You are on page 1of 12

A Kettlebell Secrets Exclusive Special Report

Scientic Proof: Shorter Kettlebell Workouts

Are Better For Fat Loss. Period.

If youre interested in burning 50% more fat by working out 50 to 67%
less without killing yourself during your kettlebell workouts, then you
need to read this special report right now.

From the desk of Geoff Neupert
Overlooking Pikes Peak, Colorado, USA
July 2014

Dear Kettlebell-Swinging Amigo,

Let me ask you a question:

Are you completely satised and happy with your results from your
kettlebell workouts?

If youre like most people, the answer is a sheepish no.

Why not?

Because, the kettlebell, the one tool that was supposed to simplify this whole fat
loss working out thing, has been swallowed up in the traditional tness mindset
of more is better.

If youre like most people, youve been trained to think that the average workout length
should be about an about an hour or so.

Hold on, Ill prove it to you in a minute.

First, heres why this issue is critically important to you:

If youre doing long kettlebell workouts for fat loss youre wasting your
time and furthermore, potentially sabotaging your fat loss efforts.

Dont believe me?

Keep reading, well look at the scientic evidence together.

Before we get there, you need to know that

Weve Been

I was sitting down at my local Panera Bread talking to Cam - a 47 year old nancial
planner and former college wrestler about his ideas about getting in shape. He
confessed that he didnt have time, as a father of four, entrepreneur, and wrestling
coach, for the long 1-2 hour workouts he used to do to help him cut weight as a wrestler.


See, thats still the dominant mindset about losing weight - even when using a tool like
a kettlebell thats supposed to fast track your fat loss -

That workouts need to be long, arduous, and even downright painful in
order to lose the weight you want and get the body you always wanted.

Does that ring true to you?

Think about it - all those late night TV infomercials of people transforming from fat to
thin - theyre all about going all out and paying the price with 60 to 90 minute
workouts ve to six days a week.

And even if you dont watch late night TV, go down to your local gym and check out the
class schedules. Yup, theyre an hour long. So are the personal training sessions.

Its virtually inescapable.

Heck, I even owned a Kettlebell Only group training studio about 6 years ago and we
ran 60 minute classes, not so much because I believed in 60 minute workouts, but
because I knew without a shadow of a doubt that was what people believed was
necessary to get results.

See, this insidious mindset is based on one thing:

Outdated Technology

Heres the problem:

Although the tness industry is slowly changing, much of what we have come to believe
about exercise is from exercise physiology studies done in the late 1970s and early
1980s based on endurance training (and aerobic exercise), not fat loss.

This is important because the point of endurance training is to endure - to run a 5K,
10K, or even a marathon, not to lose fat. Fat loss, if any, is a by-product of endurance
training, not the goal.

(However, fat loss is not always a by-product of endurance training: How many chubby
and downright fat marathon runners have you seen? In fact, its quite common for
novice endurance athletes to gain weight while training for their events!)

And since endurance training is all about going longer, this mentality, which was rst
adopted in the late 70s with the jogging and aerobics craze, is still the dominant thought
pattern in most peoples minds.

Therefore, longer workouts = more fat loss. Or so we think.

The Truth is, aerobic training is one of the worst ways to lose fat.

So whats the best way to lose body fat?

The Kettlebell

The kettlebell returned to the Western tness landscape more than a decade ago after a
40-something year absence. You may be new the kettlebell or you may be a veteran.
Either way, you may doubt the efcacy of its use as a fat loss tool. After all, other things
such as boot camps have exploded on to the same landscape in the last 10 years or
so too.

Well check this out:

In a landmark study done in 2009 on kettlebell exercise at the University of Wisconsin,
Lacrosse, sponsored by the American Council on Exercise (ACE), researchers
discovered that participants were burning 20.2 calories per minute, or what would be
1200 calories per hour! Thats the equivalent of running a 6-minute mile pace. Dr. John
Porcari, lead researcher said that the only other thing he could nd that burned that
many calories was uphill cross-country skiing at a fast pace.

Thats like burning off 5 slices of pizza!

(And thats not even counting the amount of calories burned post-exercise, something
well discuss later in this report.)

Of course we all know that the kettlebell is much easier on the joints than running a 6-
minute mile, which incidentally, Ive never run, even as a competitive runner. (How
about you?) And its innitely more accessible than uphill cross-country skiing.

According to more ACE research the kettlebell blows away the competition out there.
Take a look at these popular tness / fat loss methods and the calories they burn:

Boot Camp - 9.8 calories per minute
Aerobic Dance - 9.7 calories per minute
Spinning - 9.6 calories per minute
Cardio Kick Boxing - 8.1 calories per minute
Curves - 6.4 calories per minute
Power Yoga - 5.9 calories per minute
Advanced Pilates - 5.6 calories per minute

(Thanks to Josh Hillis, RKC, from Joshs Garage for putting together the above chart.)

You may or may not already know all of this, but its always good to have some
validation to continue to re-enforce the choices we make in life.

What you may be thinking right now is, Wow, if kettlebells burn that many calories per
minute, I could burn a ton more calories and therefore lose more fat if I work out longer!

You would be wrong.

The research shows the opposite

More Research,
More Good News

Its not only logical but lets face it, everyone knows that working out longer burns more
calories and therefore more fat, right? Cmon, its common sense



Although it may be common sense and even conventional wisdom, the research
actually proves the opposite, which is quite liberating to anyone enslaved by the idea
that a good workout has to be an hour long.

But thinking about working out longer brings up a common misconception about training
for fat loss, namely

Its a mistake to look only at how many calories a workout burns.


Because assuming you that you actually work out 3 to 5 hours a week, you still have
another 163 to 165 hours a week to account for.

Do you honestly believe that only burning calories 3 to 5 hours a week is solely
responsible for your results - your fat loss?

If you do, I have some swamp land in Florida Id like to sell you. :-)

What we need to do is to look at more than just the workouts - for example, what
happens after your workouts

Dont you think itd be great to burn more calories after your
workouts along with the calories you burn during your workouts?

You should - its like collecting interest - a lot of interest - on your money in the bank.

Before we get into that, lets dispel the longer workout myth.

In a 2011 study
done by Heden, et al., subjects were put on a simple resistance
training protocol 10 exercises (full body) for either 1 or 3 sets.

The researchers measured post-exercise energy expenditure 24, 48, and 72 hours
post-workout. Both groups showed an elevated metabolism of around 100 calories per

Did you catch that?

One group only did one third of the work of the other group and still burned the
same number of calories post-workout.

In other words, the experimental group did 67% less work and burned the same
number of calories post workout as the traditional workout length group.

Whats this prove?

It proves that you can actually get the same results (or better) by
working out less - A lot less.

Thats some good news right there, isnt it?

Yes, it is.

Well how exactly does that work?

Heres Why You May Feel Tired
And Arent Losing Weight
From Longer Workouts

You may have been going to one of those 3-time-a-week hour-long kettlebell classes or
been doing some one hour workouts at home, and yet, youre still not losing fat at a fast
enough pace. The pounds seem to be crawling off instead of melting, as promised.

This is probably why:

In a study
by Danish researchers on the effects of exercise on fat loss, three groups
were tested: A control group, one group who cycled for almost 60 minutes a day, and a
third group who cycled for only 30 minutes a day, for 13 weeks.

Plus, the men werent asked to change their diets at all, only keep detailed daily food

What do you think the results were?

Most people would think that the group who exercised 60 minutes a day lost more
because they burned more calories. Right?


The control group obviously lost nothing.

The 60 minute per day group lost a disappointing average of 5 pounds.

And the winner: The 30 minute per day group lost an average of 7 pounds.

Thats 50% less exercise and 50% more fat loss.

Why did this happen?

According to Mads Rosenkilde one of the researchers who was reviewed by the New
York Times

That impressive weight-loss windfall for the light-duty exercisers was a bit of a
shock, he says.

And its not completely clear from the experiments additional data just why
participants in that group were so much more successful at dropping pounds
than the other men.

But there are hints, Mr. Rosenkilde says. Food diaries for the group burning 600
calories a day reveal that they subsequently were increasing the size of their
meals and snacks, although the additional caloric intake wasnt enough to
explain the difference in their results. They probably were eating more than
they jotted down, Mr. Rosenkilde speculates.

They also were resolutely inactive in the hours outside of exercise, the motion
sensors show. When they werent working out, they were, for the most part,
sitting. I think they were fatigued, Mr. Rosenkilde says.

The men exercising half as much, however, seemed to grow energized and
inspired. Their motion sensors show that, compared with the men in the other
two groups, they were active in the time apart from exercise. It looks like they
were taking the stairs now, not the elevators, and just moving around more, Mr.
Rosenkilde says. It was little things, but they add up.

The overall message, he says, is that the shorter exercise sessions seem to have
allowed the men to burn calories without wanting to replace them so much.
The hourlong sessions were more draining and prompted a stronger and largely
unconscious desire to replenish the lost energy stores.

To recap:

The group who exercised less:

Lost 50% more fat
Had an energized and inspired feeling, causing them to engage in more activity
than normal v. a fatigued feeling
The 60 minute-a-day group replaced the calories they burned by eating more
than normal - increasing the size of their meals and snacks

Those are some pretty startling results and they certainly explain why the longer
duration kettlebell workouts may have failed you.

You lost less fat than you could have
You were feeling tired (or over-tired) from your workouts, so you moved less
outside of your workouts
You subconsciously ate more to compensate for your fatigued feeling

Its all starting to make perfect sense now, isnt it?

I hope so.

Remember earlier when I said only looking at the calories you burn during your workout
is a mistake? Lets take a closer look at why that is, shall we?

Want To Burn 20% More Calories
Than Normal For 38 Hours
After Your Workout?

As mentioned earlier, its standard common practice to focus on how many calories you
burn during a workout.

This is a mistake and only tells half the story.


Because those endurance studies done back in the 1970s and 80s only focused on
calories burned during the workouts.


They had no reason not to.

In other words, why did they not look at how many calories were burned after the

To be fair, in some cases they did.

However, it didnt matter.

Why not?

Recall that they were studying endurance activities. Endurance activities use primarily
the aerobic metabolism (aerobic = with oxygen) and is traditionally a low intensity
exercise. And low intensity aerobic exercise does not yield any signicant increase in
the amount of calories burned post exercise.

With aerobic exercise, the only calories you burn are the ones you use during exercise.

You know by now that kettlebell training is decidedly not a low intensity exercise.

In fact, kettlebell training, and all weight training for that matter, is categorized as
anaerobic - or without oxygen - meaning it uses energy such as sugar and fat stored in
your bodys cells.

And that, my friend, is why the difference between low intensity and high intensity,
aerobic and anaerobic matters to you for fat loss.

In one of my favorite resistance training and fat loss studies
, researchers measured
energy expenditure post-workout and found that the amount of post-exercise energy
expenditure (EPOC, commonly known as the afterburn effect) lasted for 38 hours after
the exercise session and increased the participants metabolic rate (the number of
calories burned) by 20%.

This means if they normally burned 2000 calories a day, they burned and extra 400
calories for almost the next two consecutive days.


And what did the protocol look like that caused this? Was it one of those long 60 to 90
minute workouts like you see on TV?


It was 31 minutes long.

And it consisted of only 4 circuits of the bench press, squat, and the power clean.

Talk about time-efcient!


Lets Review

Lets do a quick recap of what weve learned so far:

1. Our current assumptions about fat loss workouts (any workout for that matter) are
based on outdated research from the 1970s and 80s that focused on endurance
training and aerobic metabolism, not fat loss.

2. Because of this research, its standard common practice and conventional wisdom
to perform longer rather than shorter workouts, with one hour being the norm.

3. It is also standard common practice and conventional wisdom to only focus on the
number of calories you burn during exercise. This is because research on aerobic
metabolism reveals that there is no caloric afterburn from performing traditional
aerobic exercise and endurance training.

4. The current research on fat loss (not endurance training) has shown that shorter
workouts are better for fat loss due to a number of reasons:

Shorter workouts can increase energy expenditure (calorie burning) post
exercise, based on exercise effort and intensity levels, and cause you to
increase the amount of calories you burn at rest by up to 20% for as long
as 38 hours post workout.

Shorter workouts leave you with an energized and inspired feeling, causing
you to actually do more and be capable of more, versus longer workouts
which leave you tired, uninspired, and moving less.

Shorter workouts make it easier to eat for fat loss. People who do longer
workouts tend to subconsciously sabotage their fat loss by increasing the
size of the meals and snacks to make up for their increased hunger and fatigue.

As you can see, the pros for shorter workouts to lose fat (or do anything else for that
matter) far outweigh the pros for longer workouts.

In fact, in my research, I couldnt nd any cons for replacing longer workouts with
shorter workouts, other than if you were training for a sport like Powerlifting or
Weightlifting, which, if youre the average kettlebell user, you are not. (Incidentally, the
Bulgarians, who ruled the world of Olympic Weightlifting back in the 1980s and 90s
used to do daily, multiple, short - 30 minute training sessions Might be something to

All this begs a question:

What do you do with all this information?

If youll allow me

A Shameless Plug

Since I became a father back in 2011, most of my workouts are 30 to 45 minutes or
less. And honestly, I hate the 45 minute ones and have tried to modify them accordingly
giving strict guidelines to my coach (yes, I have a coach to design my programs and
help me stay on track to my stated goals) to help me stay around the 30 minute range.


(Besides the obvious stated scientic reasons)


See, when I was younger I practically lived in the gym - 2 hour workouts were common.
And sometimes, I would drive 90 minutes to see my coach, train for 2 hours, and spend
90 minutes driving home. But now, now that I have a family, and now that I know what I
know about the science of fat loss and how the human body works, I feel downright
guilty when any of my workouts - strength included - exceed the 30 minute mark.

Thats time Im literally robbing from my family - like yesterday, when my workout went
50 minutes cause I was dragging from having an interrupted nights sleep and my little
boy opened the door to the garage and said, Daddy, are you almost done? Im





Ever been there?

The pull between what you should do and what you want to do

The pull between achieving your goals and achieving your goals while maintaining
your sanity and the balance in the rest of your life

If so, then I have something that will be of great interest to you.

Its called Kettlebell Express! ULTRA - Reloaded.

And its a collection of my best time-efcient kettlebell programs. 100 of them. Thats
right - 100 different time-efcient double kettlebell training programs. (Not workouts.

(What about single kettlebell workout programs you might be wondering? I have 100
time-efcient ones for you too. More about that in the future)

You can use them to lose fat, build strength, or more importantly - do both at the
same time.

Even more importantly than that, theyre all designed to be done in only 60 to 90
minutes per week.

So no more long workouts that leave you feeling exhausted and uninspired, sapping
you of your motivation to do things like eat healthy or worse, plop in front of the TV and
neglect your family.

And no, you cant get ahold of it Yet.

I just wanted to give you a heads up that Ill be making it available to you - if youre into
the whole time-efcient fat loss and strength thing.

In the meantime, keep an eye on your email because Ill be sending you some other
time-efcient fat loss info you can use to better manage your workouts and get results in
less time.


1. One-set resistance training elevates energy expenditure for 72 h similar to three sets.
European Journal of Applied Physiology. Mar. 2011.Vol.111. Number 3:477-484. Heden,
et al.

2. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2012 Sep 15;303(6):R571-9. doi: 10.1152/
ajpregu.00141.2012. Epub 2012 Aug 1.
Body fat loss and compensatory mechanisms in response to different doses of aerobic
exercise--a randomized controlled trial in overweight sedentary males.
Rosenkilde M1, Auerbach P, Reichkendler MH, Ploug T, Stallknecht BM, Sjdin A.


4. Schuenke MD, et al. Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-
exercise oxygen consumption: implications for body mass management. Eur J Appl
Physiol 2002;86:411-417.