cells after you eat, but make it more difficult to get them back out when you diet (or exercise).
Tom Venuto: Let’s put stubborn fat into the perspective of a hypocaloric diet. Some people would say that you’re guaranteed to get leaner as long as you have the calorie deficit. But what I’ve gathered from your info is that the stubborn fat problem still persists in some people despite a diligently maintained energy deficit because you draw that energy from everywhere except those stubborn fat areas. So obviously this wouldn’t contradict the calories in and calories out principle, because you DO get leaner or lose body mass with the basic negative calorie balance approach, but the body simply can’t pull the fat out of certain areas, leaving you leaner in most of your body but still stuck with fat in stubborn areas. Does that explain the big picture about right?
Lyle McDonald: I want to make it absolutely clear that I’m not suggesting that the body is somehow going to violate calories in versus calories out due to stubborn fat. Rather, what can happen is that where the body pulls those calories from (to cover the deficit) which has to do with calorie partitioning (where the calories go or come from when you gain or lost weight respectively). And, ignoring the contribution from glycogen stores, let’s keep it simple and say that the body has two places to pull calories from when you diet: fat cells and skeletal muscle.
Now, think about a situation where there is tons of fat available for fuel such as extreme obesity. Short of some truly idiotic approaches, what you’d expect to see is that most of the weight lost will come from fat with little from muscle. And this is exactly what happens.
But now consider the opposite situation, where there is little or no fat available for fuel. If the body still has to cover the caloric deficit (from diet, exercise or both), what does it have to do? Break down muscle. And, as everyone who’s dieted to extreme levels of leanness knows, muscle loss accelerates as folks get leaner.
Now, I’d note that there are a whole host of physiological reasons (involving hormones such as testosterone, cortisol, etc.) involved in this. But an inability to mobilize fat for fuel (which is more difficult as you get to the ‘stubborn’ areas is probably part of it. Simply: if you can’t get the fat out of fat cells to cover the deficit, the body will go looking for another source of energy and that’s usually skeletal muscle.
Tom Venuto: That last point is a bit scary. You could faithfully be in a calorie deficit, but actually burn muscle for the energy you need because your body can’t even get fat out of the fat cells. You’ve pointed out some differences among various fat cells and subcutaneous fat depots. What’s different about abdominal fat and lower body fat in general and between the genders?
Lyle McDonald: Well, as above, there are a host of differences between the different stores of fat usually involving blood flow, the relative sensitivity or insensitivity to insulin, and the relative sensitivity (or insensitivity) to the hormones adrenaline/noradrenaline. There is also research suggesting site specific differences in what types of fats are stored in the different fat cells; this is relevant as different types of fat (e.g. saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated) are mobilized with relatively more ease or difficulty.
In general, visceral fat is the most responsive to lipolytic (fat mobilizing) stimuli, has great blood flow and is relatively resistant to insulin. This makes it very easy to get rid of.
Abdominal fat, and I’d note that ab fat has now been divided into three different segments (deep, upper superficial, lower superficial) with slightly different characteristics, is more sensitive to insulin, slightly less sensitive to lipolytic stimuli, and has slightly worse blood flow.
Finally is lower body, hip and thigh fat which is profoundly sensitive to insulin, fairly insensitive to lipolytic stimuli, and has unbelievably bad blood flow. In fact, one study found that lower body fat has 67% less blood flow than upper body fat.
As far as differences between genders, there actually turns out to not be a huge difference between men and women in terms of the fat cells from the different areas. That is, if you study a fat cell from a man’s butt, it will be physiologically more or less identical to that from a woman’s. The difference is that, on average, men don’t store many calories in lower body fat cells. The same works in reverse, a woman’s ab fat is identical to a man’s, women simply don’t usually store much fat there.
Tom Venuto: Well, I won’t be studying fat cells from men’s butts any time soon, but the differences between men and women are very interesting. I know that adrenoreceptors play a major role in all this. Could you give us “adrenoreceptors 101” in a way that even the non-science folks could understand it?
Lyle McDonald: As a bit of foreground, readers need to understand that hormones work through a sort of lock and key mechanism (note: this simple model has become much more complex of late but I’ll skip the details). So, to exert their signal (such as ‘store fat’ or ‘mobilize fat’) a hormone (the key) fits into its receptor (the lock) and things happen.
Adrenoceptors (aka adrenoreceptors) are the ‘lock’ that exists for the hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline (aka epinephrine/norepinephrine). Adrenaline is released from the adrenal gland and travels through the bloodstream, noradrenaline is released from nerve terminals and have their effects mostly locally.
Now, these hormones do a number of things in the body, they can increase heart rate and blood pressure, increase blood flow, increase energy expenditure, etc. One of their effect is to mobilize fatty acids for fuel and they do this by binding to adrenoceptors on the fat cell.
Now, there are two broad classes of adrenoceptors which are the alpa-receptors and beta-receptors. Within each class there are sub-types. There are two primary alpha-receptors called alpha-1 and alpha-2 receptors. For fat cell metabolism, only alpha-2 is relevant. There are at least three beta-receptors (beta-1,2,3) and possibly one more. Beta-3 receptors got a lot of press years ago since they seem to be involved in a type of fat (brown adipose tissue) that burns fat. Unfortunately, humans don’t usually have much BAT so they fell the by the wayside.
In any case, beta-1 and 2 receptors are all that we’re interested in for fat cell metabolism. Here’s where it gets interesting. Both adrenaline and noradrenaline can bind to both kinds of receptors and where they bind determines what happens in the fat cell.
When adrenaline/noradrenaline bind to beta-receptors, they stimulate fat breakdown. That’s good.
When adrenaline/noradrenaline bind to alpha-receptors, they inhibit fat breakdown. That’s bad.
But what this means is that adrenaline/noradrenaline can either send a good or bad signal, they can either stimulate or inhibit fat breakdown. What determines which signal they send? Well, the levels of each hormone play a role (low levels of each hormone may exert different effects than large amounts) but the biggy is the ratio of alpha to beta receptors.
Fat cells which have lots of alpha-receptors relative to beta-receptors will tend to have an inhibitory signal sent when adrenaline and noradrenaline while fat cells with lots of beta-receptors relative to alpha-receptors will have a stimulatory signal sent.
Guess which types of fat cells have lots more alpha-receptors than beta receptors?
Tom Venuto: Are we talking about spot reduction being a reality?
Lyle McDonald: Absolutely not. The idea behind spot reduction is usually that, through some odd combination of exercises (usually local exercises such as lots of crunches for the abs or lots of lower body work for the thighs) that the body will preferentially take fat from that area and burn it off.
This also implies that the normal order by which fat is lost (e.g. from easiest to most stubborn area) can be worked around. So for example, via spot reduction, you might end up with a woman who had shredded legs before her upper body had leaned out. A nice idea, unfortunately a basic physiological impossibility.
The protocols in the stubborn fat solution book aren’t spot reduction and can’t be used to affect what order the body loses fat in. Rather, they are designed to facilitate mobilization of fat stores that tend to not come off no matter what a dieter does at the end of the diet. That is, once the person is at the level where the rest of the fat has come off and they are down to stubborn fat, the protocols are meant to facilitate loss of those stubborn areas. But it’s not spot reduction.
Tom Venuto: Speaking of stubborn fat and spot reduction, there’s a theory promoted especially by one prominent strength coach that where you store your fat tells you about your hormonal status and that based on your skinfold thicknesses at multiple sites, you can write a prescription for nutrition, supplements and so on. Some of it falls in line with your book such as lower body and gluteal fat meaning higher alpha 2 concentrations and yohimbine and other supplements being one of the prescriptions. Outside of the female lower body, do you think there is anything to this?
Lyle McDonald: I’m familiar with what you’re talking about it and all I can say is that I’ve never really come across this idea in any of the literature I’ve read about stubborn fat (and I’ve read it all). For example, this particular system claims that cortisol is the cause of men’s abdominal fat which is untrue, visceral (gut) fat is affected by cortisol. And while it’s convenient to blame women’s lower body fat on estrogen, it’s not nearly that simple. Consider for example that in extreme dieting women (e.g. contest dieting bodybuilders or fitness types), estrogen goes way down but lower body fat doesn’t get any easier to mobilize. From what I can tell, this system is mainly a way to sell a lot of supplements to people.
Tom Venuto: Regarding the release of fatty acids from the fat cell and the actual burning of the fat - it seems important to understand these as separate processes to understand the implications of your stubborn fat protocol, would you agree and if so would you explain the difference between the two?
Lyle McDonald: Although some will get more detailed, there are basically three primary steps involved in the so-called ‘burning’ of bodyfat. The first of course is mobilization which refers to the break down of the fat inside the fat cell in the first place. Clearly if you can’t get it out of the fat cell, you can’t get rid of it (short of liposuction).
The second is transport which simply occurs as fat is carried through the bloodstream until it comes in contact with a tissue (such as heart, liver or skeletal muscle) that can use that fat for fuel.
The final major step is oxidation (the actual ‘burning’) of the fat within a given tissue, which occurs in the mitochondria of the cell. Here, fatty acids are reacted with oxygen to provide energy.
While there are certainly overlapping mechanisms, the key aspect is that each of these steps is regulated differently. Perhaps more practically, with various dietary, exercise and supplement strategies, they can be modified or modulated.
Tom Venuto: You mentioned that fat can get mobilized from the fat cell into circulation, but then get re-deposited. The part that really freaked me out (and made me glad that I’m a man) is you said that fat can actually be mobilized from regular storage sites but then redistributed to the stubborn sites particularly the butt and thighs in women! One, do you think this is common? Two, why would this happen? Once mobilized, why wouldn’t it get burned?
Lyle McDonald: Years ago I remember hearing female dieters claim that while their upper bodies were getting leaner, their legs were getting fatter. I had originally dismissed this as nonsense (as I suspect you did as well) but recent research suggests that it might be true.
A new pathway of fat storage, essentially fatty acids taken out of one cell can be restored in other fat cells, has now been identified and the researchers themselves suggested that women’s bodies might actually be able to shift fatty acids from upper to lower body fat. This is a real problem because fatty acids stored in women’s lower body fat is that much harder to get out in the first place.
So that this isn’t misconstrued, I do NOT want people to read this as some sort of silly argument that ‘low intensity cardio is making women fatter’ as that’s absolutely not the case. These women in question are losing body-fat, their upper bodies continue to get leaner and leaner (most of them have upper body definition that men would kill for). It’s simply that, due to this weird redistribution, the lower body may be gaining some body-fat at the same time.
Tom Venuto: Two women finish eating dinner and the waiter brings out a cheesecake. Woman A says to Woman B, “If you eat that it will go straight to your thighs.” Is the science now saying there’s some truth to that warning?
“A moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips”… Is this old cliche actually true? In part 2 of the Stubborn Fat interview, you’ll learn how and why women store lower body fat more easily than men, plus you’ll discover the truth about insulin in fat gain, the cardio prescription for Stubborn Fat, what supplement might actually do something for hard to lose body fat, and the latest in cutting edge fat loss research… continued from part 1
Tom Venuto: Two women finish eating dinner and the waiter brings out a cheesecake. Woman A says to Woman B, “If you eat that it will go straight to your thighs.” Is the science now saying there’s some truth to that warning?
Lyle McDonald: Amusingly, yes. While blood flow under resting and exercise conditions to the lower body is fairly sluggish, this turns out to be reversed when people eat. Especially when they over eat. In that situation, blood flow (and nutrient storage) to the lower body increases. When your mom used to say that ‘When I eat cake, it goes straight to my hips’? Well it turns out she was right.
Tom Venuto: On a related note, we have a few gurus saying that long duration, steady state aerobics or cardio such as cycling will only make your legs fatter. Is there any truth to this at all and is it in any way related to what you’ve been talking about?
Lyle McDonald: Well, sort of. As I mentioned above, I don’t want people to read this as saying that steady state cardio will make people fatter (e.g. increase body fat percentage) in a deficit; that’s clearly not happening. As well, steady state cardio can be more than sufficient for women under the right conditions. Recall the discussion of adrenoceptors above? Well, the problem receptors, the alpha-2 receptors can be inhibited with certain dietary approaches (especially carbohydrate restriction) along with specific supplements.
So it’s more accurate to say that low-intensity steady state cardio when combined with a high-carbohydrate fat loss diet can cause problems here. Even lowering carbs to sufficient levels would prevent this problem.
Tom Venuto: Lyle, I know you’ve heard many times people suggest that “insulin makes you fat” where they’re implying that insulin is THE thing that causes obesity. On one hand, I’ve heard you dismantle that argument, but on the other hand you make it quite clear that insulin control does play a major role in the stubborn fat picture and you also recommend a certain type of low carb diet. A lot of people are still confused about this, so could you reconcile the difference between saying, “insulin makes you fat” and “controlling insulin helps with stubborn fat loss”?
Lyle McDonald: Insulin is a general storage hormone, storing carbohydrates in muscle and liver, protein in various places and; of course, it impacts on fat cell metabolism and fat storage.
I’d note that studies clearly show that the ingestion of dietary fat by itself (which doesn’t raise insulin) has similar effects on fat cell metabolism. So the idea that ONLY insulin is involved here is an idea that’s about 30 years old. Insulin certainly plays a role but it’s not all that’s involved.
Clearly bodybuilders can and have gotten contest lean with carbohydrates in their diet. And carbs raise insulin; so does protein for that matter and I’d like to note that adding protein to carbohydrates actually increases the insulin response. Yet diets high in protein and containing carbohydrates help people get lean; clearly the insulin response isn’t that big of a deal, at least not on a caloric deficit.
At the same time, insulin does inhibit lipolysis (fat breakdown) and it takes only miniscule amounts of insulin to inihibit fat breakdown. Even under fasted conditions, insulin inhibits lipolysis 50% from the maximal rate (which would be seen if insulin were absent). Eating carbs or protein raises insulin shutting down lipolysis pretty well; again I’d note that eating dietary fat alone has a similar effect although it’s not mediated via insulin.
More to the point of this specific interview and my stubborn fat book is the fact that different areas of fat are relatively more or less sensitive to the anti-lipolytic effects of insulin. So visceral fat (the fat that surrounds the gut) is quite insensitive to insulin’s effects, it will continue to be mobilized even if insulin is high. Men’s abdominal fat is more sensitive to insulin’s effects. And, of course, lower body fat is the most sensitive to insulin’s effects, even small amounts will turn off fat mobilization almost completely.
So from the standpoint of dealing with stubborn fat, insulin control can become important. Clearly one way of doing this is to do aerobic activity fasted (I believe we argued about this years ago); given that contest bodybuilders are usually down to the last bit of fat, this may very well be where the practice of fasted cardio came from in the first place, by doing it in a low insulin condition, better results were obtained for stubborn fat loss.
I’d also note that within 5-10 minutes of beginning exercise, insulin levels go down rapidly, allowing lipolysis to increase again. So even a short warmup can lower insulin (and raise fat mobilizing hormones) to help increase lipolysis.
Tom Venuto: What if I’ve experimented with all levels of carbs and I know that I don’t do well on super low carbs — I lose energy, lose muscle, lose pump and lose my mind. For a bodybuilder doing intense training, would your protocol still work with a slightly higher carb intake, say 25-30% of total calories or .8 to 1.0 g per lb of LBM?
Lyle McDonald: Since readers may be a bit lost at this point, what Tom is asking about is a study I mention in the book where reducing carbohydrates to a very low level had a natural impact on the problematic alpha-2 adrenoceptors. Unfortunately, no other work has been done to establish what low level of carbohydrates is actually needed to have this impact (the study used 20% for unexplained reasons).
And, to Tom’s specific question, the fact is that many athletes don’t perform well on very low-carbohydrate diets. Can’t train effectively, get brain fuzzed, etc. I’d note that only one of the protocols in the book actually requires a very low-carbohydrate diet, the other three can be done without having to restrict carbs to that excessive of a level.
Another option, of course, would be some type of cylical diet whereby carbs are restricted for several days (during which the stubborn fat protocols can be used) and then carbs are loaded in to refill muscle glycogen to support training.
Tom Venuto: Yeah, I’m a huge fan of cyclical low carb dieting for bodybuilding or any serious fat loss program. Can you give us the general concept of your cardio prescription for stubborn fat loss?
Lyle McDonald: As always, it depends. I actually developed four different protocols of training, diet and supplementation for the book, to take into account differences in preferences (diet, supplements), etc. Two of the protocols are based around old fashioned steady state cardio, one uses diet to block alpha-receptors and the other uses the supplement yohimbine. For many people, these are more than sufficient (the first female bodybuilder I prepped did nothing more esoteric than oral yohimbe with a low-carb diet and morning cardio).
The other two protocols are based around interval training, using specific sequencing and timing of both intervals and steady state cardio to overcome the normal resistance to mobilization that occurs with stubborn body fat. I talk a lot about how (or even if) these protocols can be integrated into training.
So, for example, say you had a bodybuilder who was already training their legs several times heavy per week. It would be a huge mistake to try to add high intensity interval training to that workload and they would be better off with the lower intensity protocols.
In contrast, if someone couldn’t stand low-carb diets or couldn’t tolerate oral yohimbe (it can cause weird side effects in some people) AND they are willing to curtail their heavy leg training, the interval based protocols would be more appropriate and useful.
I know I’m not really answering the question here; rather I’m trying to point out that I did my best to cover as many eventualities as possible, just taking into account the vast differences in diet, training, etc. that go on with people dieting down to extreme leanness.
Tom Venuto: Just to clarify, should NO other cardio be done beyond the frequency you outline?
Lyle McDonald: As above, it depends. The higher intensity protocols (the ones involving intervals) can’t be used too often per week, the dieter will over-train. And this is made worse if the person refuses to cut back their other training.
Tangentially, one thing I’ve always found odd is this tendency for dieters to try to increase frequency and volume of their training when they are dieting; the one time that they don’t have the calories to support it. Of course, this came out of the early days of bodybuilding when the pros started using steroids, they could do more training to lose fat faster without running into problems. But naturals get destroyed trying to do this.
What I’m seeing as a current trend is more and more and more intensity of training with harder and harder caloric restriction. People want to train full body three times per week and do intervals on off-days (or every day; yes, I’ve seen it) while cutting calories hard. And they blow up.
Knowing that people will ignore my warnings, I really tried to make the point in my book that the higher intensity protocols can’t be used very frequently and, anybody who wants to do them, has to cut back their other leg training. At most they might be useable twice per week and some are finding that an even lower frequency is required.
Which is also part of why I gave the lower intensity options I mentioned above: bodybuilders can and have always done low-intensity cardio daily and this ends up being the best way to structure the training week. The high intensity stubborn fat protocols, if they are done at all, can be done maybe twice per week and the lower intensity protocols can be used on the other days.
Tom Venuto: Having interviewed you previously about fasted cardio I understand that you don’t believe it makes much difference in the bigger picture, but it might make a difference in the case of stubborn body fat. Why?
Lyle McDonald: I thought I remembered that and, as I mentioned above in the question about insulin, I think this is a lot of the difference in opinion. For most dieters, getting to 5% bodyfat isn’t the goal and there’s usually plenty of body fat to be mobilized for fuel. Whether they do it fasted, after they’ve eaten or whatever is purely secondary to the fact that it GETS DONE (I don’t think you’d disagree with me here).
However, when folks start getting very lean (for men, say 10-12% body fat, for women, the high teens), things can start to change and usually for the worse. The body is fighting back harder, the fat that is left is far more sensitive to insulin levels and doing cardio fasted (or at least several hours away from a meal, preferably one lower in carbohydrates) probably becomes more important for mobilizing and burning off the stubborn fat.
Basically, I think we’re both right, it’s just a matter of context and what population you’re talking about whether or not fasted cardio is or isn’t relevant.
Tom Venuto: Sure, I can agree with that completely. In fact, my original observations about the effectiveness of fasted cardio came from bodybuilders, including myself and other competitors who were already lean and working on getting leaner, which would verify what you just said. What’s most important is just doing the cardio, not when you do it. How important is it to change up the type of cardio you do?
Lyle McDonald: From what perspective? There is evidence that the hormonal response to novel types of activity tend to be higher, I actually suggest that dieters use a different cardio machine (than they usually use) for the interval part of the two higher intensity stubborn fat protocols.
Beyond that, switching things up probably helps with boredom and can avoid over-use injuries.
Tom Venuto: I understand the concept of transdermal delivery, the adrenoreceptor system and fat mobilization versus fat burning, but I’m still skeptical of greater regional fat loss with topical fat burners. Should I not be?
Lyle McDonald: I’m equally skeptical. Now, I’m not an expert on dermal stuff by any means but I remain unconvinced that most of these compounds can actually get to the fat cells in the first place. The skin is amazingly vascularized and I’d expect most of the active compound to get sucked into general circulation.
The small amount of empirical feedback I’ve seen suggests that that is the case; to whit, people note the same elevations in heart rate and blood pressure with topical yohimbe as with oral, telling me it’s getting into the bloodstream.
That said, there are a few papers suggesting topical fat reduction with a variety of compounds, whether or not the carriers they are using are even available for commercial products, I have absolutely no idea.
Tom Venuto: Yohimbe is a part of your protocol. I have several questions. First would yohimbe be classified as the raw plant source, while yohimbine hcl is a drug? If yohimbine is a drug is it easily available over the counter or only by prescription? Is yohimbine banned by any natural bodybuilding or sports organizations? Any warnings about product quality? Any side effects?
Lyle McDonald: Yes, yohimbe is the herbal product (derived from some plant or another) and yohimbine HCL is the synthetic/pharmaceutical version. While you didn’t use to be able to get the HCL form, it’s now fairly readily available from supplement companies; I actually recommend it over the herbal form.
A primary reason is that I’m wary of the dosing on most herbals, they tend to not be standardized (Twinlab’s Yohimbe Fuel was a nice exception) and there’s no way to know how much active ingredient is actually present. With the HCL form, the pills are pretty much always 2.5 mg per pill so you know exactly what you’re getting.
Additionally, in terms of side effects, the herbal tends to have much greater weirdness and side-effects than the HCL version, most likely from the presence of other herbal alkaloids in the mixture.
People often report the sweats with chills and just feeling a bit wonky on yohimbe. Of course, I’ve also seen people report euphoria on yohimbe along with much reduced perceived effort levels during exercise. I’d note that yohimbe is used in high doses to generate anxiety attacks and people who are prone to such must not use it; they shouldn’t usually use ephedrine either.
I don’t honestly keep up with who has banned what so I don’t know if yohimbe/yohimbine is banned. Athletes should check with the governing body of their sport to be sure before using it.
Tom Venuto: if someone is die-hard natural and doesn’t want to take any drugs, including yohimbine, will the cardio protocol and dietary suggestions still do the trick?
Lyle McDonald: As I sort of alluded to above, the four different protocols give sufficient options so that someone who can’t or won’t use a given supplement or diet can still get results. Only one of the four protocols absolutely requires any supplement such as yohimbine, the others may benefit from it but it isn’t required.
Tom Venuto: caffeine is also part of the protocol. Is coffee ok, or do you have to use caffeine tablets?
Lyle McDonald: Well, since I don’t like the taste of coffee I personally prefer caffeine tablets. And since I’m a touch obsessive compulsive, I do like the dosing accuracy with pills compared to drinks. But, honestly, coffee will work. Just remember to keep it black, the fat in the cream will impact on fat cell metabolism as would the insulin response from sugar.
Tom Venuto: Do you have anything else that readers might want to know about stubborn fat removal that’s either new and already showing real world results or which looks promising and we should keep an eye on in the future?
Lyle McDonald: One hormone I mentioned in the book is something that I think has the potential to solve a lot of the problems I talk about in the book. It’s called atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and is release from the heart to help regulate the body’s water balance and blood pressure. Well, it turns out that ANP is profoundly fat mobilizing. More interestingly, it works by a completely different mechanism than insulin/adrenoceptors work through. Basically, ANP appears to side step the whole adrenoceptor pathway to stimulate lipolysis. This might make it feasible to mobilize fat from stubborn fat without having to go through all of the rigamarole involved with inhibiting or overcoming alpha-receptors. Unfortunately, this point I’ve seen little to suggest that we can do much with it.
Beyond that, I think that, as you well know, dealing with stubborn fat will still ultimately come down to consistent dieting and training.
Tom Venuto: I would ask you about whooshes, squishy fat and the phantom tingle but I don’t want to spoil everything in the book for potential readers, so I think we’ll just wrap up and I’ll suggest that anyone who was intrigued by this information, anyone interested in science and of course anyone who is already reasonably lean who still has trouble with lower ab, lower back or lower body fat should get a copy of Lyle’s Stubborn Fat Book. What’s the exact web page where our readers can get more info?
Lyle McDonald: The easiest way is to go to my main page www.bodyrecomposition.com and either click on Products of the Picture of the book itself.
Tom Venuto: Thanks for your time Lyle and great job with this.
About The Author
Lyle McDonald has dedicated nearly 20 years of his life to studying human physiology and the art, science, and practice of human performance, muscle gain, fat loss, and body recomposition. He uses a combination of cutting edge research, canny tinkering, and sometimes, a little bit of intuition to develop his hypotheses which he then tests in the real world on various guinea pigs (often including himself).He is the author of the Ketogenic Diet as well as a Guide To Flexible Dieting and numerous other books. Most recently he has released the “The Stubborn Fat Solution” and you can learn more about it by Clicking Here.
http://www.bodybuildingsecrets.com/articles/stubborn_fat_and_how_to_get_rid_of_it_pt1.php
http://www.bodybuildingsecrets.com/articles/the_stubborn_fat_solution_pt2.php
(there are comments on the links, interesting ones if you're interested)
Stubborn Fat And How To Get Rid of It Pt.1
Tom Venuto
Men have big problems with lower abdominal, waist and lower back fat, but women have an even more trouble losing hip, butt and thigh fat. In this revealing interview with Lyle McDonald - the first in our Bodybuilding Secrets Expert Interview series - one of the most knowledgeable science researchers in the field reveals the truth about spot reduction, why fat “sticks” to you in certain places, why women’s lower body fat is so stubborn, how lower and upper body fat are different and the 3-step process for eliminating stubborn fat. .
Stubborn Fat And How To Get Rid of It:
Tom Venuto Interviews Lyle McDonald
In Part I of this cutting-edge interview with Tom Venuto and Lyle McDonald, women will learn how to get rid of stubborn hip, thigh and butt fat. Men will discover how to get rid of annoying lower ab and lower back fat. You’ll learn: The fat-burning ‘Lock and Key’ mechanism, How hormones affect patterns of fat storage, the plan fitness models use to go from low body fat to extremely low body fat, why women tend to have more stubborn lower body fat then men and exactly what to do about it, the truth about the hormone Cortisol and how it affects belly fat storage and a 3-step blueprint for eliminating stubborn fat.
stubborn_fat_book_cover_large.jpg
Tom Venuto: Ok Lyle I finally read your stubborn fat book cover to cover and two things jumped out at me at first. One was the huge implications for women to finally get rid of stubborn hip and butt fat, so we’ll come back to that. The other was that this is cutting-edge, scientific and sophisticated stuff and that raises the first question, who is this book really for in terms of the type of reader and the type of physical condition they’re in?
Lyle McDonald: While I’d love to say that the book is for everyone, it’s really not. The topic discussed in the book, that is stubborn body fat, only really becomes a problem when males and females get to a fairly low level of body fat. On average, this might be 10-12% for men and perhaps 15-17% for women. This is when men start to have problems with abdominal (especially lower abdominal) and low-back fat.
For women, the problem is almost always in the lower body; the hips and thigh fat in women can be notoriously resistant to loss. Generally speaking, those problems will start in about the ranges listed above. A typical female at that point might already have a fairly well defined six pack and a shredded shoulder girdle and pecs. But the lower body, the hips and thighs will still be soft (a polite way of saying ‘fat’).
In some men, of course, there can be problems with lower body fat. And, at least at the competitive bodybuilding level, with striated glutes becoming more and more common, even among naturals, males may have to start worrying about how to target the stubborn lower body fat that has been, up to this point, purely an issue for females.
Tom Venuto: From a male bodybuilder’s perspective, I’ve never really experienced lower ab or lower back fat as “stubborn” per se and I could easily define “stubborn fat” simply as the last fat to come off. But obviously, after someone reads your book, they can see that there’s more to it than that, so what is your definition of “stubborn fat?”
Lyle McDonald: That’s part of it, yes. The body tends to show a distinct pattern of fat loss in terms of where it will draw calories (in the form of stored fat) for energy on a diet. So in that sense, ‘stubborn fat’ is simply the last place to come off.
However, of more interest to me (and keeping with what’s discussed in the book), there are distinct physiological reasons that certain areas of body fat come off before others (or come off slower than others, depending on how you want to look at it). Issues of blood flow, how those fat cells respond to hormones such as insulin and adrenaline/noradrenaline and others all contribute to how easy (or not) it is to get fat out of those areas.
Stubborn fat, and I’d note up front that men’s abdominal and low-back fat is NEVER as stubborn as women’s lower body fat, tends to be stubborn because of number of differences in physiology that not only make it easier for the body to store fat in those fat cells after you eat, but make it more difficult to get them back out when you diet (or exercise).
Tom Venuto: Let’s put stubborn fat into the perspective of a hypocaloric diet. Some people would say that you’re guaranteed to get leaner as long as you have the calorie deficit. But what I’ve gathered from your info is that the stubborn fat problem still persists in some people despite a diligently maintained energy deficit because you draw that energy from everywhere except those stubborn fat areas. So obviously this wouldn’t contradict the calories in and calories out principle, because you DO get leaner or lose body mass with the basic negative calorie balance approach, but the body simply can’t pull the fat out of certain areas, leaving you leaner in most of your body but still stuck with fat in stubborn areas. Does that explain the big picture about right?
Lyle McDonald: I want to make it absolutely clear that I’m not suggesting that the body is somehow going to violate calories in versus calories out due to stubborn fat. Rather, what can happen is that where the body pulls those calories from (to cover the deficit) which has to do with calorie partitioning (where the calories go or come from when you gain or lost weight respectively). And, ignoring the contribution from glycogen stores, let’s keep it simple and say that the body has two places to pull calories from when you diet: fat cells and skeletal muscle.
Now, think about a situation where there is tons of fat available for fuel such as extreme obesity. Short of some truly idiotic approaches, what you’d expect to see is that most of the weight lost will come from fat with little from muscle. And this is exactly what happens.
But now consider the opposite situation, where there is little or no fat available for fuel. If the body still has to cover the caloric deficit (from diet, exercise or both), what does it have to do? Break down muscle. And, as everyone who’s dieted to extreme levels of leanness knows, muscle loss accelerates as folks get leaner.
Now, I’d note that there are a whole host of physiological reasons (involving hormones such as testosterone, cortisol, etc.) involved in this. But an inability to mobilize fat for fuel (which is more difficult as you get to the ‘stubborn’ areas is probably part of it. Simply: if you can’t get the fat out of fat cells to cover the deficit, the body will go looking for another source of energy and that’s usually skeletal muscle.
Tom Venuto: That last point is a bit scary. You could faithfully be in a calorie deficit, but actually burn muscle for the energy you need because your body can’t even get fat out of the fat cells. You’ve pointed out some differences among various fat cells and subcutaneous fat depots. What’s different about abdominal fat and lower body fat in general and between the genders?
Lyle McDonald: Well, as above, there are a host of differences between the different stores of fat usually involving blood flow, the relative sensitivity or insensitivity to insulin, and the relative sensitivity (or insensitivity) to the hormones adrenaline/noradrenaline. There is also research suggesting site specific differences in what types of fats are stored in the different fat cells; this is relevant as different types of fat (e.g. saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated) are mobilized with relatively more ease or difficulty.
In general, visceral fat is the most responsive to lipolytic (fat mobilizing) stimuli, has great blood flow and is relatively resistant to insulin. This makes it very easy to get rid of.
Abdominal fat, and I’d note that ab fat has now been divided into three different segments (deep, upper superficial, lower superficial) with slightly different characteristics, is more sensitive to insulin, slightly less sensitive to lipolytic stimuli, and has slightly worse blood flow.
Finally is lower body, hip and thigh fat which is profoundly sensitive to insulin, fairly insensitive to lipolytic stimuli, and has unbelievably bad blood flow. In fact, one study found that lower body fat has 67% less blood flow than upper body fat.
As far as differences between genders, there actually turns out to not be a huge difference between men and women in terms of the fat cells from the different areas. That is, if you study a fat cell from a man’s butt, it will be physiologically more or less identical to that from a woman’s. The difference is that, on average, men don’t store many calories in lower body fat cells. The same works in reverse, a woman’s ab fat is identical to a man’s, women simply don’t usually store much fat there.
Tom Venuto: Well, I won’t be studying fat cells from men’s butts any time soon, but the differences between men and women are very interesting. I know that adrenoreceptors play a major role in all this. Could you give us “adrenoreceptors 101” in a way that even the non-science folks could understand it?
Lyle McDonald: As a bit of foreground, readers need to understand that hormones work through a sort of lock and key mechanism (note: this simple model has become much more complex of late but I’ll skip the details). So, to exert their signal (such as ‘store fat’ or ‘mobilize fat’) a hormone (the key) fits into its receptor (the lock) and things happen.
Adrenoceptors (aka adrenoreceptors) are the ‘lock’ that exists for the hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline (aka epinephrine/norepinephrine). Adrenaline is released from the adrenal gland and travels through the bloodstream, noradrenaline is released from nerve terminals and have their effects mostly locally.
Now, these hormones do a number of things in the body, they can increase heart rate and blood pressure, increase blood flow, increase energy expenditure, etc. One of their effect is to mobilize fatty acids for fuel and they do this by binding to adrenoceptors on the fat cell.
Now, there are two broad classes of adrenoceptors which are the alpa-receptors and beta-receptors. Within each class there are sub-types. There are two primary alpha-receptors called alpha-1 and alpha-2 receptors. For fat cell metabolism, only alpha-2 is relevant. There are at least three beta-receptors (beta-1,2,3) and possibly one more. Beta-3 receptors got a lot of press years ago since they seem to be involved in a type of fat (brown adipose tissue) that burns fat. Unfortunately, humans don’t usually have much BAT so they fell the by the wayside.
In any case, beta-1 and 2 receptors are all that we’re interested in for fat cell metabolism. Here’s where it gets interesting. Both adrenaline and noradrenaline can bind to both kinds of receptors and where they bind determines what happens in the fat cell.
When adrenaline/noradrenaline bind to beta-receptors, they stimulate fat breakdown. That’s good.
When adrenaline/noradrenaline bind to alpha-receptors, they inhibit fat breakdown. That’s bad.
But what this means is that adrenaline/noradrenaline can either send a good or bad signal, they can either stimulate or inhibit fat breakdown. What determines which signal they send? Well, the levels of each hormone play a role (low levels of each hormone may exert different effects than large amounts) but the biggy is the ratio of alpha to beta receptors.
Fat cells which have lots of alpha-receptors relative to beta-receptors will tend to have an inhibitory signal sent when adrenaline and noradrenaline while fat cells with lots of beta-receptors relative to alpha-receptors will have a stimulatory signal sent.
Guess which types of fat cells have lots more alpha-receptors than beta receptors?
Tom Venuto: Are we talking about spot reduction being a reality?
Lyle McDonald: Absolutely not. The idea behind spot reduction is usually that, through some odd combination of exercises (usually local exercises such as lots of crunches for the abs or lots of lower body work for the thighs) that the body will preferentially take fat from that area and burn it off.
This also implies that the normal order by which fat is lost (e.g. from easiest to most stubborn area) can be worked around. So for example, via spot reduction, you might end up with a woman who had shredded legs before her upper body had leaned out. A nice idea, unfortunately a basic physiological impossibility.
The protocols in the stubborn fat solution book aren’t spot reduction and can’t be used to affect what order the body loses fat in. Rather, they are designed to facilitate mobilization of fat stores that tend to not come off no matter what a dieter does at the end of the diet. That is, once the person is at the level where the rest of the fat has come off and they are down to stubborn fat, the protocols are meant to facilitate loss of those stubborn areas. But it’s not spot reduction.
Tom Venuto: Speaking of stubborn fat and spot reduction, there’s a theory promoted especially by one prominent strength coach that where you store your fat tells you about your hormonal status and that based on your skinfold thicknesses at multiple sites, you can write a prescription for nutrition, supplements and so on. Some of it falls in line with your book such as lower body and gluteal fat meaning higher alpha 2 concentrations and yohimbine and other supplements being one of the prescriptions. Outside of the female lower body, do you think there is anything to this?
Lyle McDonald: I’m familiar with what you’re talking about it and all I can say is that I’ve never really come across this idea in any of the literature I’ve read about stubborn fat (and I’ve read it all). For example, this particular system claims that cortisol is the cause of men’s abdominal fat which is untrue, visceral (gut) fat is affected by cortisol. And while it’s convenient to blame women’s lower body fat on estrogen, it’s not nearly that simple. Consider for example that in extreme dieting women (e.g. contest dieting bodybuilders or fitness types), estrogen goes way down but lower body fat doesn’t get any easier to mobilize. From what I can tell, this system is mainly a way to sell a lot of supplements to people.
Tom Venuto: Regarding the release of fatty acids from the fat cell and the actual burning of the fat - it seems important to understand these as separate processes to understand the implications of your stubborn fat protocol, would you agree and if so would you explain the difference between the two?
Lyle McDonald: Although some will get more detailed, there are basically three primary steps involved in the so-called ‘burning’ of bodyfat. The first of course is mobilization which refers to the break down of the fat inside the fat cell in the first place. Clearly if you can’t get it out of the fat cell, you can’t get rid of it (short of liposuction).
The second is transport which simply occurs as fat is carried through the bloodstream until it comes in contact with a tissue (such as heart, liver or skeletal muscle) that can use that fat for fuel.
The final major step is oxidation (the actual ‘burning’) of the fat within a given tissue, which occurs in the mitochondria of the cell. Here, fatty acids are reacted with oxygen to provide energy.
While there are certainly overlapping mechanisms, the key aspect is that each of these steps is regulated differently. Perhaps more practically, with various dietary, exercise and supplement strategies, they can be modified or modulated.
Tom Venuto: You mentioned that fat can get mobilized from the fat cell into circulation, but then get re-deposited. The part that really freaked me out (and made me glad that I’m a man) is you said that fat can actually be mobilized from regular storage sites but then redistributed to the stubborn sites particularly the butt and thighs in women! One, do you think this is common? Two, why would this happen? Once mobilized, why wouldn’t it get burned?
Lyle McDonald: Years ago I remember hearing female dieters claim that while their upper bodies were getting leaner, their legs were getting fatter. I had originally dismissed this as nonsense (as I suspect you did as well) but recent research suggests that it might be true.
A new pathway of fat storage, essentially fatty acids taken out of one cell can be restored in other fat cells, has now been identified and the researchers themselves suggested that women’s bodies might actually be able to shift fatty acids from upper to lower body fat. This is a real problem because fatty acids stored in women’s lower body fat is that much harder to get out in the first place.
So that this isn’t misconstrued, I do NOT want people to read this as some sort of silly argument that ‘low intensity cardio is making women fatter’ as that’s absolutely not the case. These women in question are losing body-fat, their upper bodies continue to get leaner and leaner (most of them have upper body definition that men would kill for). It’s simply that, due to this weird redistribution, the lower body may be gaining some body-fat at the same time.
Tom Venuto: Two women finish eating dinner and the waiter brings out a cheesecake. Woman A says to Woman B, “If you eat that it will go straight to your thighs.” Is the science now saying there’s some truth to that warning?
“A moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips”… Is this old cliche actually true? In part 2 of the Stubborn Fat interview, you’ll learn how and why women store lower body fat more easily than men, plus you’ll discover the truth about insulin in fat gain, the cardio prescription for Stubborn Fat, what supplement might actually do something for hard to lose body fat, and the latest in cutting edge fat loss research… continued from part 1
Tom Venuto: Two women finish eating dinner and the waiter brings out a cheesecake. Woman A says to Woman B, “If you eat that it will go straight to your thighs.” Is the science now saying there’s some truth to that warning?
Lyle McDonald: Amusingly, yes. While blood flow under resting and exercise conditions to the lower body is fairly sluggish, this turns out to be reversed when people eat. Especially when they over eat. In that situation, blood flow (and nutrient storage) to the lower body increases. When your mom used to say that ‘When I eat cake, it goes straight to my hips’? Well it turns out she was right.
Tom Venuto: On a related note, we have a few gurus saying that long duration, steady state aerobics or cardio such as cycling will only make your legs fatter. Is there any truth to this at all and is it in any way related to what you’ve been talking about?
Lyle McDonald: Well, sort of. As I mentioned above, I don’t want people to read this as saying that steady state cardio will make people fatter (e.g. increase body fat percentage) in a deficit; that’s clearly not happening. As well, steady state cardio can be more than sufficient for women under the right conditions. Recall the discussion of adrenoceptors above? Well, the problem receptors, the alpha-2 receptors can be inhibited with certain dietary approaches (especially carbohydrate restriction) along with specific supplements.
So it’s more accurate to say that low-intensity steady state cardio when combined with a high-carbohydrate fat loss diet can cause problems here. Even lowering carbs to sufficient levels would prevent this problem.
Tom Venuto: Lyle, I know you’ve heard many times people suggest that “insulin makes you fat” where they’re implying that insulin is THE thing that causes obesity. On one hand, I’ve heard you dismantle that argument, but on the other hand you make it quite clear that insulin control does play a major role in the stubborn fat picture and you also recommend a certain type of low carb diet. A lot of people are still confused about this, so could you reconcile the difference between saying, “insulin makes you fat” and “controlling insulin helps with stubborn fat loss”?
Lyle McDonald: Insulin is a general storage hormone, storing carbohydrates in muscle and liver, protein in various places and; of course, it impacts on fat cell metabolism and fat storage.
I’d note that studies clearly show that the ingestion of dietary fat by itself (which doesn’t raise insulin) has similar effects on fat cell metabolism. So the idea that ONLY insulin is involved here is an idea that’s about 30 years old. Insulin certainly plays a role but it’s not all that’s involved.
Clearly bodybuilders can and have gotten contest lean with carbohydrates in their diet. And carbs raise insulin; so does protein for that matter and I’d like to note that adding protein to carbohydrates actually increases the insulin response. Yet diets high in protein and containing carbohydrates help people get lean; clearly the insulin response isn’t that big of a deal, at least not on a caloric deficit.
At the same time, insulin does inhibit lipolysis (fat breakdown) and it takes only miniscule amounts of insulin to inihibit fat breakdown. Even under fasted conditions, insulin inhibits lipolysis 50% from the maximal rate (which would be seen if insulin were absent). Eating carbs or protein raises insulin shutting down lipolysis pretty well; again I’d note that eating dietary fat alone has a similar effect although it’s not mediated via insulin.
More to the point of this specific interview and my stubborn fat book is the fact that different areas of fat are relatively more or less sensitive to the anti-lipolytic effects of insulin. So visceral fat (the fat that surrounds the gut) is quite insensitive to insulin’s effects, it will continue to be mobilized even if insulin is high. Men’s abdominal fat is more sensitive to insulin’s effects. And, of course, lower body fat is the most sensitive to insulin’s effects, even small amounts will turn off fat mobilization almost completely.
So from the standpoint of dealing with stubborn fat, insulin control can become important. Clearly one way of doing this is to do aerobic activity fasted (I believe we argued about this years ago); given that contest bodybuilders are usually down to the last bit of fat, this may very well be where the practice of fasted cardio came from in the first place, by doing it in a low insulin condition, better results were obtained for stubborn fat loss.
I’d also note that within 5-10 minutes of beginning exercise, insulin levels go down rapidly, allowing lipolysis to increase again. So even a short warmup can lower insulin (and raise fat mobilizing hormones) to help increase lipolysis.
Tom Venuto: What if I’ve experimented with all levels of carbs and I know that I don’t do well on super low carbs — I lose energy, lose muscle, lose pump and lose my mind. For a bodybuilder doing intense training, would your protocol still work with a slightly higher carb intake, say 25-30% of total calories or .8 to 1.0 g per lb of LBM?
Lyle McDonald: Since readers may be a bit lost at this point, what Tom is asking about is a study I mention in the book where reducing carbohydrates to a very low level had a natural impact on the problematic alpha-2 adrenoceptors. Unfortunately, no other work has been done to establish what low level of carbohydrates is actually needed to have this impact (the study used 20% for unexplained reasons).
And, to Tom’s specific question, the fact is that many athletes don’t perform well on very low-carbohydrate diets. Can’t train effectively, get brain fuzzed, etc. I’d note that only one of the protocols in the book actually requires a very low-carbohydrate diet, the other three can be done without having to restrict carbs to that excessive of a level.
Another option, of course, would be some type of cylical diet whereby carbs are restricted for several days (during which the stubborn fat protocols can be used) and then carbs are loaded in to refill muscle glycogen to support training.
Tom Venuto: Yeah, I’m a huge fan of cyclical low carb dieting for bodybuilding or any serious fat loss program. Can you give us the general concept of your cardio prescription for stubborn fat loss?
Lyle McDonald: As always, it depends. I actually developed four different protocols of training, diet and supplementation for the book, to take into account differences in preferences (diet, supplements), etc. Two of the protocols are based around old fashioned steady state cardio, one uses diet to block alpha-receptors and the other uses the supplement yohimbine. For many people, these are more than sufficient (the first female bodybuilder I prepped did nothing more esoteric than oral yohimbe with a low-carb diet and morning cardio).
The other two protocols are based around interval training, using specific sequencing and timing of both intervals and steady state cardio to overcome the normal resistance to mobilization that occurs with stubborn body fat. I talk a lot about how (or even if) these protocols can be integrated into training.
So, for example, say you had a bodybuilder who was already training their legs several times heavy per week. It would be a huge mistake to try to add high intensity interval training to that workload and they would be better off with the lower intensity protocols.
In contrast, if someone couldn’t stand low-carb diets or couldn’t tolerate oral yohimbe (it can cause weird side effects in some people) AND they are willing to curtail their heavy leg training, the interval based protocols would be more appropriate and useful.
I know I’m not really answering the question here; rather I’m trying to point out that I did my best to cover as many eventualities as possible, just taking into account the vast differences in diet, training, etc. that go on with people dieting down to extreme leanness.
Tom Venuto: Just to clarify, should NO other cardio be done beyond the frequency you outline?
Lyle McDonald: As above, it depends. The higher intensity protocols (the ones involving intervals) can’t be used too often per week, the dieter will over-train. And this is made worse if the person refuses to cut back their other training.
Tangentially, one thing I’ve always found odd is this tendency for dieters to try to increase frequency and volume of their training when they are dieting; the one time that they don’t have the calories to support it. Of course, this came out of the early days of bodybuilding when the pros started using steroids, they could do more training to lose fat faster without running into problems. But naturals get destroyed trying to do this.
What I’m seeing as a current trend is more and more and more intensity of training with harder and harder caloric restriction. People want to train full body three times per week and do intervals on off-days (or every day; yes, I’ve seen it) while cutting calories hard. And they blow up.
Knowing that people will ignore my warnings, I really tried to make the point in my book that the higher intensity protocols can’t be used very frequently and, anybody who wants to do them, has to cut back their other leg training. At most they might be useable twice per week and some are finding that an even lower frequency is required.
Which is also part of why I gave the lower intensity options I mentioned above: bodybuilders can and have always done low-intensity cardio daily and this ends up being the best way to structure the training week. The high intensity stubborn fat protocols, if they are done at all, can be done maybe twice per week and the lower intensity protocols can be used on the other days.
Tom Venuto: Having interviewed you previously about fasted cardio I understand that you don’t believe it makes much difference in the bigger picture, but it might make a difference in the case of stubborn body fat. Why?
Lyle McDonald: I thought I remembered that and, as I mentioned above in the question about insulin, I think this is a lot of the difference in opinion. For most dieters, getting to 5% bodyfat isn’t the goal and there’s usually plenty of body fat to be mobilized for fuel. Whether they do it fasted, after they’ve eaten or whatever is purely secondary to the fact that it GETS DONE (I don’t think you’d disagree with me here).
However, when folks start getting very lean (for men, say 10-12% body fat, for women, the high teens), things can start to change and usually for the worse. The body is fighting back harder, the fat that is left is far more sensitive to insulin levels and doing cardio fasted (or at least several hours away from a meal, preferably one lower in carbohydrates) probably becomes more important for mobilizing and burning off the stubborn fat.
Basically, I think we’re both right, it’s just a matter of context and what population you’re talking about whether or not fasted cardio is or isn’t relevant.
Tom Venuto: Sure, I can agree with that completely. In fact, my original observations about the effectiveness of fasted cardio came from bodybuilders, including myself and other competitors who were already lean and working on getting leaner, which would verify what you just said. What’s most important is just doing the cardio, not when you do it. How important is it to change up the type of cardio you do?
Lyle McDonald: From what perspective? There is evidence that the hormonal response to novel types of activity tend to be higher, I actually suggest that dieters use a different cardio machine (than they usually use) for the interval part of the two higher intensity stubborn fat protocols.
Beyond that, switching things up probably helps with boredom and can avoid over-use injuries.
Tom Venuto: I understand the concept of transdermal delivery, the adrenoreceptor system and fat mobilization versus fat burning, but I’m still skeptical of greater regional fat loss with topical fat burners. Should I not be?
Lyle McDonald: I’m equally skeptical. Now, I’m not an expert on dermal stuff by any means but I remain unconvinced that most of these compounds can actually get to the fat cells in the first place. The skin is amazingly vascularized and I’d expect most of the active compound to get sucked into general circulation.
The small amount of empirical feedback I’ve seen suggests that that is the case; to whit, people note the same elevations in heart rate and blood pressure with topical yohimbe as with oral, telling me it’s getting into the bloodstream.
That said, there are a few papers suggesting topical fat reduction with a variety of compounds, whether or not the carriers they are using are even available for commercial products, I have absolutely no idea.
Tom Venuto: Yohimbe is a part of your protocol. I have several questions. First would yohimbe be classified as the raw plant source, while yohimbine hcl is a drug? If yohimbine is a drug is it easily available over the counter or only by prescription? Is yohimbine banned by any natural bodybuilding or sports organizations? Any warnings about product quality? Any side effects?
Lyle McDonald: Yes, yohimbe is the herbal product (derived from some plant or another) and yohimbine HCL is the synthetic/pharmaceutical version. While you didn’t use to be able to get the HCL form, it’s now fairly readily available from supplement companies; I actually recommend it over the herbal form.
A primary reason is that I’m wary of the dosing on most herbals, they tend to not be standardized (Twinlab’s Yohimbe Fuel was a nice exception) and there’s no way to know how much active ingredient is actually present. With the HCL form, the pills are pretty much always 2.5 mg per pill so you know exactly what you’re getting.
Additionally, in terms of side effects, the herbal tends to have much greater weirdness and side-effects than the HCL version, most likely from the presence of other herbal alkaloids in the mixture.
People often report the sweats with chills and just feeling a bit wonky on yohimbe. Of course, I’ve also seen people report euphoria on yohimbe along with much reduced perceived effort levels during exercise. I’d note that yohimbe is used in high doses to generate anxiety attacks and people who are prone to such must not use it; they shouldn’t usually use ephedrine either.
I don’t honestly keep up with who has banned what so I don’t know if yohimbe/yohimbine is banned. Athletes should check with the governing body of their sport to be sure before using it.
Tom Venuto: if someone is die-hard natural and doesn’t want to take any drugs, including yohimbine, will the cardio protocol and dietary suggestions still do the trick?
Lyle McDonald: As I sort of alluded to above, the four different protocols give sufficient options so that someone who can’t or won’t use a given supplement or diet can still get results. Only one of the four protocols absolutely requires any supplement such as yohimbine, the others may benefit from it but it isn’t required.
Tom Venuto: caffeine is also part of the protocol. Is coffee ok, or do you have to use caffeine tablets?
Lyle McDonald: Well, since I don’t like the taste of coffee I personally prefer caffeine tablets. And since I’m a touch obsessive compulsive, I do like the dosing accuracy with pills compared to drinks. But, honestly, coffee will work. Just remember to keep it black, the fat in the cream will impact on fat cell metabolism as would the insulin response from sugar.
Tom Venuto: Do you have anything else that readers might want to know about stubborn fat removal that’s either new and already showing real world results or which looks promising and we should keep an eye on in the future?
Lyle McDonald: One hormone I mentioned in the book is something that I think has the potential to solve a lot of the problems I talk about in the book. It’s called atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and is release from the heart to help regulate the body’s water balance and blood pressure. Well, it turns out that ANP is profoundly fat mobilizing. More interestingly, it works by a completely different mechanism than insulin/adrenoceptors work through. Basically, ANP appears to side step the whole adrenoceptor pathway to stimulate lipolysis. This might make it feasible to mobilize fat from stubborn fat without having to go through all of the rigamarole involved with inhibiting or overcoming alpha-receptors. Unfortunately, this point I’ve seen little to suggest that we can do much with it.
Beyond that, I think that, as you well know, dealing with stubborn fat will still ultimately come down to consistent dieting and training.
Tom Venuto: I would ask you about whooshes, squishy fat and the phantom tingle but I don’t want to spoil everything in the book for potential readers, so I think we’ll just wrap up and I’ll suggest that anyone who was intrigued by this information, anyone interested in science and of course anyone who is already reasonably lean who still has trouble with lower ab, lower back or lower body fat should get a copy of Lyle’s Stubborn Fat Book. What’s the exact web page where our readers can get more info?
Lyle McDonald: The easiest way is to go to my main page www.bodyrecomposition.com and either click on Products of the Picture of the book itself.
Tom Venuto: Thanks for your time Lyle and great job with this.
About The Author
Lyle McDonald has dedicated nearly 20 years of his life to studying human physiology and the art, science, and practice of human performance, muscle gain, fat loss, and body recomposition. He uses a combination of cutting edge research, canny tinkering, and sometimes, a little bit of intuition to develop his hypotheses which he then tests in the real world on various guinea pigs (often including himself).He is the author of the Ketogenic Diet as well as a Guide To Flexible Dieting and numerous other books. Most recently he has released the “The Stubborn Fat Solution” and you can learn more about it by Clicking Here.
http://www.bodybuildingsecrets.com/articles/stubborn_fat_and_how_to_get_rid_of_it_pt1.php
http://www.bodybuildingsecrets.com/articles/the_stubborn_fat_solution_pt2.php
(there are comments on the links, interesting ones if you're interested)
0
Replies
-
Thank you for posting this
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions