Don't Make This Core Stability Mistake
Q. I've always been told that drawing the belly button towards the spine (abdominal hollowing) is the best way to improve core stability. But I just read an article in The Guardian saying that it doesn't work as well as it's supposed to. What do you think?
A. The short answer is that I don't think abdominal hollowing is the best way to enhance stability. Here's what I wrote on the subject a few years back, and my opinion on the subject hasn't changed since.
Achieving stability is not just a matter of activating a few targeted muscles (such as transverse abdominis). You need all the muscles. A better way to ensure maximum stability and support is the abdominal brace.
This involves tightening the abdominal muscles as if you're about to take a punch in the gut. It provides support and strength to your torso by making it stiffer.
Abdominal bracing, which activates the three layers of the abdominal wall, is much more effective than abdominal hollowing at enhancing spine stability. |
Keep in mind that the fitness industry tends to be influenced very heavily by fads, training techniques are frequently taken out of context and, as the article in The Guardian points out, the benefits are often "wildly overplayed by the fitness industry."
It's nice to see one of the mainstream publications actually printing something useful for a change.
Q. I have been following Fight Fat and Win 2.0 and lost a considerable amount of fat during the first 3 weeks. In the last couple of weeks I've really struggled to lose the last little bit to reveal my abs. I feel like I'm doing everything right – I'm training according to the plan, have my diet set at 1800 calories a day, and drinking only water. How do I strip off this last little bit of fat, or is it just a painfully slow process?
A. In general terms, the closer you get to your "ceiling of adaptation" or "upper limit" of what you're capable of in terms of fat loss, the slower your rate of progress becomes.
There does appear to be an upper limit to the rate at which fat is lost, estimated in one study to be about 31 calories per pound of fat per day.
Although this study gives only a theoretical estimate, and is based on dieting and relatively "moderate" activity levels, it does illustrate the important point that fat loss will slow down the less fat you have to lose.
Using these figures (keeping the limitations I just mentioned in mind), if you have 10 pounds of fat to lose, you can sustain a deficit of 310 calories per day without running the risk of losing a substantial amount of muscle. If you have 20 pounds of fat, that's a deficit of 620 calories per day. With 30 pounds of fat, it's 930 calories per day.
In other words, the less fat you have, the longer it'll take to lose it.
Basically, I think you can continue to improve but you'll need to accept a) that your rate of progress is going to slow down over time and b) it's not going to get any easier.
There's some great advice from Tom Venuto on how to break through your plateau in Stubborn Fat and How to Beat It.
Q. I've been counting calories to lose fat and gain muscle. In the last few months I've been using Fitday, which makes keeping track of my calorie intake that much easier. However, Fitday seems to underestimate the calories I've consumed. Yesterday, for example, my total calorie intake for the day was 2807 calories. But when I multiply the micronutrients, they don't add up to 2807. This is slightly irritating when trying to adhere to the guidelines in How To Burn Fat Without Losing Muscle. Should I eat more to make sure I get enough calories? Or am I worrying too much about something that doesn't really matter?
A. If you use the Atwater general factors (carbohydrates, fats and proteins contain 4, 9, and 4 calories per gram respectively) then the number for total calorie intake that you come up with is not going to be exactly the same as the number Fitday gives you. That's because the Atwater general factors have been rounded up to the whole numbers.
For example, after digestibility is taken into account, the protein in meat has an energy yield of 4.27 calories per gram, while in fruit it's only 3.36 calories per gram. The fat in meat and eggs has an energy yield of 9.03 calories per gram, compared with 8.37 calories per gram in vegetables. And the carbohydrate in animal food gives an energy yield of 3.82 calories per gram, compared with 4.11 calories per gram in cereal.
I think you're worrying about something that doesn't really matter. A few grams or calories here or there isn't going to make any difference.
Q. I just wanted to ask your opinion about the set point theory. Do you think a set point exists as a lot of animal research seems to suggest and if so, would you say this is this more to do with appetite control than thermogenesis?
A. A true "set point" suggests that there's a biological system that acts to maintain your weight by adjusting energy intake (i.e. appetite) and expenditure (i.e. metabolic rate) at some kind of set level.
There is a weight that your body will try to maintain, which is affected not only by your genetics (Set-Point Theory of Body Weight), but by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, such as what you eat and how much exercise you do (Settling Point Theory).
For example, someone might "settle" at a weight of X when they're 20 years old and at college or university. And that "settling point" is the result of a combination of both their lifestyle and their genetics. At age 30, when they might have less free time or motivation to exercise regularly, that settling point may have risen to X + 10. Genetics are still affecting their weight. But the environment is also having an impact.
So you might have a biological tendency towards a certain weight. But as long as certain environmental factors are in place (i.e. exercise and diet), you won't return to that weight without first altering those same environmental factors.
As for whether appetite or thermogenesis is having the biggest impact, I can't say I've looked into the subject recently. But I did find a couple of reviews (Model for the Regulation of Energy Balance and Adiposity by the Central Nervous System and Role of Set-Point Theory in Regulation of Body Weight), which cover the area in some depth. They might have the answers you're looking for.
About The Author
Christian Finn holds a master's degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer and has been featured on BBC TV and radio, as well as in Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Fit Pro, Zest and other popular fitness magazines.
If you're stuck
in a rut with your current exercise and diet plan... fed up with
only losing a pound here and there... or still skinny after months
(or even years) of trying to build muscle and gain weight... click here now for instant access to his step-by-step muscle-building and fat-burning workout routines.
|