Here is a start on some "science", print them out and put them in bathroom for reading. It things like these that people say "it is science". I do to, if I agree with the premis. I will put some here for reading and discussion as I find them, others can do the same.

Meta-Analyses Do Not Support Performance of Multiple Sets or High Volume Resistance Training (http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Oct2004/WinettV2.doc)

LEG RESISTANCE TRAINING: EFFECTS UPON VO2peak AND SKELETAL MUSCLE MYOPLASTICITY (http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Oct2004/Oharav3.doc)

THE EFFECTS OF EXERCISE INTENSITY AND BODY POSITION ON CARDIOVASCULAR VARIABLES DURING RESISTANCE EXERCISE (http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Aug2004/WilbornV2.pdf)

COMPARISON OF TRAINING LOADS AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN ATHLETES: CONSIDERATION OF BODY WEIGHT IMPLICATIONS. (http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/June2004/YagmumV2.pdf)

Too many big words, not enough pictures. :eek:

For those that think results come from bottles:

DETECTING ADVERSE EVENTS IN DIETARY SUPPLEMENT RESEARCH: LESSONS FROM EPHEDRA ALKALOIDS (http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Apr2004/Persky.pdf)

Assessment Of The Ergogenic Properties Of Creatine Using An Intermittent Exercise. (http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Feb2005/Kostas.pdf)

EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGISTS SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF EPHEDRINE AND RELATED COMPOUNDS AS ERGOGENIC AIDS OR STIMULANTS FOR INCREASED WEIGHT LOSS (http://www.css.edu/users/tboone2/asep/RobergsBooneDonna.pdf)

I thought the studies on the Ergogenics of creatine were inconclusive with both studies for and against using it. Do alot of people stiff use the stuff? I saw some stuff recently that suggested Chromium at 200-300mg a day might have better results for muscle gain and weight loss.

I thought the studies on the Ergogenics of creatine were inconclusive with both studies for and against using it. Do alot of people stiff use the stuff? I saw some stuff recently that suggested Chromium at 200-300mg a day might have better results for muscle gain and weight loss.

Besides protein, creatine is only thing I would use. I think most of other stuff is a waste of money, espeically if exercise isn't effective.

I I saw some stuff recently that suggested Chromium at 200-300mg a day might have better results for muscle gain and weight loss.

I would look around before I took any.

WebMD: Could Chromium Picolinate Cause Cancer?
Animal Studies Show Mutations, but Human Studies Show Safety Read Could Chromium Picolinate Cause Cancer? online at WebMD. WebMD provides valuable health information, tools for managing your health.



Chromium
... You can buy chromium picolinate, chromium chloride, chromium nicotinate, and high-chromium ... might cause cancer. It seems to be the combination of chromium and picolinate that's the ...



Could Chromium Picolinate Cause Cancer?
Animal Studies Show Mutations, but Human Studies Show Safety ... Could Chromium Picolinate Cause Cancer? By Jeanie Lerche Davis ... But there's preliminary evidence that chromium picolinate causes severe damage to chromosomes in hamsters' ovary cells ...



Chromium Picolinate Supplements Help Control Diabetes
... Back PainBacterial InfectionsBladder CancerBone Marrow TransplantationBreast CancerCardiology Other ... either 200 micrograms of chromium as chromium picolinate, 1,000 micrograms (one ...



Chromium Picolinate and Cancer Discussion 1
... New York Times Article Linking Chromium Picolinate With Cancer - Comments. Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Chromium Picolinate Health Hazard?!? Date: 26 Oct 1995 01:00:03 GMT ...



Chromium Picolinate
Physician-grade chromium supplements, similar to chromium picolinate, are available from Cancer Nutrition Centers of America. ... Chromium Picolinate. Chromium Picolinate Supplements ... for a high-quality chromium supplement like chromium picolinate, please consider Cancer Nutrition Centers of America as ...



Herbal Descriptions - Chromium Picolinate
Chromium picolinate is a trivalent Chromium, patented by the United States Department of Agriculture. ... and dietary supplement, chromium picolinate, may be a cancer risk. Chemists from ... they say show chromium(III) tris(picolinate) causes DNA breakage. Chromium picolinate is claimed ...



Chromium Picolinate Weight Loss Supplements
... Diet Pills Information. Chromium Picolinate Weight Loss Supplements ... up by Parliament, concluded that chromium picolinate can potentially cause cancer, and warned consumers not to ...



Chromium Information: Reported Dangers of Chromium; Concerns, Risks, Claims of Cancer
Reported Dangers of Chromium: Is there a danger associated with chromium supplementation? What concerns and risks have been raised? Is there reliable chromium research to assure safety? ... proven safe oral chromium picolinate supplementation in humans and ... concerns that chromium picolinate might pose a risk of DNA damage that could eventually lead to cancer in humans ...



Chromium Picolinate
... what they considered "reasonable" doses of chromium picolinate, and found that the cells suffered ... wildly popular supplement and cancer caused the chromium industry to launch a ...



Diabetes and Health News for 4/18/99: chromium picolinate may increase cancer risk, diet and gallstones, Rezulin ...
Diabetes and Health News for 4/18/99: chromium picolinate may increase cancer risk, diet and gallstones, Rezulin risks, single nucleotide polymorphisms, dietary fiber, safety syringe. ... Gram Scales ---great prices. Chromium Picolinate May Be Cancer Risk. Researchers at the University of Alabama say chromium picolinate causes DNA to break ...



HealthBoards - Chromium picolinate
Health related message boards offering discussions of numerous health topics including allergies, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, exercise, attention deficit disorder, diet, and nutrition. ... Health Issues > Alternative Medicine. Chromium picolinate. User Name ... he swears by Chromium Picolinate for energy and metabolisim ... About the chromium picolinate, my sister's bf has been ...



THE MERCK MANUAL--SECOND HOME EDITION, Chromium Picolinate in Ch. 19, Medicinal Herbs and Nutraceuticals
... Claims: As a dietary supplement, chromium picolinate is used to promote weight loss ... evidence suggests that chromium picolinate damages chromosomes and consequently may cause cancer. ...



Dangers of Chromium Picolinate: Expert Reviews of Chromium Picolinate Dangers, Concerns, Risks
Reported Dangers of Chromium Picolinate: Read the expert reviews of chromium picolinate dangers, concerns and risks... proven safe oral chromium picolinate supplementation in humans and ... concerns that chromium picolinate might pose a risk of DNA damage that could eventually lead to cancer in humans ...



Skeptical Eye
Chromium for Diabetes? By George Nava True II. Go to any health food store and you'll find plenty of chromium products ranging from body-building powders, slimming shakes, and tablets. ... stop making unsubtantiated claims for chromium picolinate. The companies earlier claimed ... doses of chromium picolinate can damage the chromosomes of hamsters and could cause cancer ...



Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment
You are here: Advisory Bodies > COM > Statements. FOI. Meetings. Papers. STATEMENT ON THE MUTAGENICITY OF TRIVALENT CHROMIUM AND CHROMIUM PICOLINATE ... International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (http://monographs.iarc.fr/). Trivalent ...



Chromium
Current research on chromium. ... with 600 mcg of chromium as chromium picolinate, significantly reduced carbohydrate cravings compared ... sugar levels" Could Chromium Picolinate Cause Cancer? - WebMD, 12/11 ...



Chromium Picolinate diabetes - weight loss - Cholesterol
Diabetes, Weight Loss, Cholesterol: Chromium Picolinate, the choice of many clinicians who believe it to be biologically more active and better absorbed than other forms of chromium. ... Chromium Picolinate 200 mcg. Chromium supplementation has been shown to preserve muscle while accelerating the loss of ... other forms of chromium. CoQ10. Graviola/Cancer. Cal-Mag ...



Chromium Picolinate
Database: Health Reference Center. Key Words: Chromium Picolinate. Library: Buffalo & Erie County Public Library. Full content for this article includes illustration and other. Source: Health, March-April 1996 v10 n2 p56(2). p10(2). ... Weighing the cancer risk is important here. True, the Stearns research showed chromium picolinate in a ...



NTP: Executive Summary Chromium Picolinate
Entire Site Research Alternative Methods Public Health About NTP. SUMMARY OF DATA FOR CHEMICAL SELECTION. Chromium Picolinate ... The nomination of chromium picolinate is based on the potential for widespread consumer exposure ... association of exposure to chromium picolinate and cancer risk in humans were ...

RTE,

What do you think about the JEP article on multiple sets? I see some real merit in what they are saying. I'm big on data (even controversial data) if it's analyzed correctly I was going to try a little personal experiement starting last fall with low rep/single sets but I let my training get derailed by other activities and so I don't have any conclusions.

I posted this same article on another board asking for some thoughtful replys and well...got pretty much flamed for asking the question "what do you think?"

If I get my act together to do a personal trial this spring, I'll post results. Anyone tried single sets and what were the results? I'd like to hear about some real experience on this issue.

(PS...if you don't have any actual experience, don't waste the bandwidth explaining how the idea is stupid--I'm still stinging from my last experience on another board. :lol: ).

I think there's something in Tom Venuto's book about single sets - that back in the day the big time bodybuilders tried it, but it didn't work as well. Or else they;d be doing it...

What about this? -


The herb ephedra is now banned from retail sale and no one can seem to come up with a clear reason why. Compared to the millions of servings of ephedra-based supplements consumed every day in the United States, the banning of ephedra was based on just over 1000 reported adverse incidents to the FDA. In a recent report, closer examination of these adverse event reports failed to provide a link between ephedra use and dangerous effects.

These findings confirm another, (six-month long) study on ephedra supplementation by renowned scientists showed that the use of this herb (combined with caffeine) promoted effective weight loss in over weight participants, without significant side effects.

Another “explanation” why ephedra was prohibited was the possibility of consumers receiving an overdose due to poor labeling and/or quality control of ephedra-based supplements. Another report recently published the results of 35 product analyses of ephedra-based supplements. Total ephedrine content listed on labels varied between 6 and 29 milligrams per serving. Results from the analyses showed that while 31% of products contained more ephedra than listed on the label and only 6% had less, the ephedra content was still reasonably close to that listed on the label. The FDA’s upper limit for safe ephedrine consumption is 120 milligrams per day. Therefore, an overdose due to labeling inaccuracies of ephedra products is highly unlikely.

The active component of ephedra is ephedrine. If this compound is so dangerous, why hasn’t the FDA removed the thousands of ephedrine-containing cold medications available on retail shelves, most containing far higher levels of ephedrine than the dietary supplements that have been banned? Before you get angry about what happened with ephedra remember that it is the public (consumers) who have the power to elect and remove Congress; the people that banned our supplements.

The banning of ephedra has set a very dangerous precedent. If the FDA can take ephedra away from the public despite all the information on its safety and effectiveness, other supplements such as creatine will be next if consumers don’t speak up and put a stop to it.

Source: Toxicology 150:97-110, 2004. Journal of Analytical Toxicology 28:145-151, 2004

RTE,

What do you think about the JEP article on multiple sets? I see some real merit in what they are saying. I'm big on data (even controversial data) if it's analyzed correctly I was going to try a little personal experiement starting last fall with low rep/single sets but I let my training get derailed by other activities and so I don't have any conclusions.

I posted this same article on another board asking for some thoughtful replys and well...got pretty much flamed for asking the question "what do you think?"

If I get my act together to do a personal trial this spring, I'll post results. Anyone tried single sets and what were the results? I'd like to hear about some real experience on this issue.

(PS...if you don't have any actual experience, don't waste the bandwidth explaining how the idea is stupid--I'm still stinging from my last experience on another board. :lol: ).

I think single sets are very effective for 80% of people. I think 8-12 reps is proper range. I could care less what others think. Stand on a street corner you will hear a bunch things. You have to decise what is logical to you. Search for HIT on this forum.

The active component of ephedra is ephedrine. If this compound is so dangerous, why hasn’t the FDA removed the thousands of ephedrine-containing cold medications available on retail shelves, most containing far higher levels of ephedrine than the dietary supplements that have been banned?

I think they will control all meth ingredients trying to stop that cost to society. You will have to show ID for those cold meds. We expect drugs and pills to solve problems but they usually introduce bigger ones.

I think single sets are very effective for 80% of people. I think 8-12 reps is proper range. I could care less what others think. Stand on a street corner you will hear a bunch things. You have to decise what is logical to you. Search for HIT on this forum.


Single sets are effective for everyone. Resistance training performed progressively is effective for everyone (everyone assuming they are healthy individuals and even some unhealthy individuals).

That said, single sets are not optimal for results in the gym. Your training should depend on your goals.

Single sets are effective for everyone.

I believe that, but if you stand on the street corner of the net or weider mags, you will hear some saying they couldn't build size or enough muscles or strength for what they desired. So I figure they are that 20% that just never fit in with the big majority for whatever reason, real or imagined.

Too many big words, not enough pictures. :eek:Seriously. When its obvious that this stuff can be summed up in a paragraph, what good is posting all that technical mumbo jumbo?

Can anyone tell me what the Ephedra study determined? I caught something about increased blood pressure and mitocardial infarction (ick), but I have no idea what the actual risk factors are.

By monkeys post, it sounds like its no big deal. I'm going to continue to take ephedrin without worry for one more week.For those that think results come from bottlesThe truth is that results really do come from bottles, when combined with hard work. Our bodys function via chemical reactions, so chemicals will change how it preforms. Case and point, steroids. Steriods = results. I do not and will not take them, but I dont see how anyone can argue with that.

Know.
Thy.
Body.

.

A look at what is best weight exercise program. (http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/June2004/OttoV4.pdf)

Seriously. When its obvious that this stuff can be summed up in a paragraph, what good is posting all that technical mumbo jumbo?

Can anyone tell me what the Ephedra study determined? I caught something about increased blood pressure and mitocardial infarction (ick), but I have no idea what the actual risk factors are.

By monkeys post, it sounds like its no big deal. I'm going to continue to take ephedrin without worry for one more week.The truth is that results really do come from bottles, when combined with hard work. Our bodys function via chemical reactions, so chemicals will change how it preforms. Case and point, steroids. Steriods = results. I do not and will not take them, but I dont see how anyone can argue with that.


good point.

RE: Single sets vs. multiple sets

Dante 'Doggcrapp' -- trainer of Dave Henry, top level pro-competitor -- advocates one single work set per muscle group (except legs) after warm ups. You then work that same muscle group 3 or 4 days later with a different exercise with ONE work set. Again, 3 or 4 days later, same muscle group but with a third different exercise. Cycle then starts again until you plateau on any one exercise; at which point you must change it out.

There is a whole lot more to his Doggcrapp (http://www.intensemuscle.com/forumdisplay.php?f=45) method of extreme bulking and muscle addition, but he firmly believes that low volume allows you to recover faster, work the muscle more often, and experience more growth phases. Instead of doing squats till you puke and recovering for 4 days walking funny, you do one brutal set of 4-6, and one heavy set of 20 squats.. recovery is half the time and you work them again in a few days (with leg presses, hack squats, or another exercise).

As the author of the last report summarized:

• Select a mode of exercise that feels comfortable throughout the range of motion. There is very little evidence to support the superiority of free weights or machines for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

• Choose a repetition duration that will ensure the maintenance of consistent form throughout the set. One study showed a greater strength benefit from a shorter duration (2s/4s) and one study showed better strength gains as a result of a longer duration (10s/4s), but no study using conventional exercise equipment reports any significant difference in muscular hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of manipulating repetition duration.

• Choose a range of repetitions between three and 15 (e.g., 3-5, 6-8, 8-10, etc.). There is very little evidence to suggest that a specific range of repetitions (e.g., 3-5 versus 8-10) or time-under-load (e.g., 30s versus 90s) significantly impacts the increase in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

• Perform one set of each exercise. The preponderance of resistance-training studies shows no difference in the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of performing a greater number of sets.

• After performing a combination of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, terminate each exercise at the point where the concentric phase of the exercise is becoming difficult, if not impossible, while maintaining good form. There is very little evidence to suggest that going beyond this level of intensity (e.g., supramaximal or accentuated eccentric muscle actions) will further enhance muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

• Allow enough time between exercises to perform the next exercise in proper form. There is very little evidence to suggest that different rest periods between sets or exercises will significantly affect the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

• Depending on individual recovery and response, choose a frequency of 2-3 times/week to stimulate each targeted muscle group. One session a week has been shown to be just as effective as 2-3 times/week for some muscle groups. There is very little evidence to suggest that training a muscle more than 2-3 times/week or that split routines will produce greater gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

==================================

• Select a mode of exercise that feels comfortable throughout the range of motion. There is very little evidence to support the superiority of free weights or machines for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

Doesn't this leave out the issue of free-weight compound movements for maximum muscle group use and stability? I've never done crunches or any ab work but I know my core has become much more solid since I've been doing squats and deadlifts.

Doesn't this leave out the issue of free-weight compound movements for maximum muscle group use and stability? I've never done crunches or any ab work but I know my core has become much more solid since I've been doing squats and deadlifts.

The studies don't support it. Are studies perfect? NO!

This is the problem we face, we want to maximise when we should optimise. I don't like studies unless they agree with me. :D

The more muscles an exercise affects, the more efficient and effective it is. The exercise could be done on a well designed machine. You can do squats and deadlifts on machines.

Strength Training and Metabolism
By Ted Lambrinides, PhD

Posted on NaturalStrength.com on July 28, 1999

Metabolism: "Chemical changes that utilize energy and result in tissue and compound building (anabolism) or breakdown of substrates and release of energy (catabolism)." The preceding definition of metabolism was taken from the Dictionary of Sport and Exercise Sciences (1). From this definition one will be able to understand how strength training can influence metabolism. There are three ways strength training can alter metabolism 1) the workout session itself; 2) the post-training oxygen consumption following exercise; and 3) the addition of muscle mass. Let's take a look a each.

The Workout Session: Muscles contracting under heavy loads require energy. They also produce heat which is a by-product of muscular contraction. How much strength training increases metabolism will vary depending upon the amount of muscle mass involved in an exercise and the level of resistance used. Obviously a squat or leg press exercise will utilize a greater amount of muscle mass than a biceps curl exercise and consequently have a greater energy cost. The metabolic rate or energy expenditure has been estimated to vary from five to ten calories per minute, depending on whether large or small muscle groups were involved in the exercise. Hunter et al (2) investigated the influence of the resistance load on metabolic rate. Seventeen subjects performed a bench press a intensities range from 20% to 80% of one repetition maximum. They found that the economy of the weight training exercise decreased as the resistance load increased. This indicates less muscular efficiency at the heavier weights, and/or that stabilizing muscles participated more, which in turn will increases the energy utilization during exercise. For example, the subjects used almost 12 times as much energy (calories) doing one repetition at 80 percent of 1 RM as opposed to one repetition at 20 percent 1 RM even though work only increased by a magnitude of four. Within each bench press load (20%-80%) there was a high relationship between work performed and energy expended. This finding is in agreement with research performed by Kuehl et al (3) who found the caloric expenditure during resistance training correlates with the total weight lifted. Hunter and colleagues indicate those individuals who are interested in body composition changes should train at 60 to 80 percent 1 RM. The metabolic rate is higher at increased loads, thus causing a greater number of calories utilized.

The Post-Workout Oxygen Consumption: There are several factors which influence the excess post exercise oxygen consumption (resynthesis of creatine phosphate in muscle, lactate removal, restoration of muscle and blood oxygen stores, elevated body temperature, post exercise elevation of heart rate and breathing, elevated hormones). Elliot et al (4) examined the post-exercise oxygen consumption of strength training exercise. Metabolic rate was measured for nine subjects after 40 minutes of cycling (80 percent of maximal heart rate), 40 minutes of circuit training (50% of individuals' 1 RM x 15 repetitions for 4 sets), 40 minutes of heavy resistance lifting (80-90% of 1 RM x 3-8 repetitions x 3 sets), and a control interval. All forms of exercise increased the metabolic rate immediately after exertion. For circuit and heavy resistance lifting, the increase also was significant 30 minutes after exertion. The absolute total increment in caloric use after exertion was comparable among circuit training , heavy lifting, and cycling. However, cycling was less than both forms of weight training.
When one actually examines the energy cost or calories burned during the post-exercise period it is relatively small. Some researchers have commented that the post-exercise effect is sufficiently small that it does not have a major role in the control of weight loss. These same researchers data suggest that the extra oxygen consumption following each of a typical monthly series of 15 exercise sessions (50 minutes at 50% of maximal oxygen uptake) could lead to a cumulative loss of 1 kg of adipose tissue; if such a rate of loss were sustained for 12 months, the individual concerned could have trimmed a not so insignificant 12 kg of fat from his or her waistline.
The other factor to consider with the post-exercise is the fuel which is utilized. Strength training exercise tends to burn/utilize carbohydrate during the actual training session. However, after a workout more fat is burned to meet the energy demands of your body. The more carbohydrate burned during an exercise period, the more fat burned after exercise. Research performed by Brooks and Gaesser (5) as well as Bahr and Sejersted (6) confirm that the higher the exercise intensity, proportionately more fat will be burned during the recovery phase. Recent research at Colorado State University (7) examining the effect of a resistance training on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate, concluded that strenuous strength training can elevate metabolic rate for extended periods, and that this enhanced metabolism is due to oxidation of body fat.

The Addition of New Muscle: It is well established the properly performed high intensity strength training stimulates the development of muscle mass. The additional muscle mass will alter metabolism in two ways. First, resting metabolic rate is increased when one gains muscle mass. While the energy expenditure per pound of lean body mass does not change, the addition of more muscle mass means a larger energy expenditure or higher metabolism at rest.
Second, the more muscle mass one has the greater the post exercise oxygen consumption. When strength trained individuals were compared to nontrained individuals, there was no difference in post exercise oxygen consumption per pound of muscle. However, since the strength training individuals have more muscle mass, they burn more calories during the post exercise period.
Conclusion: Strength training increases energy expenditure during a training session. The high intensity or anaerobic nature of strength training indicates a high utilization of carbohydrates during a training session. During the post-exercise recovery period, energy expenditure is elevated for a period ranging from two to fifteen hours (7). The increased energy demands are obtained by burning more calories, and a good portion of the calories are coming from fat stores.
The addition of muscle mass on an individual will cause an increase in the number of calories that are burned/utilized at rest. So it is comforting to know while one is exerting themselves through a high intensity workout, that the hard work will result in a faster metabolism that continues to burn calories even after the workout.

References
1) Anshel, MH. Editor. Dictionary of the Sport and Exercise Sciences. Human Kinetics Publishers. Champaign, IL. 1991.
2) Hunter G, Blackman L, Dunnam L, Flemming G. Bench press metabolic rate as a function of exercise intensity. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research 2(1): 1-6, 1988.
3) Kuehl K, Elliot D, Goldberg L. Predicting caloric expenditure during multi-station resistance exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research 4(3): 63-67, 1990.
4) Elliot DL, Goldberg L, Kuehl KS. Effect of resistance training on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research 6(2): 77-81, 1992.
5) Brooks G, Gaesser GA. End points of lactate and glucose metabolism after exhausting exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology 49: 1057, 1980.
6) Bahr, Sejersted. Metabolism 40: 836, 1991.
7) Melby C, Scholl C, Edwards G, Bullough R. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate. Journal of Applied Physiology 75(4): 1847-1853, 1993.
8) VanEtten L, Westerterp K, Verstappen F. Effect of weight training on energy expenditure and substrate utilization during sleep. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 27(2): 188-193, 1995.
9) Bosselaers I, Buemann B, Victor O, Astrup A. Twenty-four hour energy expenditure and substrate utilization in bodybuilders. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 59: 10-12, 1994.
10) Gore C, Withers R. Effect of exercise intensity and duration on postexercise metabolism. Journal of Applied Physiology 68: 2362-2368, 1990.
11) Webb P. Energy expenditure and fat-free mass in men and women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34: 1816-1826, 1981.
12) Weinsier R, Schutz Y, Bracco D. Reexamination of the relationship of resting metabolic rate to fat-free mass and to the metabolically active components of fat-free mass in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55: 790-794, 1992.
13) Powers Sk, Howley ET. Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application to Fitness and Performance. Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Dubuque, IA, 1995.