Fitness/Health Phrases That MUST DIE in 2011!

Actually, they should die at any time, but it's not too late for a cheap "new year's" reference.

These are phrases, concepts, recommendations, etc that need to go away. They are empty cliches or disproven myths that continue to be handed around like bad holiday fruitcakes. Some are golden oldies on their last breaths but bear repeating, given the number of new people starting up programs in the new year.

So, in no particular order of importance:

1. "Fat burning workouts". OK, I'm tossing out an easy one to start with. Does anyone still believe this? The original definition of a "fat burning workout" was a longer-duration cardio workout that was performed at a relatively low intensity, e.g. 50% of VO2max. The concept was that it took at least 20 min for your "fat burning" system to kick in and, at the lower intensity, a higher percentage of your calories burned during exercise came from fat.
The type of fuel you burn during exercise--fat or carbohydrate--has virtually no effect on stored body fat. Not only is the actual amount of fat burned a minute quantity, but the body compensates by raising or lowering the amount of fat burned the rest of the day. What is important is total calories expended and how they contribute to your overall calorie deficit. One should include both high and low intensity workouts in a routine.

2. "Muscle soreness is caused by a buildup of lactic acid". Another easy one--this is like a warm up. Probably no metabolite has undergone as thorough a transformation in the last 25 years as lactic acid. From once being considered a "waste product" that had to be "flushed out", we now know that lactic acid is a dynamic metabolite that not only has no association with muscle soreness, but may not even be a part of the process of muscle fatigue. In general, most people should stop using the term "lactic acid" altogether. At this point, it's pretty much a given that whatever you say about it will be wrong.

3. "Drink at least 8 glasses of water per day". This is one of those arcane pieces of urban folklore that rumbled around in the background for awhile and then people forgot why they even started saying it and accepted it as "gospel truth". In fact, there is no clear origin for this recommendation and absolutely no evidence that it is necessary. Obviously, humans lose a certain amount of fluid per day, and this must be replaced. However, it is easily done with a normal diet and the "fluid" needn't be water, or even beverages--it can also come from the water that is contained in many foods. Other claims--that water "flushes away fat" or that water "flushes aways toxins" are equally unsupported. Which leads me to......

4. The terms "cleansing" and "detoxify". These terms are thrown about with reckless abandon, and are combined with so much pseudo-science, auto-suggestion, ideology and other subjectivity as to render them virtually useless. A large percentage of the scams and silliness that are so much a part of the health/fitness business involve these two words. The body does a great job of "cleansing" itself if you just live a healthy lifestyle. I've heard this stuff since the 1960's and it's as unsupported now as it was then. There is little valid research that supports either of these concepts. (For those of you who want to argue that following a healthy lifestyle is a way of "cleansing" the body over time--that's not what I am referring to--in any case, you should find some better terms to use). They are two of the favorite phrases of dilettantes and scam artists.

5. "Muscle Confusion" (also "shocking your body"). This one almost requires a separate article of its own. When I refer to "muscle confusion" I am referring to the concept that one must constantly change exercise activities in order to "keep the body guessing" because this will burn more calories. The concept of "muscle confusion" takes an important and valid training principle--the concept of periodization or varying training intensities--and distorts it into informercial shlock. Switching, say, from running to kickboxing to yoga to cycling will NOT "confuse" your muscles into burning more calories or fat. Pretty much the opposite is true--the more proficient you become at an activity, the harder you can push yourself--which leads to increased fitness and caloric burn. This doesn't mean you can't vary your activities as much as you want--it's not harmful or anything. But you can get probably even more benefit from doing a few activities very well and changing the intensities at which you perform them.

6. "When you become more efficient, you burn fewer calories". This should probably be called 5A, since it is directly related. There is this common idea being repeated that, as you do activity and become better at it, you burn fewer calories when doing the same activity. I'm not sure why this has become so widespread. I assume a lot of it has to do with the ubiquitous use of heart rate monitors. It's true that if you constantly run at 6 mph, for example, the calorie count on your HRM will go down. However, that's a shortcoming of the HRM--improper setup or not updating your profile-- not "proof" of any physical change. Over a long time, yes, one can improve mechanical efficiency to the point where your caloric expenditure for the same submaximal workload might decrease a little, but it's a tiny amount. Studies done on trained professional cyclists have only shown 1%-3% improvements in mechanical efficiency over a career--and that's with hours a day of training. So, the effects of "efficiency" are greatly overstated. But the real absurdity in the above statement is that it assumes that, even though your fitness level has improved and you can work harder, you choose to remain at the exact same level forever. When you think about it, the logic collapses under the weight of its own stupidity.

7. "'Torch', 'Amp', 'Fire Up'" Your Metabolism". Actually, pretty much the term "metabolism" in general. Like "cleansing', this is another one of those terms that becomes associated with so much emotional projection, urban folklore, and--again--ideology as to become useless. Since few people actually understand "metabolism" or what it means, it can be used ab libitum as a empty buzzword while everyone nods their heads knowingly. If the word "metabolism" was outlawed, Men's Health would be nothing but empty pages with a few viagra ads. I've seen the "revving up your metabolism" applied to exercises like planks, saunas, aerobic workouts with 3lb hand weights, not to mention the unending cascade of claims for various foods and supplements). The fact is that "metabolism" is pretty darn hard to raise by any great amount for any great length of time. Most of the "studies" that claim that various forms of exercise raise metabolism for hours and hours are poorly constructed. The good studies show only a modest effect at best. It's one of those things where you should just take whatever you get, but have very low expectations.


7A. "Increased muscle mass burns more fat at rest". OK, I did list this one as a corollary. There are two problems with this statement. One, it suggests that increasing muscle mass makes a significant difference in resting metabolism. The research is not conclusive, but I think there is more evidence that suggests that increased muscle burns only a small amount of calories--like 6 calories per pound of muscle per day. There may also be an increase in calories burned during exercise, but it is not that great and we don't spend that much time exercising. Secondly, it assumes that it is easy to build significant amounts of muscle mass. It's not. Especially if you are dieting. Without dieting, the average person can only expect to increase muscle mass by a few pounds--you really have to work hard, not only training, but diet as well. In fact, the average person who is obese already has LOTS of muscle mass--they need it to support the extra weight. If they lose substantial amounts of weight, they are going to lose muscle mass no matter what--if for no other reason than they don't need it anymore. That is not to say that strength training is not important for weight loss--it is. But I think too often, overstated and inaccurate concepts such as this hinder more than help.

8. "HRMs are the only way to accurately count calories during exercise". This has caused me to almost put a large, heavy object through my computer screen on a number of occasions. HRMs are great tools, and under limited conditions can be helpful tools in estimating exercise calories, but we have reached a point of unquestioning faith in HRMs that borders on idolatry. Under ideal conditions--a top-level HRM such as Polar or Suunto, with accurate setup data of true max heart rate and true VO2max--HRMs might be 80% accurate--and that's only for steady-state aerobic exercise. If any of those conditions are not present--a cheapo monitor, inaccurate setup--or if you are doing non steady-state activities like circuit training, HIIT, a lot of upper-body work, then the accuracy will be even less. For some activities--strength training, daily living activities, yoga, pilates--HRM calorie counts are useless.
That being said, under some conditions--aerobic classes, elliptical trainers, even depletion-type circuit workouts--HRMs are probably the best option, even with their limitations. So, I am not saying never use an HRM--just keep it in perspective. And stop telling everyone who posts a question about the calories they expend during exercise to "get a heart rate monitor".

As usual, I didn't have my list ready beforehand and am just doing this off the top of my head. So, I'm sure I left a few out. But this is enough to get started- and maybe even cause a little consternation. Feel free to add your own in the comments.