A damning verdict on spin classes.

Climate Expert

From the Indo.

http://www.independent.ie/health/diet-fitness/in-a-spin-for-lean-pins-1503627.html

I like the fitness guy who writes for the Indo. He tells it like it is although I think he might be too hard on spinning here. I thought there was a decent enough amount of resistance involved.

cowzerp

i used to teach spinning and the people who done the same as me got a great workout and really worked hard and used high resistance at times throughout the class!

then the other half just used brutal resistance and done there own thing, basically they should not go to classes as the point is to copy the instructor and not cheat your way through the workout. these same people would be the ones to walk out after and say "that was easy"

smithslist

cowzerp wrote: »

the other half just used brutal resistance and done there own thing, basically they should not go to classes as the point is to copy the instructor and not cheat your way through the workout. these same people would be the ones to walk out after and say "that was easy"

totally agree...the instructor knows best!!!!


I must note I am not a instructor.

Hanley

The Indo wrote:

Spinning is unproductive as it doesn't burn fat -- it is a high-velocity, low-resistance activity. I have seen women as fat in the lower body now as they were when they attended their first class years ago.

Couldn't be because they're eating sh!t could it???

corkcomp

Hanley wrote: »

Couldn't be because they're eating sh!t could it???

probably a combination of that and the fact that many attendees go once or twice per week for 30 mins and do NO other exercise!!

siochain

cowzerp wrote: »

i used to teach spinning and the people who done the same as me got a great workout and really worked hard and used high resistance at times throughout the class!

then the other half just used brutal resistance and done there own thing, basically they should not go to classes as the point is to copy the instructor and not cheat your way through the workout. these same people would be the ones to walk out after and say "that was easy"

exactly, like any exercise its what you put in determines your results.

kazzer

The guys arguments are complete rubbish. He should hang his head in shame. And also resign.

Supercell

I read that article and was pretty confused afterwards.
Anyone i know thats has gone to spinning classes has dropped weight like no tomorrow and anytime I saw then coming out of the spin class they were literally lathered head to toe in sweat.
I wonder does the author think people just go into them with minimum resistance and pedal at a slow pace for an hour or so?
As to the body storing fat in the legs as a result of spinning classes, I'm a little skeptical.
Any of the experts here got any input on this?

LightningBolt

That piece is aimed at a certain type of reader who likes to keep in line with fashion trends. Therefore any ****e that's put out they'll lap it up. I stumbled upon one or two pieces in the "hedild" before, just pure tripe in terms of actual information.

hatful

I cycle quite a bit, It does help keep me in shape and it has toned my lower legs.

My purpose in going to the gym is not to lose weight but what does he mean by 'Using high-resistance interval training' why doesn't he give concrete examples of what exercises people should be doing and for what time periods.

Roper

I'm fairly sure that the author is also a personal trainer, so anything that keeps people out of classes and into PTs is good for him. His argument as pointed out above, doesn't really hold any water. By that token I could say that I know a girl who does resistance training, eats like a pig and hasn't lost weight or looked better, ergo resistance training is useless.

RacoonQueen

Supercell wrote: »

As to the body storing fat in the legs as a result of spinning classes, I'm a little skeptical.
Any of the experts here got any input on this?

Surely that is anatomically impossible. Surely if doing different types of exercise would send the fat to certain areas of the body all the girls would be sending it to their boobs. :rolleyes:

Cycling tones the legs it doesn't make them fatter.

dudara

Supercell wrote: »

As to the body storing fat in the legs as a result of spinning classes, I'm a little skeptical.

He didn't say that, he just said that "legs felt tight" - the way your legs are after a hard walk uphill

RacoonQueen

dudara wrote: »

He didn't say that, he just said that "legs felt tight" - the way your legs are after a hard walk uphill

He did say it.

In spinning classes, the body adapts by storing both intramuscular fat and subcutaneous fat, ie, fat under the skin in the thigh and hip areas, to provide a more readily available source of fuel for the recovery periods.

Climate Expert

mp1972 wrote: »

He did say it.

He didn't say it. He said 'ie the thighs' obviously recognising that its all over the body.

eclectichoney

Climate Expert wrote: »

He didn't say it. He said 'ie the thighs' obviously recognising that its all over the body.

i.e. means 'that is' - not to be confused with e.g. 'for example', so it appears he did actually specifically refer solely to the thigh and hip area.

Malteaser!

Climate Expert wrote: »

He didn't say it. He said 'ie the thighs' obviously recognising that its all over the body.

Tbh I don't think he was recongnizing that it's all over the body and if that is what he was saying he should have used the term 'e.g.' not 'i.e.'.

EDIT: eclectichoney got there first!!

Climate Expert

I know that. But he talks about the two types of fat and then mentions the thighs afterwards. There is no way he means its exclusive to the thigh area.

Malteaser!

Climate Expert wrote: »

I know that. But he talks about the two types of fat and then mentions the thighs afterwards. There is no way he means its exclusive to the thigh area.

That's what he said he said though.

Hanley

Climate Expert wrote: »

I know that. But he talks about the two types of fat and then mentions the thighs afterwards. There is no way he means its exclusive to the thigh area.

So he was actually saying that training promotes all over fat storage??

Climate Expert

Malteaser! wrote: »

That's what he said he said though.

He doesn't! If he said exclusively or only in the thigh area then I would agree.

So he was actually saying that training promotes all over fat storage??

Yes, intramuscular and subcutaneous fat wherever that may be.

Malteaser!

Climate Expert wrote: »

He doesn't! If he said exclusively or only in the thigh area then I would agree.

But he did say it exclusively.

If he had of said, '...fat and subcutaneous fat, for example, fat under the skin in the thigh and hip areas...', I would be inclined to agree that he meant all over the body but he didn't.

eclectichoney

Malteaser! wrote: »

But he did say it exclusively.

If he had of said, '...fat and subcutaneous fat, for example, fat under the skin in the thigh and hip areas...', I would be inclined to agree that he meant all over the body but he didn't.

+1

he said i.e. in the thigh and hip - which means 'that is, in the thigh and hip' i.e. it doesn't affact anywhere else

Climate Expert

eclectichoney wrote: »

+1

he said i.e. in the thigh and hip - which means 'that is, in the thigh and hip' i.e. it doesn't affact anywhere else

Not it doesn't. The use of 'that is' does not infer exclusivity. The use of eg. would be more appropiate as 'ie' makes the exclusivity ambigious.
Secondly the ie is only in describing the subcutaneous fat. He mentions intramuscular fat which is fat stored in muscles. Muscles are all over the body.

Hanley

Climate Expert wrote: »

Not it doesn't. The use of 'that is' does not infer exclusivity. The use of eg. would be more appropiate as 'ie' makes the exclusivity ambigious.
Secondly the ie is only in describing the subcutaneous fat. He mentions intramuscular fat which is fat stored in muscles. Muscles are all over the body.

So your point is that he was actually infering that "spinning" at high resistance levels promotes the storage of fat all over the body??

Thus the act of training against resistance makes you fatter?

So logically, if you want to stay slim, you shouldn't do any exercise against resistance??

kazzer

FFS, look the article is a load of rubbish, end of.


The author really has some nerve publishing that crap. As if there is not enough confusion and misconceptions in the fitness industry already.

brianthebard

Climate Expert wrote: »

I know that. But he talks about the two types of fat and then mentions the thighs afterwards. There is no way he means its exclusive to the thigh area.

Assuming he knows its not the case for a moment, he could still easily infer that is what happens, in order to scare people off spinning, which seems to be the main purpose of his article.

Climate Expert

Hanley wrote: »

So your point is that he was actually infering that "spinning" at high resistance levels promotes the storage of fat all over the body??

Thus the act of training against resistance makes you fatter?

So logically, if you want to stay slim, you shouldn't do any exercise against resistance??

Thats not logic Hanley. I think your squatting might be drawing too much blood away from your brain.

I never said I agreed or disagreed with him.
I'm not sure about the article, just wanted to raise a bit of debate about it. There is some truth in people who train aerobically and fat storage.

RacoonQueen

brianthebard wrote: »

Assuming he knows its not the case for a moment, he could still easily infer that is what happens, in order to scare people off spinning, which seems to be the main purpose of his article.

Especially given that he is seemingly aiming the article at women who will most likely know little about fitness and exercise etc... probably in the hope they'll give him a call to help them fit into their size zeros.

Hanley

Climate Expert wrote: »

Thats not logic Hanley. I think your squatting might be drawing too much blood away from your brain.

I never said I agreed or disagreed with him.
I'm not sure about the article, just wanted to raise a bit of debate about it. There is some truth in people who train aerobically and fat storage.

It's perfectly logical.

He said that spinning lead to more fat storage on your legs. You said it didn't refer to legs specifically, but it could mean all over your body.

Therefore training leads to fat storage. Explain any flawed logic that I'm stating.....

Besides, there might be SOME evidence that "endurance" training leads to fat storage, but I sense it's getting blown TOTALLY out of proportion. Cardio training might lead to some fat storage, but I'd be willing to bet my left nut that it burns significantly more calories than it stores as fat.

Climate Expert

Not perfectly logical.

if you want to stay slim, you shouldn't do any exercise against resistance??

Thats what you said. You twisted and bent and then inverted to get that statement with no regard for logical jumps.

But then you just agree with him that there is evidence of aerobic exercise leading to fat storage. Confusing stuff.

Hanley

Climate Expert wrote: »

Not perfectly logical.



Thats what you said. You twisted and bent and then inverted to get that statement with no regard for logical jumps.

But then you just agree with him that there is evidence of aerobic exercise leading to fat storage. Confusing stuff.

No, I said there may be some evidence that aerobic exercise may lead to some fat storage, but I went on to say that ANY effects of this would be more than cancelled out by the actual act of doing the cardio exercise.

Looks like you're the one twisting things and making jumps.

gabgab

This is funny stuff,

Not perfectly logical..... lalalalala, evidence that cardio promotes fat storage...... blah blah blah......

The article is nonsense, eat clean, train hard and its unlikely you will be fat.

quietobserver

Having read the article, the old phrase paper never refuses ink came to mind. Im not sure of his experience with spinning classes but i guess from where he stands it hasnt been a positive experience for him and so he takes a firm stance on it.
In my opinion the whole article is full of definate negatives for the reader to scare them from ever sitting on a spinning bike and steer them in the door of his Personal training. Maybe im cynical but these are hard times and everyone needs more work even if he says his phone is hopping.

From my third level experience i would be of the opinion that you can't identify something as positive or negative without significant evidence, therefore reading an unfounded article leads me to believe its all here say.

To make it clearer intramuscular fat is the amount of body fat needed to protect the body from infectious diseases and to protect the internal organs from bruising damage. More common term would be essential body fat.

Subcutaneous fat or (below the skin fat) is the amount of additional body fat that does not cause any medical risks, and provides a reservoir of “fuel” for use by the body.reserve body fat

Whether a person likes it or not these exist regardless of the activity you perform. The levels of subcutaneous fat that exist are related to food intake versus energy used. (if more is eaten that whats used in activity subcutaneous fat levels rise).

Personally i believe that anyone who is told to do spinning as a primary source of weightloss activity is being led astray. Spinning was never sold by Johnny G as a means of getting into skinny jeans. It is a cardiovascular workout, its main function is aerobic conditioning, any benefits that may be felt to muscle toning are secondary to its main benefit. However there maybe be a population of people that try spinning and stick with it for a period of time that notice benefits in terms of toning. (if you go from inactivity to regular activity this is naturally going to occur to a degree).

I feel the whole article is like an overheard conversation in a coffee shop and the author went off on a tangent that suited his pen.
to quote the author

If your aim is fat loss there is no need to spin your wheels. Using high-resistance interval training, you can produce more lactate and more growth hormone levels, which help lower body fat.

Lactate may be involved in the exercise-induced growth hormone increases, however it does not appear to play an exclusive role in lowering body fat.
A clear response of growth hormone to exercise can be seen at an intensity of 50% of maximal oxygen uptake (Vo2max) with a maximal response at 70% Vo2max. For a Personal trainer to know this acurately they would have to perform a Vo2max test.

No point in writing an article simplifying what doesnt work and then giving a non lay-mans solution to what does work. (imagine fitness enthusiasts in the gym tomorrow morning asking for a high resistance workout to increase their growth hormone levels and lactate) im sure it would raise an eyebrow.

Well thats my opinion.

BossArky

Indo wrote:

How am I going to fit into those jeans without splitting the sides?

lol

My head is spinning (i.e. getting fatter) after reading that article & this thread.

The author's comments on lack of weight loss progress from spinning are perhaps aimed at the people who view fitness as a herd activity.

These people often lack the motivation to work out alone or maintain a proper diet. They show up to spinning classes with their friends, plonk onto the saddle for 40 mins in which they yabber away to each other, then spend the rest of the week eating and drinking like King Kong on a rampage, with no further exercise.