My colleague and friend Rino Lagacé brought to my attention a video which left me perplexed, and I admit not knowing what to think… Here is a person, who gives advice on weight training and cardio, and who has decided to take it out on aerobic training ... So far, I have no problem, especially if it is supported by science ! But where "the shoe pin" is that here, this is not the case: not only is nothing based on scientific studies, but in addition, some explanations show an ignorance of the physiology of the effort ...
So I thought to rectify some facts:
At 1:50, he says: "the principle is that the body wants to keep fat" -> he scores a point because, in fact, the body is made to keep energy reserves!
At 1:55, he's talking about yo-yo diets. There is no such thing as a yo-yo diet! The weight that goes up and down is only the result of drastic diets.
At 3:28, he says one of the biggest aberrations: he first asserts that fat is burned in the presence of oxygen, which is true. But when he says "you're doing cardio christi, you're not burning adiposity all around!" ", it's wrong ! When you run, especially at low speed, a lot of the energy used comes from fat.
Then he asks us the question: "Have you ever seen runners dry dry dry dry?" ".
The answer is yes !
At 4:58, he says, “Cardio doesn't burn fat”… Ouch! I don't know how we can say that publicly…!
Here are a few articles that mention it:
Article 1
That doesn't mean that cardio is the best way to lose weight, but it is absolutely wrong to say that cardio doesn't burn fat.
5:04 “When there is no oxygen, you cannot burn fat”. That is true. Precisely, during exercises using the aerobic system, we are in the presence of oxygen!
5:45 "When you want to burn fat, you go slowly, at intervals." Ok… it looks like he doesn't know what intervals are. I don't know how we can “take it slow” and “do intervals” at the same time.
5:50 "Doing it in intervals changes absolutely everything." Sometimes when we were out of breath there was no oxygen, but all of a sudden, in the intervals, there is ?!
6:00 “Running is quite simply an energy chain called aerobic lactic”. FALSE. Running is not an energy source. Rather, running requires different energy sources. If you run at a comfortable pace, you are most likely working in the aerobic sector. If you run quickly (400m), you are probably putting more strain on your anaerobic lactic acid pathway. If you do a very short sprint (30m), you are probably putting more stress on your anaerobic alactic system. For more details on these sectors, check out this presentation.
7:00 “One who runs at a brisk pace, who keeps body heat high, gets results. Whoever runs to shout has nothing ”. I do not understand this sentence at all! The faster you run, the hotter you get. Period. It is pure mechanical physics. To go faster, you have to generate more power, it takes more energy… and the results are there.
8:00 "He insinuates that when you don't eat well, it's difficult to lose weight." A piece of robot!
8:40 He gives the example of people who say that the machine writes that they burn calories, but that they do not lose weight. Two things are very true in what he says:
1. The number of calories burned displayed on the machines is an approximation!
2. Calories burned do not equal calories lost !
10:50 “Weights and weights can be cardio” Yes, it's true!
11:00 "I line up for the championships and I don't ride a bike". It's great, but it's not a scientific study. Plus, just because you can lose weight by doing strength training doesn't mean you can't lose it by doing cardio-vascular training.
12:20 "The human body is very simple how it is made". FALSE.
13:05: He talks about the importance of sleep and diet. Fully agree.
13:46: Will multiplied by discipline = success. No worse…, but PLEASURE is missing in the equation!
14:30 pm: “Training is the story of a lifetime”. I love this sentence. Truly. He scores a big big point. Well done !
15:00 pm: "Drink water". As far as I am concerned, it is more important not to drink juice or carbonated drinks than to force yourself to drink lots of water.
20:20 PM "You will not lose anything by doing cardio, you will increase the capacity of your heart to work, period!". This is 100% false. As you run, you will induce adaptations, such as improved gas exchange in your legs, you will increase the number of mitochondria in your muscles, increase the number of blood capillaries per muscle fiber and increase the concentration of oxidative enzymes in your muscles. . Basically, your body will do whatever it can to improve the transport of oxygen, carbohydrates, and fat to your muscles.
In conclusion, I think his intention is good and he is right on several points. In any case, the video is very entertaining! On the other hand, it is also wrong on several points and explains different phenomena in a false way. Honestly, I find this type of video damaging to the level of knowledge in exercise physiology.
pouhahahaha it is funny this humorist the…. does he give shows ??? I would love to attend… I imagine the price to enter is a lifetime subscription to the "popye" How can anyone be so stupid ????
Until 3:30 it made a lot of sense 🙂 I think we should just give a little biochemistry topo to this guy who seems to be in good faith
A little more than a little biochemistry topo, but we agree, I also think he is in good faith.
I would like to know your opinion on the fact that a lot of people who want to lose weight start jogging and lose weight at first and it stops after a few months. They run more and more and their times improve and their fat% does not decrease. Do you think it could be an adaptation of the metabolism or simply a lack of food?
The body will always do everything in its power not to lose weight. Often times when we become more active, we adjust by being less active the rest of our lives. This is part of the explanation. Then, indeed, probably that the metabolism adapts and the diet too. Contrary to what he suggests, weight loss is an extremely complex and multifactorial phenomenon.
Maybe once at 6% fat there is nothing to lose ... 🙂
If it was only that. I'm talking mostly about girls with 30% fat%. At 6% I suspect there is nothing left to lose.
simple matter of calculation. The more you run, the more you lose weight. If you run 45 minutes 3 times a week, your weight will stabilize because you do not create additional energy expenditure. You want to lose weight more, you have to run more. Performance improves, but stabilizes after a while.
Basically that's it. Do not expect to get skinny by running little. It's like wanting to be a millionaire by being a clerk at Maxi.
I do not understand your assertion. Running just 3 times doesn't create a big enough deficit to lose weight but will running more? According to this logic if we do not run then we gain weight.
There you have it. If you have 10 extra pounds it might not be enough, but if you have more, say 50, you might lose 25, but not more. Unless you run more often and / or longer. For the same food.
So if you stop running and eat so much, what happens? You take back the lost pounds.
It's simple. Calories eaten - calories expended = weight gain or loss
What do you base yourself on knowing that a person with only 10 pounds to lose will not lose any while the one who has 50 to lose will get there? If that person eats at the maintenance level, the energy expenditure created by running should be enough to lose weight, regardless of starting weight, based on this equation (calories eaten - calories expended). If we go by this same equation, this same person should not gain weight by stopping running since they are eating at the posture level.
at 10 pounds overweight, you're not overweight, so the losses are minimal. Unless you run 15h weeks, then you will lose them. A person who is 50 pounds overweight will lose maybe 15 pounds running 2-3 hours a week and his weight will be maintained. The superfluous is easy to lose unlike the slight surplus which means that you have a proportional weight and not an athlete's weight. So, if he increases the sessions and the duration, he will lose more. But if a person eats at the level of maintenance, in principle he does not have excess pounds before starting to run….
Daniel, you should produce a video to counter his comments. Then see which video is viewed the most and declare a winner! I admit that it wouldn't be scientific, nor true, but still, it would be fun!
You certainly have the sense of the show Charles 🙂 Difficult for me to be as rigorous in a video as in an article that I have time to write. I could play the game, good idea 🙂
Of course, cardio alone makes you lose weight (implying fat). I went from 72 to 60 kg since I started running (without doing other sports), and I was not muscular before… After we can discuss if we lose more by running slowly or by doing intervals, the best is probably to alternate.
As for this hysterical clown, I guess his wife got rid of a marathoner and he hates lol… 😉
Overweight girls who do cyclobike or zumba, stay fat because these exercises mostly burn sugar and trigger a craving afterwards. It is therefore the reverse of the expected result. The most common cause of the problem are self-proclaimed gym teachers, without any knowledge of the basics of metabolism but who would lose their clients if they told them what to do to lose weight: go for a slow run in nature for 60 to 90 years. min, 3 times a week, without ever being out of breath, and without feeling hungry afterwards. If we are hungry afterwards, it is because we were too fast. Throw your mp3 and go for a run in the countryside with friends, and especially forget the steps, aquabike, all stupid things, which are based on brutality and not on softness. Brutality never solved anything in the long run, it's the same with overweight. Softness, gentleness, gentleness ...
The content is pretty bad but my family in Switzerland love its accent and the terminology used 🙂
A lot of people think we are "specialists" but when we are followers of physical activity we end up discerning the valid information from those who are not so keep writing us a "real" interesting article, Don't waste your time with them! :))
Marie-Claude Lortie (whom I like as a journalist by the way) is a fan of the idea that physical exercise does not allow you to lose weight. Of course, most people lose weight when they exercise, but this does not mean anything scientifically because it is possible (in my case) that sport makes you eat better (by a phenomenon of cognitive anti-dissonance by example). Drinking a coke after a 20 km interval doesn't make too much sense. On the other hand, and this is where the bat hurts (in MCL's reasoning and understanding), she does not seem to understand that in a scientific article (or in any form of scientific research), the conditions compared must be equivalent on all variables not studied. For example, she always reports that those who train eat more and therefore, they do not lose weight. She concludes that exercise does not make you lose weight. Eh… no !!! We can probably conclude from this that exercise whets the appetite and that those who overestimate the number of calories burned by exercise (thank you passing the ellipticals and others!) Eat because they think that the calories ingested do not compensate. not the loss. The principle of 'all things being equal' is therefore not respected and therefore, this shows… nothing. Despite everything, it flatters me the number of articles in the field of physical exercise that do not meet this simple criterion.
Not only the majority of the population does not know anything about biochemistry etc. but in addition, they would badly need a course (or several) on the scientific process!
We agree.
As for Marie-Claude Lortie (who writes in La Presse), this is not the first time that she has demonstrated an obvious - even heartbreaking - lack of analytical rigor. A researcher specializing in virology, Jacqueline Lagacé (*), had already pointed it out to her concerning gluten allergy: Marie-Claude Lortie sincerely believed she knew everything in this area simply because she had interviewed several doctors on the subject (*) *)!
(*) Qualifications of Ms. Jacqueline Lagacé: M.Sc. (virology), Institut-Armand-Frappier (UQ), 1979. Excellence grant DGES.
Ph.D. (virology), Institut-Armand-Frappier (UQ), 1983. Excellence grant, FCAC.
Post-doctoral studies in immunology, Institut-Lady Davis (U. McGill), 1983-1984. FCAC and MASS excellence scholarships.
Post-doctoral studies in immunology and bacteriology, Bureau of Microbiology, Laboratory Center for Disease Control, Ottawa, 1984-1986. NSERC Excellence Scholarship.
Successive positions of FRSQ scholarship holders, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, 1986-2003. Following my engagement by the University of Montreal in 1986, I held the position of director of a research laboratory in microbiology and immunology, director of theses and teaching of immunology and microbiology at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd university cycles. Director of the Bachelor of Biomedical Sciences program.
Publication of 35 scientific articles in international journals with peer review. Presentation of 54 papers at national and international scientific congresses.
(**) It is possible to listen to the debate between Marie-Claude Lortie and Jacqueline Lagacé in the program Medium Large hosted by Catherine Perrin, on Radio-Canada radio (95,1 FM), on February 6 2013. NB: Note that during this radio program, Marie-Claude Lortie admits herself that she is not a scientist!
I, of course, agree with MCL. At least she admits that she's not a scientist. It's already that! On the other hand, I agree that Madame Lagacé has an honest CV (not excellent by science standards), but I more or less like the 'sales' side of her books. I do not know your 'background' in science but one thing is certain, as a general rule, in a serious text (blog), based on rigorous scientific data, the author is careful and moderate, he does not speak as if he held a miracle… In short, I like her style more or less even if it is possible that she is right (you have to keep an open mind). I also had fun reading the post-2013 literature on Gluten sensitivity and the data is more or less clear (I only read the 10 most cited / recent articles). What is clear is that the researcher who in the early 90s showed gluten sensitivity in people without celiac disease recently showed that his study suffered from a lack of control over what participants ate. It's not easy science!
At the same time, replace cardio with any exercise that expends as many calories, cardio will not have the virtue of losing more fat. If you lose 500 kcal by doing cardio or lifting weights, it will give the same result in terms of body composition.
The guy might have a "broish" way of explaining it, but it looks like the article is looking for a bit of a reason to laugh at him. I'm not saying he's 100% correct on everything.
We agree.
For your second point, the point of the article is not to make fun of the guy, but rather to rectify inaccurate facts he claims.
I read this piece of writing fully on the topic of the comparison of most recent and earlier technologies, it's amazing article.
Very good summary Daniel. I approve of you and agree 100%. Already in the gyms, we find kinesiologists and trainers without theoretical training who go to war in order to make their place, I think it does not do them justice. But I admit that he is a very good speaker and very entertaining!
It says everything and its opposite: Work between 125-135 beats / mn for a man of 40-50 years and above 155 for a young person. Then you have to do interval training !!! Me in IT on 200m-400m I AM 173 pulses !!!! So we will necessarily burn less fat in this area.
Take my case, male, 29 years old, 6 ′ & 211 lbs. 15,4% fat (103lbs of skeletal muscle / 32.6lbs of fat). According to my last FIT test done at energie cardio. my Basal Metabolic Rate is 2118kcal per day. On short jogging days between 6,5 and 9km (up to 10-11 for the long Sunday run) I put between 45-75 min. to do these distances and my BPM (average over the entire duration) are between 175 and 185. and I "consume" between 900-1100 kcal per hour of running. So I should consume approx. 3000kcal per day to stay stable.
However, I have noticed that my body fat does not decrease much. It's mostly because I don't have much to lose. Not because I don't run enough. In 6 months of running and strength training in the gym, I gained 1,1 lbs of my total weight, since I had gained 4 lbs of muscle and lost 2,9 lbs of fat mass.
It reassures me to know that I'm not the only one to know all this ^^ thank you guys good when I say everything I would say 85% including 20% of rapel bite lol.