Customer Reviews

Just Say No to Cardio: Burn Belly Fat in Half the Time Using Research Proven Turbulence Training

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This book essentially a pamphlet outlining the principles according to which the author developed his successful fitness training system called Turbulence Training. Actually he emphasizes "fat burning" in particular, but I consider this a fitness system. The Turbulence Training workouts are sold separately on the web.

The concept can be summarized as: "train harder AND smarter, but for shorter time." The system as outlined in this book combines: (1) non-competing supersets with minimal equipment emphasizing multi-joint exercises, and (2) brief interval training sessions.

Using these two rapid-fire strength and short-burst interval endurance methods, and introducing constant variety, the author says his disciples get dramatic results while spending far less time than people typically spend running and lifting weights. The "research proven" aspect from the subtitle of the book appears to be that the author emphasizes aspects of training that have been found successful in experiments, rather than that the author has done controlled experimental research on his own system. But this is never made entirely clear.

I have no reason to doubt the claims of efficiency and effectiveness. I've purchased the turbulence training system downloaded from the web and used it for several months and found it to be as close as anything I've ever found to a gold standard for fitness training. It uses minumum equipment, it is relatively fun to do, it has a uniquely intelligent and manageable progression and variation scheme built in, it is very easy to follow, and it gets great results. It develops strength, muscle endurance, anaerobic endurance, and even some degree of aerobic endurance, and it cuts body fat. It is not an optimal bodybuilding system, strength building system, or endurance training system, but it is about as close as I think you can get to a system optimally balanced to provide all of these qualities at once and take someone from fat to fit.

The problem is that this book doesn't contain the system. Nor does this book even cite the research it claims to support its methods. There are few real details about how varying the parameters of the routines influence the training effects.

There are constant claims of "research says ..." and "a study showed ..." but none of the research is cited and none of the researchers ever given credit. So it fails as a book about how to do Turbulence Training in any detail, and it fails as a supported rationale or textbook of even the most emaciated kind for the principles.

This is a shame, because I have no doubt that the author does follow the research and does honestly try to incorporate experimental data to improve his programs, which I admire. But when he writes about it, the reader is left to rely entirely on his interpretations, he becomes a guru rather than someone describing research.

This makes for a lot more work for readers who might want to read the sources for themselves, it leaves the reader to rely entirely on the author's own interpretations of data. Worse, I think it also tempts the author to selectively cite only research that supports his program because there is less chance that readers will find for themselves the equivocations and debates that are usually found in the research program itself. Differences of opinion in the literature that might seem like quibbles to the author might be important to some subset of his readers, such as endurance athletes who are considering adding Turbulence Training to their regimen for some reason.

For me this book, about "research proven Turbulence Training," would have been far stronger if it actually cited the research it was based on, and took a little time to describe its context. Either that, or included an actual Turbulence Training workout, or perhaps both. Some of the space taken up by testimonials should have been used for substance of either sort. That's what I expect in a book that I pay for, not testimonials. I expect either more substance or better organized material than I can find on the web.

So if you are looking for some reason for a checklist of solid, effective fitness training principles, without the training program, or you are doing Turbulence Training and looking for a quick read to help motivate you, this book may suffice. But for substantive information about the system, support for the principles, or details of the program, you will have to look elsewhere and this book will disappoint.

I regret ordering this book before it hit the bookstores and I could view it first. This book is a complete waste of time and money. It is just one big infomercial for his Turbulence Training program. There is nothing to learn in this book that you won't get from reading his website for free. He repeats himself over and over and everything mentioned is for the purpose of selling his TT program. I feel insulted and ripped off for wasting my time and money and want to return this book.

This book is a glorified print ad for the authors website (that has a monthly fee). Just a shameless plug for his "system". You are constantly encouraged to get your 1 month free trial on his site. Don't waste your money!

Many folks who are hip to current web fitness sites have no doubt come across Craig's "Turbulence Training" at some point. "TT" is basically a system promoting typically 3 (sometimes 4) days of high-intensity weight training followed immediately by a short session of HIIT (intervals). The basic strategy therefore is to utilize training methodologies that give the exerciser the most bang for the buck, in the minimal amount of time.

TT is probably one of the most sensible plans out there for producing quick results for those seeking shorter workout routines, combining as it does both high-intensity weights with high-intensity sprint-type training. On off days, "TT" workouts encourage exercisers to engage in bodyweight exercises rather than "boring" cardio...which may be too much muscle work for someone whose muscles are already fatigued the day before. Does an intense session of body pushups, body squats, etc. after a hard day of weight training (often on the same muscles) make sense to you? But hey - anything to get away from doing regular "cardio", right?

So, with all the logical and effective ingredients above, why the low rating for this book? For one thing, this book (Craig's first leap into a standard book format instead of his usual web-based workouts available for purchase) has no actual workouts, which many readers will be expecting. I read some of the other negative reviews and some here think Craig is shamelessly promoting his own website with this meatless book, which also is my own suspicion. Certainly there is little material in this particular book that would be helpful to exercisers; it's basically a rant against steady-state "cardio". Hence the title- "Just Say No to Cardio".

And THIS, my exercise friends, is the main reason why the concepts presented in the book deserve a low rating. It's not that the "TT" exercise protocol is "wrong", per se, but rather when authors such as Ballantyne dismiss steady-state cardio (and that seems to be a disturbing trend among the fitness crowd these days), they are guilty of an unbalanced, limited look at established exercise physiology (despite much individual pimping of one's own credentials, invariably).

How dare I say the HIIT/Intervals crowd is selectively ignoring the research, you ask? This is a point worth emphasizing, since interval sprint-type training seems to be the current buzz. I grant there are some excellent clinical studies with subjects performing high-intensity type of exertion several times a week, such as the "TT" protocols. However, when the topic is considered from a much broader view of the exercise physiology literature, things aren't that simple. The actual clinical studies do NOT support the idea that sprint-type intervals are the only way to go. Interval enthusiasts tend to forget (or never appreciated, take your pick) some important implications of basic exercise physiology, which is that diferent modes of intensity produce differing physiological effects. For instance, whole-body glucose uptake primarily occurs in the slow-twitch type-I oxidative fibers, NOT your Type IIb glycolytic fibers. (File away in memory that term "oxidative", it is important...I'll have a quiz on it later). You see, what your "high-intensity-is-best" gurus don't tell you is that most of your body's oxidative mitochondria reside in the Type-I slow-twitch fibers, and these mitochondria are primarily conditioned by exertion below the anaerobic threshold, meaning that a lower level of intensity and longer duration are more important for these fibers than intensity. High-intensity exercise does not hit these oxidative mitochondria very well, which is why doing intervals you incur an anaerobic "oxygen debt". Understanding the differing effects of differing modes of exercise intensity is an important concept to grasp. Targeting the oxidative mitochondria in the Type-I fibers is important for the body's entire insulin-regulating system and for burning fatty acids for improved blood lipids, because clinical studies show clearly that slow-twitch fibers are both more insulin-sensitive and more insulin-responsive than fast-twitch fibers. Indeed, insulin-resistance is linked directly with dysfunctional (i..e, unconditioned) mitochondria in the slow-twitch muscle fibers. Which is why gyms commonly have devotees who pump weights and follow the trendy high-intensity-interval advice but can't figure out why their lipids (HDL:triglycerides ratio) often aren't too great, in spite of doing sprints several times a week. If you've been alert following my train of thought on slow-twitch fibers so far, you've probably already realized this is almost never a problem with endurance-oriented fitness devotees (not that I propose endurance exercise as "superior" either, keep reading)... Truth is, if you're only doing high-intensity work for short periods of time, you are neglecting the very fibers which are the most dense with oxidative mitochondria.
What does all this mean? It means basically that there is a role for sub-maximum, longer-duration exercise BELOW the anaerobic threshold.

Let's quickly look at some limitations of exercise always performed above the anaerobic threshold. Fatty acids in the blood, for instance, are not primarily targeted with anaerobic sprints, which use glucose as fuel, but rather by more moderate-paced cardio done for longer durations. We'll have a quiz later on this point too :-). Excessive fatty acids in the blood are a common adverse condition, and somebody always doing glucose-burning high-intensity exertion is simply not clued in on the best way to burn these off. "HIIT" proponents seem to invariably dismiss lower intensities, which burns fat rather than sugars...but hopefully we should be making the connection now between undesirable free fatty acids floating around and the value of moderate-effort fat-burning exertion. Let's look at fatty acids through another angle...i.e., converted into levels of triglycerides. Not surprisingly, studies reveal that *duration* of exercise seems to be more important than "intensity" for lowering triglycerides, and decreasing triglycerides should be a goal of everyone interested in health. Simply stated, interval-training does not target triglyceride-burning optimally, not nearly as well as slow-twitch type-I exertion. I realize some of this may be new to readers who only rely on their web fitness gurus for information (and their fitness guru, alas, is also parroting some OTHER fitness guru...hey, it's a copycat industry). It is somewhat counter-intuitive to look at "duration" sometimes being preferable to "intensity" for certain effects, and it may also be counter-intuitive that the "maximal results in minimal time" could actually be a tad limited in targeting an important lipid parameter. But hey, this is valid physiology and you just read it here (I'll pass around a bucket for donations later...you've been paying your gurus for some one-sided advice anyway, right?) Just remember for now when reading your favorite guru's next motivational web article, intensity isn't everything...the *total* amount of exertion per week one engages in ALSO is a factor. And speaking of neglected factors, let's mention *regularity* of exercise. Regularity is an important concept in getting the benefits of exercise. And it is particularly ignored in some advice one sees on the web, such as by the so-called "superslow" strength-training crowd, many of whom advocate only one short session a week. Unfortunately, studies clearly show overall insulin sensitivity in the body begins to drop after a period of approx. 48 hours of inactivity... So much for a goal of "how do I get away with doing as little as possible?"... Ah, so many silly fitness ideas, so little time.
If one is really seeking an optimal training situation, it would be to do the anaerobic sprints or intense resistance-training first, and then immediately engage in some longer-duration moderate exercise to burn off the fatty acids pooled in the blood- aka a good stroll on the treadmill or around the neighborhood (which protocol, by the way, more closely imitates so-called "paleo" work habits- see below). This kind of strategy is logical, putting established exercise physiology on differing-intensities/differing-effects to good use. Some folks in the fitness industry (such as Art DeVany, Tom Venuto, Jon Benson, and others) already see the logic in some longer-duration moderate-intensity effort. Some do not. You won't find it in Craig's book here, which seems stuck extolling the virtues of anaerobic glucose-burning work.

The take-home lesson here is that one can indeed say "YES" to sprint-type training, but also should be saying "YES" to moderate-intensity, longer-duration exertion, despite the dreary, negative dismissal of steady-state cardio that authors like Ballantyne want you to swallow. The situation here (and therein the problem...) is when Ballantyne, along with many of his fitness-trainer friends, sets up "minimal time spent" as the Holy Grail of exercise physiology and then takes pot shots at moderate-intensity exertion as the target dummy. This is a rhetoric assured of having a persuasive air to it, good for creating ads to sell one's books and tapes on the internet. And yes, conventional aerobics simply does NOT do a good job altering body composition, so IF we limit the discussion to just that specific point, Ballantyne and his HIIT buddies can continue to take pot shots at conventional cardio. The point about aerobics not doing much for altering body composition should be evident to anyone who has slugged through years of "heart-rate-cardio" and watched their body composition remain pretty much the same. Indeed, how many of us can identify an aerobics instructor we know who exhibits the so-called "chunky-aerobics-instructor-syndrome"(TM)? Raise your hands- I thought so. Yip, I notice 'em too.
Be that as it may, if we just ended the discussion with body recomposition and don't bother to look further into overall health issues, we could stop here with Ballantyne and just chalk up aerobics as a lesson learned the hard way on inefficient ways to lose fat. But in some ways, this is setting up a straw-man argument and then knocking it down... Dropping fat via high-intensity work is certainly great and everyone wants less fat, but we should also be interested in conditioning our neglected slow-twitch muscle fibers, yes? And "minimal-time-spent-exercising" is too limited as a health criteria. Last time I looked, "fitness" refers to the general state on one's health, not to an artificial time-barrier we're not supposed to exceed or we've being stupid.

Some of the current popularity surrounding sprint-type exercise concerns the misguided notion that our paleolithic ancestors primarily engaged in "high-intensity" exertion, and therefore we should, in this scenario, also simulate these "paleo" conditions in our modern-day exercise routines. Readers will find numerous speculations concerning this "paleo-exercise" theme on fitness websites and books, but how accurate is this picture, really? There seems little doubt that paleo humans needed some high-intensity exertion to bring down some food, and perhaps to escape being gored by a woolly mammoth or escape a sabre-tooth tiger attack, but the reality is, the typical day of a paleo hunter-gatherer tribe usually consisted in long daily walks in a constant search for food, often in periods of great scarcity. (Your current biology reflects this likelihood of scarcity even today, to your modern detriment). Even the activity of bringing down a wild animal for food for paleos involved a longer-duration aerobic element in coming back home with it. I hate to mention it, but they didn't have automobiles back then :-). Actually, long bouts of walking are true even today among the few hunter-gatherer tribes still existing, so the idea that "hunter" paleo activity consisted mainly of high-intensity anaerobics is playing fast and loose with history. Some current speculations about supposed "paleo exercise" seem to be pseudo-science at its worst. We error assuming paleo humans did one form of exercise to the exclusion of other modes...it's simply too simplistic. They didn't have much choice in the matter; a regular pattern of roaming for food dictated an active lifestyle in general. I don't think 3 convenient anaerobic 45-minute sessions per week were set aside as their "workout time"- do you? :-)). Instead of condemning longer-duration exertion as worthless, as you see in this book and elsewhere from certain fitness "gurus", folks would do better to recognize that steady-state aerobics shouldn't be one's ONLY modality of cardiovascular training- as indeed, there are unique benefits for periodically pushing your threshold to a (very) high level and experiencing the hormonal and cardiovascular payoffs of high-intensity exertion.

Lastly, I'll mention - much too briefly- the role of the parasympathetic nervous system in all this. The PNS, of course, is the counter-balance to one's sympathetic, "fight-or-flight" response to stimuli, and so, reader- guess which one is inevitably over-active in this day and age? Correct...And now guess which one lies fairly dormant, badly needed to kick in during our stressful lives, but seldom is emphasized? Correct again. So apply this observation to your own training protocols. Everyone needs some longer duration, moderate-intensity exercise days where the mind calms down, the body relaxes, and the stress hormones slow down. If you do sprint-type activities, try to also incorporate some regular hikes, swimming, low-intensity jogging, and maybe even a long relaxed form of motion such as Chinese qigongs or taijiquan on your "off" days. Human movement isn't about just pushing yourself to exhaustion; one needs to learn how to enter a habitual state of relaxation in more moderate forms of motion as well (a hike in the mountains here in Colorado works for me).
Get out and enjoy Nature...Gold's Gym will still be there when you get back :-). Your muscles, not to mention your nervous system and your emotional state-of-health, will thank you...

So,to sum up: just say "no" to cardio?? I think not. Just say "no" to misguided dismissals that have no support from a broad look at exercise physiology, and just say "yes" to some longer-duration moderate-intensity days for your good health.
With all that said and done, don't get the idea the negative comments here are directed toward Ballantyne's Turbulence Training itself...it's a very good program, probably the shortest (legitimate) way to do a workout and get optimal results, for many people. Nonetheless, it's obvious from my above comments I believe folks should be incorporating some longer duration non-anaerobic movement into the above program to balance the protocol.
(Alternating days of each type is probably a good strategy for all but the competitive athlete).

First of all, I have downloaded the authors book "Turbulence Training" and thought it was well written. So when he came out with a mainstream book I bought it. What a dissapointment!It is one long add for his "Pay to view" website. It gives one 2 exercise warmup, a general instruction for intervals and some written instructions for a few bodyweight moves. Thats it!

The title is deceptive. This book and Ballantyne's website hype "interval training", which is simply a form of CARDIO training. The concept of interval training has been around for years; this is just re-packaged with a slick marketing angle. This is NOT a 'breakthrough', as the author claims. A balanced calorie deficit diet (eat fewer calories than you burn) and a balanced, regular exercise program (cardio, plus resistance training) will allow you to lose weight and build a better body. THERE ARE NO MAGIC BULLETS. I lost 40 pounds several years ago and have kept it off. I do regular and interval cardio training, and resistance training, as well as walking and hiking.

This book seems to have been only published to advertise the by-subscription-only web site of the writer.

Buy instead the New Rules of Lifting. You actually get a program based upon the same principles.

Of course, I love Craig Ballantyne's work in general. I think this is a great introduction to his turbulence training philosophy. It's a quick read that is packed with lots of information. Check out his website with the before and after pics of real people doing his program. I love the program because you change up your routine every 4 weeks so it keeps your body progressing. I am very happy with the workouts.