Rob Poulos – Fat Burning Fumace
Salepage : Rob Poulos – Fat Burning Fumace
Rob Poulos’ Fat Burning Furnace is a popular internet bestseller at the time of writing, and it’s even accessible in other languages. It’s not surprising that I’ve received numerous requests to review Mr. Poulos’ offering and put the hype surrounding the Fat Burning Furnace into context (because the Fat Burning Furnace is sold through the online processor ClickBank, most “unbiased” reviews are overwhelmingly positive, because the reviewer will earn a nice fat commission if you buy the product).
With that in mind, I pulled out my credit card, purchased the book, rolled up my sleeves, and began reading.
My initial reaction was to the magazine itself. It’s a downloaded PDF file (I have no problem paying for these because I’m well aware that I’m paying for the information contained inside, not a few dollars worth of paper and cardboard), but it’s a very basic one.
Aside from the cover image, the design of this magazine is around 8 years old. While it does lend itself to simple printing (which may have been Mr. Poulos’ objective, though I don’t recall hearing anything about it), I’m accustomed to slicker and more current designs that are easier to read on the computer.
“Having stated that, what is the gist of the publication?”
The first two-thirds of the book are devoted to presenting and arguing for Mr Poulos’ training approach, allowing us to profit from his blunders and discover the “forbidden secrets” that fitness pros don’t want you to know.
Riiiight.
While conspiracy theories make for fascinating story twists in fiction novels, the Fat Burning Furnace’s advocated High Intensity Training (HIT) is neither new or particularly exceptional (see my review of Craig Ballantyne’s Turbulence Training).
Mr. Poulos’ argument for HIT for weight training is that…
It is extremely time efficient, allowing for quick, productive exercises in a short amount of time.
There is no evidence that completing more than one set each exercise is any better than performing numerous sets. As a result, Rob’s plans simply concentrate on a single work set each exercise.
There are two issues with this reasoning…
HIT exercises are tremendously quick and can be extremely beneficial, but only when performed at full intensity. The Fat Burning Furnace is absolutely a book for beginning in weight lifting, and HIT, in my opinion, is not great for novices. Even if you are motivated and enthusiastic, you will not be able to work anywhere near your maximum on any exercise if you have no prior experience with weights. This requires practice and time. Of course, this does not render HIT ineffective for novices, but it significantly reduces its usefulness.
Contrary to Rob’s claim, there is evidence that executing many sets of an exercise (3 in this example) is more advantageous than performing a single set (although much more so for lower than upper body strength). Furthermore, many sets per exercise provide the weight training newbie valuable opportunity to master proper form and spend crucial “practice” time with each exercise.
Mr. Poulos’ argument for HIT for aerobics is that…
Traditional “moderate” intensity aerobics instructs your body to “store fat” following your workout.
Because you are continuously operating within your present aerobic capacities and never “growing your capacity for labor,” low intensity exercise might actually harm your health. This, it appears, can diminish your heart and lung reserve capacity, lowering their ability to fend off pressures and potentially leading to a variety of health concerns.
Aerobic exercise can diminish muscle mass, resulting in a lower Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR), which is adverse to weight loss.
I had to shake my head and re-read this stuff several times to be sure I wasn’t hallucinating. This is complete nonsense. While I explain why I love HIT for aerobics—even for beginners—and why traditional aerobics may not be the greatest option for you, consider…
There is evidence that moderate intensity exercise (in the first scenario, conducted at 55% VO2 max) is both beneficial for burning fat and preserving fat free mass (AJP – Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol 261, Issue 2 E159-E167, Lipids Volume 35, Number 7 / July, 2000). This study refutes the claim that classical aerobics “tells your body to retain fat after your workout.”
The first research cited also reported…
“… a substantial rise in VO2 max.”
In other words, moderate intensity aerobic exercise improves the ability of the heart and lungs to accomplish work, which directly contradicts Mr. Poulos’ claim. Yes, excessive aerobic exercise can have a catabolic (or muscle wasting impact), although this is more of a problem for marathon runners than the ordinary overweight person.
I’m not snubbing Mr. Poulos here. When an author makes comments that contradict well-established realities, it is essential to that author to present clinical data to back up these new findings. That hasn’t happened here.
However, why should you skip “conventional aerobics” in favor of an HIT program?
Traditional aerobics are time-consuming and monotonous.
Traditional aerobics do not do a good job of increasing your RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) much beyond the time spent exercising.
Traditional aerobics do not promote the growth of new muscle tissue, which is a necessary component of a higher metabolism.
HIT programs are appropriate for beginners; simply jump on the treadmill and cycle between 30-60 rest intervals (walking) and 30-60 high intensity periods (running/jogging at the maximum intensity you can sustain for that duration).
High intensity aerobics, on the other hand, are far less tiresome, better at increasing RMR after workout, and may be completed in less than half the time of a “regular” cardio session.
The good news is that HIT is a winner in aerobics, despite the fact that most of Mr Poulos’ arguments against traditional aerobics are entirely unsubstantiated by any research.
What about the Fat Burning Furnace’s diet component?
In many respects, it’s relatively standard advice: eat 5-6 modest meals each day, check your calories, and drink plenty of water.
Things become a little more contentious when it comes to nutritional ratios.
A nutritional ratio of 60% unprocessed complex carbohydrates, 20-25% protein, and 15-20% healthy fats is recommended by the Fat Burning Furnace.
Regular meals include 1-2 amounts of carbs (unrefined grains), 1-2 portions of vegetables, and 1 portion of protein. Snacks contain one carbohydrate and one protein serving.
This was a little perplexing to me because veggies are carbs. In essence, you consume 2-4 servings of carbs at each meal.
Protein sources should be mostly plant-based, with animal protein used only on occasion. And there are a couple more ridiculous assertions to back up this claim…
“…even if you just eat incomplete proteins (from plants), your body will produce the remaining amino acids to complete the protein profile.”
Really? Who’d have guessed?
As you may know, amino acids are classified into two types: essential and non-essential amino acids. The body cannot produce necessary amino acids (thus their name) and must receive them from food. If you eat predominantly plant protein sources, which are not complete protein sources, you risk becoming deficient.
This is unlikely to be the case if you get some protein from animal sources and protein supplements while on this diet. Regardless, it’s tough to give the Fat Burning Furnace program a lot of trust when it contains clear errors like this one.
“Remember, all protein originates from plants in the first place; grass-fed animals either consume it, or eat another animal that did, and humans end up eating them.”
Uh… what? So you shouldn’t eat beef since it’s essentially just reconstituted grass, plants, and hay? Or that beef has no advantages other than those offered by the plants and grass it consumes? In any case, it’s a ridiculous assertion.
Mr. Poulos is an outspoken opponent of greater protein levels, claiming that “he’s never seen any advantage” from the higher amounts advised by many trainers and the supplement business in general.
In answer, I would reply…
Personal experiences are anecdotal in nature. They do not constitute proof. While I agree that there is little solid scientific proof that taking super-high quantities of protein would result in huge gains in athletic performance as supplement firms advertise, there are benefits to raising protein levels that go beyond what the Fat Burning Furnace advises. As an example…
High protein diets aid in fat loss by increasing post-meal thermogenesis (fat burning) and resting energy expenditure (Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 21(1):55-61, 2002).
People who consume a higher proportion of their calories from protein (rather than carbs) tend to shed more fat and less lean muscle (Metabolism 43(12) 1484-7,1994).
Higher protein diets have regularly been demonstrated to result in higher weight reduction, fat loss, and lean mass preservation when compared to “lower” protein diets.” (Applications Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006 Dec;31(6):647-54).
A high protein diet preserves lean body mass and increases glucose oxidation on low calorie (hypocaloric) diets (Metabolism. 1994 Dec;43(12):1481-7).
Individuals who consume a higher protein diet feel more satisfied and have less hunger than those who consume a high carbohydrate diet (J. Nutr. 134:586-591, March 2004).
People with mild hypoglycemia, such as me, may find this a difficult diet to follow; a concentrate on carbs (even healthy ones) keeps blood sugar levels swinging and can lead to cravings and hunger.
What is the verdict on the Fat Burning Furnace?
Well, like other diets that include calorie restriction and an activity plan, I’m confident you’ll see benefits from this program, especially if you’re just starting out. You will lose weight if you consume less calories than you burn, regardless of whether those calories originate from fat, carbohydrates, or protein. However, high-carb diets (which this is) are difficult to maintain and are surpassed by programs that focus on either greater protein or lower carb alternatives. That is, at least, what current science indicates.
Furthermore, for the reasons I mentioned before, high intensity weight training regimens are not the best “beginning” program (HIT cardio programs are fine). This is why personal trainers seldom recommend them to novices; not because they are so effective that they would knock those trainers out of work in a matter of weeks.
However, the Fat Burning Furnace is not my first option for a diet plan (you can read reviews of other popular diets here!). There is some excellent information in this paper, however there is also a lot of absolutely unsupported drivel. There isn’t even a single clinical reference to back up any of the assertions or comments.
As a result, it is impossible to advocate this diet. If you’re still interested, you can learn more about the Fat Burning Furnace here!
