You use both fat and carbohydrates for energy during exercise, with these two fuels providing that energy on a sliding scale. During exercise at a very low intensity (e.g., walking), fat accounts for most of the energy expenditure. As exercise intensity increases up to the lactate threshold (the exercise intensity that marks the transition between exercise that is almost purely aerobic and exercise that includes a significant anaerobic contribution; also considered the highest sustainable aerobic intensity), the contribution from fat decreases while the contribution from carbohydrates increases. When exercising just below the lactate threshold, you are using mostly carbohydrates. Once the intensity of exercise has risen above the lactate threshold, carbohydrates become the only fuel source.

If you exercise long enough (1.5–2 hours), your muscle carbohydrate (glycogen) content and blood glucose concentration become low. This metabolic state presents a threat to the muscles’ survival, since carbohydrates are muscles’ preferred fuel. When carbohydrates are not available, the muscles are forced to rely on fat as fuel.

Since more fat is used at low exercise intensities, people often assume that low-intensity exercise is best for burning fat, an idea that has given birth to the “fat-burning zone.” However, while only a small amount of fat is used when exercising just below the lactate threshold, the rate of caloric expenditure and the total number of calories expended are much greater than they are when exercising at a lower intensity, so the total amount of fat used is also greater.

For fat and weight loss, what matters most is the difference between the number of calories you expend and the number of calories you consume. Fat and weight loss is about burning lots of calories and cutting back on the number of calories consumed. For the purpose of losing weight, it matters little whether the calories burned during exercise come from fat or carbohydrates.

To maximize your fat loss, try these workouts. For assistance in designing effective, safe workouts, consult with a certified personal trainer.

Go Hard

A great way to perform high-intensity exercise and decrease your body fat percentage is through interval training, which breaks up the work with periods of rest. Not only does interval training allow you to improve your fitness quickly; it is also more effective than continuous exercise for burning lots of calories during exercise and increasing your postworkout metabolic rate. Try one or two of these workouts each week:

• 5–6 x 3 minutes at 95%–100% maximum (max) heart rate (HR) with 2-minute active recovery periods
• 4 x 4 minutes at 95%–100% max HR with 3-minute active recovery periods
• 8–12 x 30 seconds fast with 1-minute active recovery periods

Each of these interval workouts should include a warm-up and a cool-down.

Go Very Long

Long runs or bike rides (≥ 1.5–2 hours at 65%–70% max HR) that stimulate mitochondrial synthesis and promote the depletion of glycogen threaten the muscles’ survival, since carbohydrates are muscles’ preferred fuel. In response to this threat, muscles “learn” how to use fat more effectively and over time become better fat-burning machines.

The alarm rings and you press “snooze” one time too many. By the time you roll out of bed, you think it’s too late for breakfast. Estimates vary, but around 25% of the population skips breakfast on a regular basis (Cho et al. 2003). The potential perils can include a more sluggish metabolism as the body shifts into starvation-response mode. And coupled with a tendency to become ravenous and binge later: weight gain. Cognitive abilities can also suffer: you may get headaches, feel fatigued and be less able to concentrate.

Yet plenty of people bypass breakfast and don’t seem to suffer. Many—perhaps your clients—say they aren’t hungry. And some even rev up by working out without fueling first in the belief that they’ll burn more fat that way.

So what’s the truth? Is skipping breakfast harmful, or have the dangers been overhyped?

Some studies have shown that breakfast-skippers, including kids and adolescents, are more likely to be overweight or obese (Cho et al. 2003). But most of these studies are only observational, so it’s hard to know for sure. Researchers look for patterns in a snapshot of data gathered from people at one point in time, or over several years: Are certain eating behaviors more likely to be associated with specific outcomes, like how much people weigh?

Even if associations are identified, this type of research isn’t foolproof. Often it relies on self-reporting, and some people portray a rosier picture of their habits than is accurate. Plus, a different habit could be responsible. If breakfast-skippers also did little exercise and activity was not accounted for, it might be that people who don’t exercise are more likely to gain weight, regardless of whether or not they eat breakfast. Only a well-designed experimental trial can show that something causes something else, and few long-term experimental trials have studied eating breakfast.

“This kind of data is very hard to collect,” says Melinda Manore, PhD, RD, nutrition professor at Oregon State University, Corvallis, and author of several textbooks, including Nutrition for Life (Benjamin Cummings 2006). Ideally, you would need to follow a large number of people—one group who ate breakfast and one group who didn’t. Since weight is gained gradually, a study must last for years to properly assess an effect. As with exercise studies, it’s tough to ensure that people stick to the program. And efforts must be made to make sure the nonbreakfast eaters don’t start eating and that the breakfast eaters don’t start skipping. Enough people need to be enrolled to make up for dropouts, and subjects need to be discouraged from dieting or overeating—both of which could influence the results.

So far, no major study has done this. That is why the 2010 Dietary Guidelines committee concluded there is inconsistent evidence that adults who miss a morning meal are upping their chances of becoming overweight or obese (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 2010). It might be true that skipping breakfast leads to weight gain, but there are not enough studies to prove it.

Even if there is an increased risk, that’s no guarantee that you will put on weight, since weight gain also depends on how much you eat all day. “To assess the power of breakfast, you have to look at overall eating patterns,” says Enette Larson-Meyer, PhD, RD, FACSM, nutrition professor at the University of Wyoming and author of Vegetarian Sports Nutrition (Human Kinetics 2007). “It’s hard to argue that someone at a healthy body weight with an overall healthy eating pattern of nutritious foods spaced out throughout the day should be forced to eat when they don’t feel hungry first thing in the morning.

“On the other hand, not eating may provoke unhealthy eating patterns,” she explains. “A person might get so hungry later that they start craving chocolate and chips and end up overeating because they started the day with too little energy.”

Some people opt to skip food and go for coffee to rev up lagging energy levels. But this doesn’t change the physiological need for calories, and it may lead to more extreme hunger later—and to overeating. Most people perform better, mentally and physically, when they have eaten breakfast—especially if they are physically active. “In the few studies conducted in athletes, lack of food prior to exercise decreases performance. That’s why the recommendation is to consume some food and/or beverages prior to exercise,” says Marie Dunford, PhD, RD, author of the textbook Nutrition for Sport and Exercise (Cengage Learning 2007). “Of course, the intensity and duration of the workout must be considered when deciding how much and when to eat.”

What many people fail to consider is that the body awakes in an energy-deprived state. Depending upon when dinner or the last evening snack was consumed, a person may have gone 10–15 hours without food. Normally, the body gets energy from fat and carbohydrates. Glucose, or sugar from carbohydrates, is needed to metabolize fat and is the exclusive fuel source for the brain and red blood cells. The liver’s stored glycogen supplies the body with glucose throughout the night. “When you wake up, blood sugar may be low and the liver may be running low in glycogen,” says Larson-Meyer. “This limits the glucose that is available for the energy needs of the brain and body.”

Though some have demonized sugar and other carbs, Larson-Meyer says, “You do need glucose for brain function and—if you exercise in the morning—as a substrate for muscles so that you can get an intense workout in and recover well afterward. Studies in children have shown that a little sugar helps them think better and not be so sluggish.”

Breakfast not only provides readily available calories for morning activity (Marangoni et al. 2009); it is also integral to obtaining essential nutrients. Protein is needed for muscle building and repair, as well as for other functions, including maintenance of hormones and enzymes.

“Most people get plenty of protein each day but tend to consume it later in the day,” Manore says. “New research is showing that it is better absorbed and utilized if intake is spread throughout the day.” One reason why the body doesn’t function optimally on one meal a day is that the body usually doesn’t absorb 100% of a nutrient when it is consumed. So eating several meals can help the body use more of the nutrients it gets from food.

Protein is a blanket term for the many types of amino acids found in foods. “When you eat a lot of protein at one time, there may be excess amino acids that are not needed to replenish the body’s pool. There is nowhere to store them, so they are converted to nitrogen and lost through urine,” Manore says. “Spreading smaller amounts out to constantly give muscles and the body protein throughout the day can not only help maintain lean muscle mass but also help it to function better.”

Additionally, breakfast can ensure an adequate day’s supply of fiber, as well as vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients. “It’s an important way to kick-start your day and start taking in the nutrients you need,” Larson-Meyer says.

Some people assume that not feeling hungry is an intuitive signal not to eat. “Just because you don’t feel hungry doesn’t mean that you don’t need calories. It might mean you need them more than you think,” says Larson-Meyer. Diminished appetite is thought to be a protective adaptation when the body is having a starvation response. One theory is that this is an evolutionary adaptation: while experiencing a huge energy deficit, the body can conserve energy if it doesn’t react by getting famished, which would drive up the energy used to look for food when none was available.

Dan Benardot, PhD, RD, FACSM, professor and head of nutrition at Georgia State University, Atlanta, has studied how large energy deficits, such as those that can be created by skipping breakfast, affect athletes. In his book Advanced Sports Nutrition (Human Kinetics 2005), he explains that even if body weight stays stable because a person doesn’t eat more calories over the whole day, an athlete may have less lean body mass and higher body fat levels as a result. Both the low blood sugar in the long periods of not eating and the overly large meals that follow can lead to surges of excess insulin, an effect that encourages extra body fat. Benardot’s online food log helps track hourly energy fluctuations (http://nutritiming.com) to show when and how much to eat to maintain good energy balance.

Even if hunger diminishes once you start working out, if your fuel tank is on empty and you rev up the engine, your body will demand more fuel in the form of glucose and fatty acids from the blood. If more fuel is not available, the body will break down muscle proteins. What’s more, by driving your body into an even deeper energy deficit, you’ll be more likely to get famished and binge later.

And if you think you’ll burn more body fat exercising on an empty stomach, think again. If the body burns a higher percentage of fat while exercising on no breakfast in the morning (and study results are mixed), that doesn’t mean metabolism—or total calorie burn—is speeding up. “If you’re going to do a long or strenuous workout on an empty stomach, you may not have adequate carbs to power your workout and so you won’t be able to work out as long or as hard,” Larson-Meyer says. “Even if you are burning a slightly higher ratio of fat, with impaired performance you may not be burning as many total calories or total calories of fat as you could if you were well-fueled.”

Some studies have suggested that there is an increase in fat loss. “But if you measure the amount of fat that’s burned, it’s a miniscule amount,” Manore says. And there’s little evidence that it results in long-term weight loss. A recent study in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism measured men who used the treadmill at a moderate intensity for around 35 minutes both before and after eating breakfast. Those who ate first burned significantly more calories and burned a significantly higher percentage of fat 12 and 24 hours after the workout, compared with those who worked out without eating. There appeared to be an enhanced utilization of fat when exercising after eating (Paoli et al. 2011).

Does a black coffee with 1 teaspoon of sugar (15 calories) count? What about a 50-calorie apple? Is a doughnut okay? Is eating at 10:00 am as nourishing as eating at 7:00 am?

Breakfast means literally breaking the food fast that has occurred since the last evening meal. But how many calories are needed to qualify as “breakfast” and exactly when they are required are debatable questions. “There is no standardized definition,” Manore admits. Some studies measure breakfast as an absolute calorie amount. Others quantify it by describing the percentage of breakfast calories compared to the total day’s intake.

“Usually we aim for breakfast providing 25%–30% of the calories for the day, so the amount will depend on a person’s daily energy expenditure,” says Larson-Meyer. A highly active female who eats 2,500 or more calories per day might have a breakfast of at least 600 calories, and an active male might have more. A lower-calorie breakfast, such as a few egg whites or a piece of fruit, might suffice, but more energy may be needed sooner, especially if a workout is imminent.

Ideally, the morning meal should provide carbohydrates and fiber from fruits, vegetables and/or beans, as well as protein from low-fat milk or yogurt, eggs or plant sources such as nuts, beans and whole grains.

While fruit is generally recommended over juice because fruit contains more fiber and fewer calories, a lean exerciser need not fear juice. “Most people should avoid drinking their calories, but if juice is an easy energy source before your workout in the morning, go ahead and drink it,” Larson-Meyer says.

As for a doughnut, Sunday-morning pancakes or the omnipresent pastries at breakfast work events, they may be acceptable under certain circumstances.

“Something is better than nothing, and if you’re in the woods starving, a doughnut is okay,” Manore says. But keeping a stash of easy breakfast backups, like breakfast bars, nuts or even cold leftovers, can give you more nutritious choices and save you from filling up on empty calories. You can also enhance no-no foods. “Make whole-grain pancakes, or eat fruit with your doughnut,” Manore advises. Don’t be afraid to get creative: some cultures eat soups for breakfast, others eat beans (on toast or in bean burritos). Aim for a breakfast that provides energy and nutrients and that helps you feel satiated.

Not all stretching is created equal. Some stretches are appropriate for limbering up before a workout and others are meant for increasing flexibility and range of motion. Certain more involved stretching techniques are useful for promoting coordination and sports performance, and some stretching styles are designed to be done alone while others take advantage of a partner.

WHEN you stretch can be as important as HOW you stretch. The safest and most effective times for your workout stretch, are after your warm up and after your workout is complete. Stretching a ‘cold’ muscle can be dangerous and should be done very cautiously. If time is a factor, focus on the stretches at the end of the workout, because it yields the greatest result.  Here are a few examples of different stretching techniques.                      

1. Active & Passive Stretching: Passive stretching is done to the stretcher by a partner. Active stretching means that the stretcher is doing the work alone.

2. Static Stretching: Static stretching has been popularized by Bob Anderson in his book, Stretching (1984). The muscle to be stretched is lengthened slowly (to inhibit firing of the stretch reflex), and the stretcher moves gently into a deeper stretch and holds again. Static stretching can be done actively or passively.

3. Ballistic Stretching: This technique is done using rapid, bouncing movements to force the target muscle to elongate. This can be done actively or passively, but is generally out of favor due to the high risk of injury and ineffectiveness.

4. Active Assisted: Active-assisted stretching combines active movement by the stretcher with help from a partner, either to add passive stretch or to provide resistance to motion, thus blending active and passive stretching.

Sitting does not exempt people from the injury risks usually associated with more physically demanding tasks. And standing may increase productivity, a new study concludes.

IN corporate America, we are obsessed with productivity, reduced costs, and the “bottom line.” Add to this all the concerns about safety and ergonomics, and you have the makings of a colossal headache. In fact, in some cases, I think the obsession with productivity has gone a little too far, even taking a step backward.

Our company is a good example of this dedication to increasing efficiency. Several years ago, we purchased new computers for the office employees. As part of the “package deal,” these machines arrived with printers that quickly were installed within reach at every workstation. This meant the employees had virtually no reason for leaving their desks. When asked where I wanted my printer, I replied, “In the box.”Call me inefficient, ineffective, unproductive . . . call me anything you want, but I need an excuse to get up and walk around. After a couple of hours, I need to take a moment to relax and shift gears. And despite my “ergonomically designed” chair, my back needs a break, as well.

Apparently, a lot of other people feel the same way. Why? The human body is not made to sit for extended periods of time. It is designed to be upright and on the move. Therefore, sitting is not the panacea for workers’ fatigue. Sitting is a very static work position. In fact, it is more static than standing and can put more stressors on the human body.

Until recently it was assumed that sitting was a much more comfortable working position than standing. Although sitting jobs require less muscular effort, less is not better in this case. The limited muscle movement means reduced circulation and ultimately more discomfort and fatigue. In addition, this static posture does not exempt people from the injury risks usually associated with more physically demanding tasks. For example, clerks, electronic assembly-line employees, and data entry operators who work in a sitting position also suffer back pain, muscle tenderness, and aches. In fact, reports of varicose veins, stiff necks, and numbness in the legs are more common among seated employees than among those who stand to work.

Another common assumption is that standing is inherently uncomfortable and lessens efficiency and output over time. However, a recent study disputes that assumption and indicates that standing may in fact, increase productivity.

Dr. Marvin J. Dainoff from the Center For Ergonomic Research at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, recently published a study, “The Effect of Ergonomic Worktools on Productivity In Today’s Automated Workstation Design.” Although Dr. Dainoff did not set out to show that standing at work can actually increase productivity, his study certainly indicates those participants who chose to stand were more productive.

The purpose of Dr. Dainhoff’s study was to evaluate the role that ergonomic tools can play in the performance of workstation design and its overall effect on worker productivity. He asserted that the principal source of productivity in the modern office is the human being in front of a PC, resulting in a large percentage of employees’ workdays spent sitting in one basic posture in front of the computer. (I think many of us would agree with that statement.) He also asserted that routine breaks from this type of work have been all but eliminated by the implementation of the totally automated workstation.

Therefore, Dr. Dainhoff developed the parameters of this study using certain assumptions, the most relevant of which was that sitting for prolonged periods is problematic and can be linked to reduced productivity and other fatigue-related issues. One of the goals of the study was to assess the effectiveness of periodically standing throughout the day and its effect on workers’ productivity.

Methodology 
One goal of the research was to assess the attributes of ergonomic work tools, so the study included use of a Flipper-style keyboard support and an adjustable monitor arm. Participants were trained for 45 minutes on how and why to make specific adjustments to these devices, including how to raise them so they could be used if the participant were working in a standing position.

On Day One, the participants were asked to use the ergonomic devices to lessen fatigue as they worked.

On Day Two, the participants used the same equipment but also were asked to stand several times throughout the day as they were working.

On Day Three, the participants were given no guidance and allowed to work in whatever manner they chose.

During the length of the study, the participants were allowed to take breaks whenever required.

Results: Many Participants Chose to Stand 
On Day One, 36 percent of the participants stood to work for at least part of the day.

Those who stood on Day One stood 40 percent more on Day Three. In the subsequent interviews, the participants revealed that they felt the benefits of standing and therefore, wanted to do it more frequently. More than 57 percent of the participants who did not stand at all on Day One, stood on Day Three after being asked to stand on Day Two. Over the course of the three-day study, the length of time the participants stood increased from Day One to Day Two by 65 percent and remained essentially the same on Day Three.

On Day Three, more than half of the participants stood regularly. This is important because the “lab” was designed to simulate a normal work environment, and there were no instructors to influence the manner in which they completed their tasks. The subjects were standing for their own comfort.

Dr. Dainhoff divided the participants into two groups: the Standers (those who stood on Day Three) and the Non-Standers (those who did not stand on Day Three). There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the number and length of workbreaks. On average, the Non-Standers took 47 percent more work-related breaks than the Standers and the length of each break was 56 percent longer. This dramatically affected productivity because the Standers spent an increased amount of time accomplishing their tasks. This translated into a significant reduction of fatigue-related productivity loss.

In addition, the Standers felt they were more productive as a result of adjusting their equipment, while Non-Standers were less likely to feel any adjustment to equipment made a positive impact on productivity. Dr. Dainhoff concluded that only dramatic postural changes increased comfort over time. Interestingly enough, none of the participants were offered the use of anti-fatigue mats. They simply stood on the hard floor in front of their workstations.

Conclusions 
Although this study produced many very interesting results and conclusions, there are two of particular relevance:

Using the right ergonomic worktools provides the ability to get into and maintain ergonomically correct postures. The use of the adjustable keyboard and monitor arm allowed the participants to naturally gravitate to a more comfortable standing position.

The second criterion for efficient work is to provide movement throughout the day while accomplishing tasks. This is required to promote blood flow to muscles and relieve fatigue resulting from static exertion.

Standing is a natural human posture and by itself poses no particular health hazard. In fact, when standing, the body is in one of its most comfortable positions. The lumbar curvature is naturally maintained, the spinal column is properly supported, and the body’s internal organs are in a relaxed, natural position. This is illustrated in the study because more than half of the participants chose to stand up to work even though they stood on a hard floor.

What would the results have been if the workers had been given anti-fatigue mats to stand on when they took breaks from sitting? Because anti-fatigue mats accomplish the second criterion for efficient work (i.e., to promote blood flow to muscles, relieving fatigue resulting from static exertion), I assert the participants would have spent even more time standing and perhaps taken productivity to an even higher level. When an individual stands on an anti-fatigue mat, his leg muscles subtly contract and expand as they adjust to the flexibility of the mat. This muscle movement increases blood flow and increases the amount of oxygen reaching the heart. And fatigue is greatly reduced.

WEDNESDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) — Pain afflicts at least 116 million adults in the United States each year and costs the nation $560 billion to $635 billion annually in medical and economic costs, according to an Institute of Medicine report released Wednesday.

But most of this pain is preventable and could be better managed if public and private organizations worked together to achieve a cultural shift in how the nation understands and approaches pain management and prevention, according to the report authors.

They recommended a number of changes, including some that could be implemented by the end of 2012 and others that could be in place by 2015.

“Given the large number of people who experience pain and the enormous cost in terms of both dollars and the suffering experienced by individuals and their families, it is clear that pain is a major public health problem in America,” report committee chair Philip Pizzo, dean, professor of pediatrics, and professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine, said in an IOM news release.

“All too often, prevention and treatment of pain are delayed, inaccessible, or inadequate. Patients, health care providers, and our society need to overcome misperceptions and biases about pain. We have effective tools and services to tackle the many factors that influence pain and we need to apply them expeditiously through an integrated approach tailored to each patient,” Pizzo said.

Among the recommendations:

• Most care and management of pain should be done through primary care providers and patient self-management, with specialty care reserved for more complex cases. Health care organizations should take the lead in encouraging and educating patients in pain self-management.
• Pain education should be included in training programs for physicians, dentists, nurses, psychologists and other health professionals. Many health professionals are not adequately trained to provide the full range of pain care or to guide patients in pain self-management.
• Medicare, Medicaid, workers’ compensation programs, and private health plans should find ways to cover interdisciplinary pain care.
• The U.S. National Institutes of Health should designate one of its institutes to take the lead in moving pain research forward and increase the scope and resources of its existing Pain Consortium.

Congress requested the study, which was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The Institute of Medicine operates under the National Academy of Sciences.

Weight gain increases pounds of pressure and loading forces on the knee structure. Since extra pressure leads to more wear and tear over time, body weight is considered a significant contributor to the onset and progression of knee arthritis. While weight loss can help relieve the pain, clients may consider the effort as overwhelming as the disease itself.

Now, a long-term weight loss study has demonstrated that even modest reductions in weight contribute to improved quality of life. The participants, who were all mildly obese, were generally in their late 50s or early 60s, female and white. The improvements they made were consistent. On average, the group lost 15 pounds over 4 months of weekly meetings focused on diet, exercise and lifestyle changes. The women regained an average of 5.5 pounds the following year. Participants’ initial weight loss was associated with reduced pain levels and a quality of life comparable to that of healthy adults in the same age bracket. The decrease in pain motivated participants to maintain their weight loss.

“For someone who is very overweight, as little as a 15-pound weight loss over 16 weeks can result in decreased discomfort, increased quality of life, and motivation for staying active and healthy,” said Steffany Haaz, project director at the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center in Baltimore, in a press release. “That means just 1 pound a week translates into significant improvements in comfort and movement.”

Wage war on that ornery abdominal fat with Guerrilla Cardio. It’ll “free” your abbies from that prison cell of cellulite faster than any other cardio program ever developed.  It’s an eight-week, aerobics alternative specifically designed for folks short on time and “fed up” with abdominal fat—or just plain body fat in general. The premise is simple: Rather than waste half your day lazily plodding along in the so-called “fat-burning zone” on the Lifecycle or treadmill, hoping the fat melts off before you die of boredom, you radically pick up the pace and alternate bouts of 20-second maximum- effort sprinting with 10-second periods of rest. You do eight of these gut-busting intervals. And all told, excluding the warm-up and cool down, it’ll take you only four short minutes a day, three days a week. I know, I know … in an age when we’re bombarded by suspect quick-fix fat-loss strategies—The Guerrilla Cardio program, however, is different. It’s not a gimmick. It’s not based on blind guesswork or hype. It’s a real solution based on scientific research as well as real-world experience. In fact, according to Japanese researchers, it may be one of the best possible training plans ever developed.  Building a better fat-burning program Recently, Dr. Izumi Tabata, Ph.D., and colleagues from the National Institute of Health & Nutrition in Tokyo, Japan, set out in search of “the ideal” aerobics training protocol—one that would most efficiently increase fat burning and cardiovascular fitness. Such a plan, the researchers believed, should be:  High intensity. For years, we’ve been told that low-effort aerobics is the best method for burning fat. New research tells another story. While studies show high-intensity aerobics may burn a little less fat than its low intensity counterpart during the time actually spent exercising, the total expenditure of calories (and fat!) is up to 50 percent greater with intense cardio.

Most of the fat you burn with high-intensity cardio occurs after exercising,

not during the workout itself.

Research presented in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise shows that when you work out using high-intensity intervals, the total amount of calories your body burns is elevated up to 142 percent more than low-effort aerobics within the hour after your workout. And it doesn’t stop there. Research published in the journal Metabolism shows this potent post-exercise “burn” may persist for up to 48 hours after exercising. The more fit you become, the more likely you are to use fat as fuel for any given activity. Peak fitness is generally defined as having both a high  aerobic and anaerobic capacity. Your maximum oxygen capacity, or VO2 peak, is generally considered the best measure of aerobic fitness. As exercise intensity increases beyond your VO2 peak, your body shifts to anaerobic (without oxygen) energy production. In the face of this oxygen debt, lactic acid levels build up in tissues, making your muscles feel sore. Your ability to continue exercising at this point is called anaerobic capacity. Notice that athletes in sports where a high level of both aerobic and anaerobic fitness are necessary (wrestling, basketball, boxing, speed skating, etc.) are some of the leanest, most

muscular individuals around. Unfortunately, with most of the cardio programs offered up today, it’s a case of “either/or.” You either maximally stress your aerobic system (like most slow-go cardio programs) or maximally stress your anaerobic system (like most high-intensity cardio programs with long rest periods). So clearly, a cardio program that maximally improves both aerobic and anaerobic capacity would be a godsend.  Too much  aerobics burns muscle! And muscle not only helps you look leaner and stronger, it also makes your body more metabolically active. The ideal cardio program would be just long enough to “spark” your metabolism for that important post-exercise fat “burn” but not so long that it begins to eat away at your hard-earned muscle!

If you follow the program exactly how it’s laid out, three Guerrilla Cardio sessions a week should produce nice results without delayed gratification. To prevent  overtraining, try to incorporate the program on your weight training “off days.” For instance, train with weights on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and perform my Guerrilla Cardio sessions on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday mornings, before  eating anything. (Studies show cardiovascular exercise performed first thing in the morning,

on an empty stomach, burns up to three times more fat than the same amount of exercise performed later in the afternoon!)

Guerrilla Cardio can be applied to all sorts of activities—the stationary bike, stairstepper, etc.—It is ld highly recommend you stick to sprinting for a couple of reasons …

First, all else being equal, sprinting elicits a significantly higher peak oxygen  consumption (VO2 peak) than do other modes of cardiovascular exercise, according to researchers from the University of Missouri, Columbia, who recently compared treadmill sprinting to high-intensity exercise on a stationary skier, shuffle skier, stairstepper, stationary bike and rower. This is important because this new research shows the closer you come to your VO2 peak while exercising, the more fat you’ll burn once that exercise session is over.

The Workout

Minutes 1-4:

Warm-up @ 50% of perceived maximum effort followed by:

Minute 5:

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Minute 6:

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Minute 7:

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Minute 8:

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Sprinting for 20 seconds

Rest for 10 seconds

Minutes 9-12:

Cool-down @ 50% of perceived maximum Effort

TUESDAY APRIL 19 @ 6:30 PM

HOSTED BY VINCE CATTERUCCIA, CORPO BENE LLC. www.corpobene.com

Where: 1111 Lawrence Drive De Pere WI 54115

PLEASE RSVP to; vccorpobene@gmail.com

FEATURING MATT GUNVILLE, CSCS by NSCA http://www.profitnessinc.com/staff/

YOUR SUPPLEMENT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TO USE, WHEN & WHY WILL BE ANSWERED!