HIT Resurgence 2013

First thing I guess is to apologise that I haven't really committed to this blog over the past 6-12 months. In the run up to the Paralympic games I was busy coaching and since then I've been catching up with the rest of my life. Maybe it's that I haven't stopped to write about what's been going on, or maybe it's because nothing hugely significant has happened that I wanted to share....until now....

I'm writing this from a hotel room in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA having spent the past couple days out here for a strength training conference - The Hit Resurgence.

What an incredible couple of days....right now I'm still in awe of the experience as a whole and need less to say that future blogs will discuss the conference in greater detail. But here's what's going through my mind right now...

Firstly the back-profile of this conference is that a company called Discover Strength which run a series of high intensity gyms in Minnesota have run this conference over the past few years. Previous speakers include Jim Flannagan, Dr. Ellington Darden, Dr. Wayne Westcott and Dr. Ted Lambrinides (this is not an exhaustive list)...this year saw Matt Brzycki, Brian Johnston, Dave (and Patty Durell), Mark Asanovich, and more (sorry I'll get to everyone I promise)...oh and myself.

6am is as good a time as any for a good
MedX/Nautilus HIT workout!

The title conference this year was Evidence Based Resistance Training which was a great place to discuss the titled article I published back in 2011, as well as discuss further research since then. But before you get in to thinking that this was a typical exercise science conference just wait. This was the most intelligent, forward thinking and applied approach to exercise science and strength training conference that I might have ever been to. Whether your interest was to reaffirm or develop your business model and marketing strategies/customer service (Chris Lutz and Diana Del Garbino), or get put through a great HIT workout (thanks Greg and all the Discover Strength staff), learn about application of HIT concepts (Dwayne Wimmer) or progressive and advanced techniques in resistance exercise (Brian Johnston, Dave & Patty Durell), hear about the past and future of strength and conditioning of athletes (Mark Asanovich), nutritional strategies (Richard Wolff), or hear about some of the science of exercise science (Matt Brzycki)....(phew)...this conference really had it all. And that's just the speakers, that doesn't include the other attendees and networking opportunities or active discussions (personally; ranging from complex science discussions about heart rate variability to just hearing stories about Arthur Jones). If you missed out then you can get the DVD's from the website. (I don't work for Discover Strength so the sales mean nothing mean to me except that they'll be worth every penny!)....and keep your ears to the ground for next year (and future blog posts!)

 Special thanks to:

• Greg for a truly awesome workout (and of course Taylor who started the workout!)
• Brandon Jonker (this guy's quest for knowledge with intelligent academic research and industry oriented questions was unbelievable; plus we hung out till like 2am drinking green beer and Guiness!),
• Brandon Rudenick for organising the logistics and management of the conference
• The other speakers for being an awesome group of supportive, challenging and progressive individuals (the term 'brotherhood' was used and it's truly not out of place!)
• The rest of the DS staff who held everything together
• And most importantly for me - Luke Carlson...at one point or another the comment of who was carrying the torch forward for HIT was asked....Luke - it's you fella...keep up the great work!

All - I'll write more in greater detail when I get back to the UK, but in the meantime; train hard and be well.

J

Intensity and Speed; the devil is in the detail

I recently published a paper in European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) discussing the clarity of the term "intensity" regarding resistance training. Most people might have already thought that this is some measure of effort by the body or how hard a person is working. However, the majority of literature completely misuses this terminology for resistance training. And in fact uses the term 'intensity' differently for different modalities of exercise (e.g. resistance training and cardiovascular exercise).

EJAP have recently made this article freely available (I hope the link works) so if you are interested then please take the time to check this out. Ultimately the article discusses the need for clarity over this kind of terminology and how intensity of exercise can be manipulated by other variables, including repetition duration (commonly and incorrectly referred to as 'speed' - see within the article for clarity on this point as well).

"Attempting to better define 'Intensity' for muscular performance; is it all wasted effort?"

Myself and Dr. Dave Smith have summarised these points in previous articles notably Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations, but this piece has some added clarity.

As for my other blog posts; I know it's been ages since I wrote anything but I'm working on it. I promise.

Be Well

J

Dead-lifts and Paralympics

Ladies and Gents firstly let me apologise for the length of time since my previous blog post, I guess it was back on 13th June. I know people say, "Hey, I've been busy!"...but really I have!!

Anyway, this is going to be short and sweet.....and split in to two parts...

(a). Dead-lifts..

I've always professed to resistance machines over free-weight exercises, and I know that even one of my own publications hasn't supported this (basically the evidence says it's how you train not what you train with). But a piece of research I've been working on for (literally) years has just been published in Physical Therapy in Sport;

A randomized trial to consider the effect of Romanian deadlift exercise on the development of lumbar extension strength

Abstract 

Objective

To consider the efficacy of 10 weeks of Romanian deadlift (DL) training in increasing lumbar extension strength compared to isolated lumbar extension (LUMX) training.

Design

Comparison of pre- and post-test data for Romanian deadlift 1RM, and lumbar extension torque between and within groups.

Participants

Male trained subjects (n = 36;  24.9 ± 6.5 years; 178.5 ± 5.2 cm; 81.6 ± 10.0 kg).

Main outcome measures

Pre- and post-testing included a Romanian deadlift 1RM and isometric strength tests every 12° through full range of motion on the MedX lumbar extension machine (MedX, Ocala, FL).

Results

Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni adjustments revealed that 1RM Romanian deadlift significantly increased from pre- to post-test in the DL group (p < 0.008; 143.3 ± 23.4 kg to 166.3 ± 21.9 kg) and the LUMX group (p < 0.008; 135.8 ± 23.1 kg to 146.0 ± 25.5 kg). In contrast, tested functional torque (TFT) significantly increased at 6 out of 7 joint angles (p < 0.008) for the LUMX group only. The control group showed no significant differences pre- to post-test.

Conclusions

These data suggest that the Romanian deadlift does not enhance lumbar extension torque. However, performing specific isolated lumbar extension training appears to improve both lumbar extension torque and Romanian deadlift 1RM.

Romanian Deadlift

Before anyone get's on my case arguing for or against dead-lifts, let me clarify that I include dead-lifts in my workout. But I include them for the enjoyment of the exercise and for the skill element. Ultimately what this research suggests is that dead-lifts are not sufficient to improve lower back strength. Simple. This is likely due to the compound nature of the movement and that other muscles might dominate the exercise (e.g. gluteals and hamstrings). However, strengthening the lower back extensors (by training them in an isolated fashion) does improve dead-lift 1RM, so back extensors are clearly important for dead-lifting, indeed they might be the limiting factor, but simply aren't stimulated enough by the exercise to grow. 

Interestingly a secondary outcome of this study (which some might consider even more important that the first) is the strength increases found in the training groups. The 1 x / week dead-lift group, who were trained participants, improved their dead-lift by an average of 23kg over the  10 week training intervention. That's a 16% strength increase. As the author I can clarify that most of these participants were actually quite shocked by this. 

Until now most of the research has stated that trained persons need to train more frequently not less frequently, but this study proves the contrary. Indeed, the publication mentioned at the start of this blog supports exactly this, that training 1 x / week for most major muscle groups is sufficient. I'd bet most people reading this are confident that more is better. but what if you cut your training down to once per week and improved your strength by 16%, would that work out for you!? Damn straight it would!

Ultimately our genetics will determine the required stimulus and the response (I've talked about this countless times and once again it's in the publication), but training to muscular failure is the winner again.

Train smart, and hard and then recover.

(b). Paralympics..

One of the reasons it's been so long since my last publication is that I have been busy with GB Women's Wheelchair Basketball team. Some of you may know that I've been an assistant coach with the squad for about 4 years now, and obviously it's a busy time in the run-up to London 2012. Because of this I'm unlikely to blog again before I go in to the village in 7 days, but rest assured that I will blog when I'm back out.

Until then Channel 4 (Britain and internet) are covering the games so please check it out! Here's a taster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuAPPeRg3Nw

I'm frustrated that Channel 4 haven't allowed that video to be embedded, but here's another inspiring video for the Paralympic games.

Be Well, and Tune in!

JF

"A Practical Approach to Strength Training" - Book Recommendation

Ladies and Gents....

Please forgive the shameless advertising, a colleague and peer of mine in the USA (Princeton), has finished his 4th Ed. of "A Practical Approach to Strength Training". - Genuinely it's one of the best strength training books you can get, very comprehensive in discussing nutrition and supplements with a Q&A section at the end; as well as being evidence-based (something a little too rare in books of this nature).

It will generally take you from beginner (or correcting inaccuracies in your knowledge base), through diagrams of manual, free-weight and resistance machine based training, to having wisdom comparable and better than many health and exercise professionals.

I believe in this book so much, I stuck my name on the back of it (see photo)!

If you're in the market for a new book like this, or just looking to maintain a grip on your library of sound reference books then please check this one out.

Since my previous post was about a recent publication of my own which discusses the cardiovascular fitness benefits of resistance training, I can see no reason why you're still reading this and not searching for it in the shops somewhere!

Shameless advert over.

Be Well

Resistance Training Improves Cardiovascular Fitness: The Evidence

It is with great pleasure that I announce another publication. This time led by a friend and colleague; James Steele. The paper was originally part of our earlier Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations, but whilst writing that a year ago, we decided that this section was worthy of it's own paper. Alas, we have genuinely struggled to get this published, potentially due to the fact that it goes against so many pre-conceived ideas of exercise.

Anyway, good has conquered, and the paper has now been published in Journal of Exercise Physiology (which it would be amiss of me not to mention their open-minded scientific review process).

I have included the abstract below, and whilst the article itself is a lengthy piece, it will surely be of interest. I'm not usually one to give away the ending, but the point in all this is simple: If you train to muscular failure then it appears you can improve your 'cardio' fitness to the same extent as if you do traditional cardiovascular exercise (e.g. cycling, rowing, running, etc).

The reality is that this has been hypothesised for a while, and most of you will know that my own training mimics these ideas; I occasionally do a barefoot run, but more for the skill (and fun) of barefoot running that for the exercise. That said, I would happily engage in what most people would consider traditional CV exercise because I believe the HIT training I do helps maintain my cardiovascular fitness. I could list many more who train in a similar way and would agree wholeheartedly.

Anyway, here's the link to the full text, and the abstract is below:

Enjoy

Resistance Training to Momentary Muscular Failure Improves Cardiovascular Fitness in Humans: A Review of Acute Physiological Responses and Chronic Physiological Adaptations.

Steele J, Fisher J, McGuff D, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. JEPonline 2012;15(3):53-80.

Research demonstrates resistance training produces significant improvement in cardiovascular fitness (VO2 max, economy of movement). To date no review article has considered the underlying physiological mechanisms that might support such improvements. This article is a comprehensive, systematic narrative review of the literature surrounding the area of resistance training, cardiovascular fitness and the acute responses and chronic adaptations it produces. The primary concern with existing research is the lack of clarity and inappropriate quantification of resistance training intensity. Thus, an important consideration of this review is the effect of intensity. The acute metabolic and molecular responses to resistance training to momentary muscular failure do not differ from that of traditional endurance training. Myocardial function appears to be maintained, perhaps enhanced, in acute response to high intensity resistance training, and contraction intensity appears to mediate the acute vascular response to resistance training. The results of chronic physiological adaptations demonstrate that resistance training to momentary muscular failure produces a number of physiological adaptations, which may facilitate the observed improvements in cardiovascular fitness. The adaptations may include an increase in mitochondrial enzymes, mitochondrial proliferation, phenotypic conversion from type IIx towards type IIa muscle fibers, and vascular remodeling (including capillarization). Resistance training to momentary muscular failure causes sufficient acute stimuli to produce chronic physiological adaptations that enhance cardiovascular fitness. This review appears to be the first to present this conclusion and, therefore, it may help stimulate a changing paradigm addressing the misnomer of ‘cardiovascular’ exercise as being determined by modality.

Be Well

Cholesterol....the truth: Part 2b - The Roseto Paradox

So...I have two key points before I get in to the brief details of this blog:

The first is that I initially resisted writing this blog because I really didn't want to labour the point of the previous blog about what really causes heart disease. That it isn't cholesterol, or meat, or fat. That it's stress. Plain and simple. But that blog originally posted at the start of the month has had near 2,500 hits this month so it seems to have been greeted well. My hope is that the same number of people have gone out and bought the book "The Great Cholesterol Con" by Malcolm Kendrick.

The second point is that we should be very careful when we hear the term paradox in any scientific sense. A paradox is basically contradictory evidence. But it seems that in modern science if we just label something a paradox then we don't have to explain why it's a paradox. The reality of contradictory evidence is a bit of a vicious cycle - we have a hypothesis, then something doesn't fit the hypothesis so we label it a paradox and don't go any further. We stick to our original hypothesis because other evidence (perhaps the majority) supports it, and so we say "heck this can't be right!?", or we simply label it 'paradox' and move on. We know it doesn't support the hypothesis but if we look at it too long we'd have to bin the hypothesis and start over and that doesn't seem right. No; that seems ABSOLUTELY right. Enough with the paradox. A paradox means the hypothesis is wrong; no matter how many papers support it, the hypothesis needs amendment. The other way around contradictory evidence is a more simple process of what is almost denial. The example I often give my students is the black swan. If we consider the hypothesis that all swans are white but then we find a black swan then denial simply says "well it can't be a swan!", why? - because it's not white. We don't look at the hypothesis and say; "hmmm, maybe all swans are not white, maybe some are black!?" - we just reject and deny. Sigh.

So... to the Roseto 'Paradox'
Well the previous blog talked extensively about how it is not diet but rather stress that causes, or at least increases risk of, heart disease. Roseto is a small town in Pennsylvania, populated by a majority of Italian immigrants, that for quite literally decades had an incredibly low rate of heart disease. Most sources suggest that it was in the 1950's that it was first identified that there was almost no heart disease in anyone below the average of 55 years old, and that in men over 65 the death rate as a result of heart disease was about 50% the national average, and that the death rate from all causes was 30-35% lower than it should have been.

So how? It soon became a very well researched town, where the following conclusions were drawn about the Rosetans lifestyles:

- there was no suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, and very little crime
- they didn't have anyone on welfare
- they cooked with lard not the supposedly healthier olive oil (if you read this blog regularly you'll find that this is a common theme in paleo health and in fact lard is much healthier)
- they ate more sausage, pepperoni, salami, ham and eggs (fatty meat, etc)
- their dietary analysis revealed approximately 41% of their calories came from fat
- there were no signs of early morning joggers, or yoga fanatics
- many Rosetans smoked heavily and were obese

Ultimately many of these factors are perceived to be risk factors for cardiovascular disease, but this small population seemed to be a paradox to this hypothesis. When people from the surrounding area were investigated they found them to be within normal US levels; e.g. they were suffering from heart disease, but somehow the Rosetans were eluding this condition in spite of these 'risk' factors.

Eventually researchers observed, that it was indeed the way Rosetans lived, but not the pre-conceived ideas. It was that they stopped to talk to each other in the street. That they cooked for each in their backyards. They had close-knit extended family support networks, including how many homes had 3 generations living under one roof, and how much respect grandparents commanded. They all went to mass and saw a calming effect from this. They picked up on the equality within the village irrespective of financial wealth or relative poverty and a system that discouraged flaunting wealth and seeked to obscure poverty.

In short this was a population of about 2,000 persons who generally lived a very relaxed lifestyle. There was little stress. Unfortunately if you look in to the more recent research on this town you'll find that with social evolution, a growing community and the likely unavoidable stresses of modern life they have gradually moved closer to the norm, rate of heart disease has increased, and so forth. The following article considers some of the changes. Sad times.

Anyway, I reckon that'll about do the stress discussion for now.

Be well

JF

Cholesterol....the truth: Part 2.

At the start of the month I published the first of two-part blog about cholesterol. If you haven't read the first then my suggestion is to go ahead and read that now (click here), before proceeding with this; the second part.

If you have read the first part then here we go with the concluding part of dispelling the 'cholesterol causes CHD myth' and hopefully addressing what does cause heart disease, strokes, and the like.

In Part One I explained what cholesterol is, what lipoproteins are (including high density and low density lipoproteins), I discussed that most cholesterol is necessary and produced in the liver, and that there is little to no relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease or stroke.

Statins, memory loss, and why we should be loving cholesterol
At present the NHS pay a considerable amount of money to use statins to lower cholesterol in many individuals. In fact the cost is estimated in excess of £2 billion, which if redirected could could employ around 70,000 extra nurses per year, or build two brand new, fully equipped, state of the art hospitals. As I stated in the previous blog; Dr. Malcolm Kendrick goes in to considerable detail throughout his book "The Great cholesterol Con", and one area he doesn't skimp on is the potential harmful side effects of statins. I, however, am going to move on promptly and redirect you to his book, but rest assured the list of harmful side effects is long and VERY concerning, one of which is memory loss. This is where I'm going to linger for a second; whilst we can agree that memory loss is far from ideal there is research supporting the necessity of cholesterol in the brain in the which allows gllial cells to release cholesterol which allow synapses to form. Synapses are fundamental to neuronal function which essentially allow signals to pass to target cells. What this basically means is that without cholesterol in the brain we stop functioning right; thinking, remember, controlling movement, our senses get messed up and much much more.

In addition to all of this there is evidence to suggest that a low cholesterol level leads to reduced serotonin levels. Low serotonin levels are linked with depression, violence, self harm, suicide and aggression (follow the links to read articles/publications).

Ok so we know cholesterol is good, or at least that it isn't bad. But we now need to consider...

What causes heart disease....
So we know that things are going wrong on some kind of hormonal level; the three part hormonal system of body is the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, and adrenal glands; also known as the 'HPA-axis'. The HPA-axis is closely connected to the autonomic nervous system, which is divided into the sympathetic (which speeds up your heart rate, reduces saliva production, and sends blood to your muscles) and the parasympathetic (which basically does the opposite) systems. Notably the sympathetic nervous system also stimulates the liver to release glucose, pushing up blood sugar levels and essentially acts as your fight or flight response, releasing 'stress' hormones. It is often thought of as a catabolic state; you exercise, are burning energy stores and are not ready to eat. The parasympathetic nervous system causes insulin to go up and represents the anabolic state; all is well, eat food, store calories and so forth. Dr. Kendrick considers the concept of what happens if you are stressed? e.g. if both responses happen simultaneously? - you try to eat but you body sends blood away from your stomach, you have high levels of adrenaline and cortisol, adipose tissue would be under instruction to both absorb and release fat for energy, the liver would be trying to store and release glucose, and your blood sugar would be out of control with spikes of insulin as your body tried and failed to overcome the effects of the stress hormones. Phew. This is not good.

Fundamentally in this condition Dr. Kendrick is talking about a dysfunctional HPA-axis. He goes on to discuss tumours that can result in a highly dysfunctional system, he mentions cushings syndrome and explains that all of this ultimately relates back to increased cortisol levels. Cortisol a stress hormone. What does cortisol do? - triggers the liver to release glucose, stimulates breakdown of free fatty acids, breaks down muscle proteins in to amino acids, ultimately leaving you with high blood sugar levels and insulin resistance.

Stress

Without going through all the intricacies of this (I really do want you to read the book); stress appears to be the real cause of heart disease. Dr. Kendrick spends considerable time detailing this hypothesis with evidence from around the globe, explaining stressful situations for populations groups ranging from low socio-economic areas to Australian aboriginals who have undergone massive stresses in the sociological development of Australia. (This is more vast than even Dr. Kendrick considers, and extends as far as removing children from their families at young ages to attempt to educate them in to society (and failing miserably). In fact, his example with aboriginals extends to where the Australian government in their misguided attempt to help advocated reduced saturated fat in their diet to attempt to drop cholesterol levels. In fact, this worked to some extent, cholesterol levels did drop, and more people died. - The evidence suggests that an aboriginal with high cholesterol is more than 3-times less likely to die from heart disease than an Australian aboriginal with a low cholesterol level. Sigh.

See here for a really nice article on stress and the HPA-axis! In addition this journal lists the causes of a dysfunctional HPA-axis as "...stress, emotional pain, lack of stability, constant change, neurotoxins (aspartame - we've talked about this before), diets high in sugar and caffeine..".

So what causes stress, well apart from winter and Monday mornings (no seriously, there is a higher rate of cardiac incident on Monday mornings!!):

"Framingham Heart Study results in Am J Cardiology published in 1987 also showed that hourly risk of sudden cardiac deaths was at least 70 percent greater between 7 and 9 AM than the average risk during the remaining 22 hours of the day. / In a study published in Circulation in 1993, data from the Berlin emergency care system found a peak frequency of ventricular fibrillation between 6 AM and noon; in contrast, asystolic episodes were more evenly distributed throughout the day. / Another study in Am J Cardiol published in 1992 showed that the morning peak in sudden death is particularly related to the first three hours after awakening and onset of activity. / Data from the Seattle Fire Department published in Circulation in 1998 also showed that a diurnal variation, with a low incidence at night and two peaks of approximately the same size. An evening peak at 4 to 7 PM was attributed primarily to patients found in ventricular fibrillation, while arrests that showed other rhythms exhibited mainly a morning peak from 8 to 11 AM. / Two studies published in Eur Heart Journal in 2000 and Am Heart Journal in 1999 showed that cardiac arrests also show a weekly and seasonal variation; the daily incidence peaks on Monday and the seasonal incidence is greatest in winter. / Another study published in the journal Circulation in 1999 showed that approximately 33 percent more deaths occur in December and January than in June through September"

Avoid smoking, and recreational drug use, and take some exercise (although the high intensity training (HIT) advocate in me needs to remind you that prolonged exercise (40 minutes +) increases cortisol levels to a point where your body is breaking down muscle proteins, etc, so make it intense and keep it short in duration.


Ultimately I've really enjoyed both reading the book, (and the other linked in articles) and writing this blog because it links back to so much of what I've written about previously; sugar intake is bad, too much exercise is bad, meat isn't bad, saturated fat isn't bad, exercise is essential; but should be high in intensity and low in duration (this way we stimulate physiological responses we want in strength and fitness, and steer clear of the ones we don't want), and so forth.

I guess at the end of all this you will elect to believe this or not, but I promise I will not get stressed out as to whether you do or don't either way.

Be Well

JF