Human Exoskeleton - The next level in Physical Ability

So I've been blogging throughout March about What's wrong with the Fitness Industry; discussing an array of subject. I have to confess I'm really grateful; I had 1300 views throughout the month, so thank you all, and keep spreading the word.

All that said I came across a video on yahoo news today that impressed me so I looked on youtube to see what else Berkeleybionics have been up to and I found this. Incredible.

Enjoy



I don't think I can even comprehend the scope for a piece of equipment such as this; in their comments they discuss the obvious ability to move quicker, with greater force, carry a heavier weight, and the possibility of helping those with spinal cord injuries walk again. Another video demonstrated a girl with a paralysis from her sacral vertebrae walking using the exoskeleton with crutches.

Obviously there is massive performance enhancement capabilities but as they discuss within the video; the item reduces physiological exertion thus reducing any training effect.

That said; it sure looks fun!!

JF

COMMENT - What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 11: Strength and Conditioning Science

This morning I received the following comment on my facebook link to my  previous blog: 'What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 11: Strength and Conditioning Science'. I think is an excellent response from a great friend and peer who spent a considerable time with great expertise in the Fitness Industry. I wanted to share his comments as I genuinely believe they add to what I discussed within my blog; thanks Mike!


"I am in agreement with you that there are many flaws and problems with the "Fitness Industry" (FI), hence my retirement from it ;) But I do believe that the "science" and practice of coaching is, and should always be recognized as a separate entity from the increasingly all-encompassing industry of fitness. 


For as we all know, increased “fitness” does not always result in improved performance and professional, or amateur sports coaching is at the end of the day in the business of performance enhancement. The well-versed sports coach will know that improved performance is, and can be achieved through employment of a myriad of facilitators, used in specific combination and harmony to suit the precise needs and goals of the individual AND/OR team, and as you say, performance is very often a by-product of training and should be treated as such. Of course, you are correct to highlight the problem with defining not only what “Strength and Conditioning” is, but also, where does it fit in the spectrum of performance oriented sports coaching and the principles of training. And indeed, a lot of strength and conditioning which does take place is largely counter-productive where technical performance and biomechanical stability is concerned. For as you say, technique and performance will always change and adapt to the external overload which is often the underpinning principle of strength and conditioning practice. But strength (muscular) and conditioning can be enhanced in ways which do not negatively effect technique, and these should always be sought and used in performance preparation and in-season training, whereas what is now commonly termed “strength and conditioning” practices should be the domain of physical, physiological and psychological (Ill get back to this) preparation, hence the word “conditioning”. And therefore the classic “Strength and Conditioning” practices which are often misused and abused by some coaches do have a place in the repertoire of the athlete’s training programme, but should never be acknowledged or treated as a pre-requisite or essential component for all athletes, no-matter what discipline.


Finally, I mention psychology because through personal experience as an athlete and as a coach, the psychological and emotional gains which are usually associated with either actual or perceived gains in strength and fitness cannot be ignored, and are a major player in performance enhancement via the improved confidence and self-belief of the athlete. So the balance has to be made between the possible detraining of specific technique (which can be minimised by knowledgeable use of S & C), and the possible improved performance profile, manifested in greater self-belief, confidence, and perceived ability."


- Michael Ormshaw


I undoubtedly agree with the comments and have discussed psychology in a previous blog; 'It what's inside (the head) that counts; the role of Sports Psychology'. Interestingly I did a study with some elite rugby players during my MSc and many of them reported the confidence in approaching the game with added size and stature, describing it as a mental battle with opponents. Of course getting stronger, and being better physiologically prepared to compete provides a large amount of confidence to ensuing performances. In discussions over a coming MSc course I have been in talks over the inclusion of a Psychology unit which would consider and discuss exactly these topics.


If you are interested in posted something then please feel free to add a comment, or send me an email or facebook message with the content.


Thanks again Mike.


JF

What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 11: Strength and Conditioning Science

Aggressively I'm going to start by clarifying that Strength Training and Conditioning are two separate entities. They are not one and the same, and they should not be treated as one and the same. You can train for strength and whilst this goes a long way in conditioning the body due to the benefits of training right, you can also perform conditioning exercises which scientific strength training potentially might not offer you. Evidence is beginning to suggest that resistance training can enhance lactate threshold, maximal oxygen consumption and other typically cardiovascular factors. However, sprints, agility runs, and the like might be a necessary part of conditioning our athlete.

I read (and would recommend) Nick Ball's recent blog: 'Bridging the strength and conditioning research gap - But which side of the bridge do we start on?'

An interesting discussion of whether to approach things from a practical or a scientific perspective. Of course the fact that there is a gap is something to worry about. Either the science hasn't been focused on what the coaches need, or the coaches have been ignoring the science. Forgive me for arguing the latter.

Last year I attended a workshop by the UKSCA where we discussed isolated and compound movements. The premise that all isolated movements only train muscles was cast around like it was a bad thing. The idea being that we should train movements. I've discussed this in detail in a previous blog "What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part2: Skill Acquisition and Specificity of Training". That added resistance to a given movement does not even necessarily make us stronger in the primary muscles performing that movement, but rather that we develop a different skill set to manage the added weight. We know this. Science knows this, and it has been published and proven. So why do the coaches ignore it? Strength and Conditioning has unfortunately not come a long way from where it started. Originated in the premise and naivety that weight lifters perform Olympic Lifts, and thus that what makes them stronger, and so we should ALL be doing them. And adding that with cables, and balls, and power bags and the other array of utensils at our disposal in the gym we can make exercises sport specific. Alas.

The Running Man
During my undergraduate degree I tried to explain to a lecturer how adding resistance altered a skill. I cited references and he refused to accept the idea, and finally I gave a simple example. Consider the biomechanical technique of a sprinter at full pace; upright body, long stride, and so forth. Now alternately consider a strong man pulling a truck or a train; low to the ground, very short, very quick strides. These examples are either end of a spectrum. If we add resistance to an exercise we almost demand another technique. Sprinters running with a weighted sled will run slower, there stride will likely shorten, and the angle of their body will change as well. I read a journal during my masters degree which set out to consider the biomechanics of weighted sprinting. They concluded by stating that as weight increased so too did time over the distance. E.g. as the weight went up, the speed came down. So aside from the publication of a bloody useless study (I haven't got the heart to direct you to it!); they reported that more weight = less speed. Apparently even this study didn't help our strength and conditioning coaches since weighted sleds and resisted sprinting are still commonplace.

Back to Basics
All strength and conditioning coaches and personal trainers worth their salt will perform any kind of needs analysis with their athlete or client. So lets get back to basics and think about what we're doing here. Well our primary goal with any client should be health and longevity.

1. Do no harm
If they get hurt they can't compete, if they get injured they can't train, and so forth. Before you consider that I am talking about impacts on the football or rugby field or grapples or punches/kicks in MMA, let's think about what we're doing in the gym. There is risk in everything we do. In life almost all of our choices consider a pay-off between potential benefits and potential risks. Lifting weights or strength training, or any conditioning drill is no different; whether it be tripping whilst running on a field, pulling a muscle, dropping a barbell, or a sacral fracture. So our first goal is not to break our athlete. (I say it this clearly as a strength and conditioning coach misheard a question I once asked "what about pre-habilitative exercises?".....he thought I said re-habilitative exercises, and he exclaimed "re-hab is what our athletes do after we've broken them!"). I really feel for any of his athletes.

2. Longevity and injury avoidance
Our next goal is to help our athletes with injuries commonly sustained in their chosen sport; e.g. in American football we should strengthen the neck, the lower back and the knees (to start with). Thus protecting these fragile parts from injury and, should they be injured, having a higher level of strength to start from should they need rest and rehabilitation. For the most part this is another obvious observation, but we ignore it. I cannot count the number of athletes I have met who are out with an injury sustained doing something stupid in a gym, or during their competition that could possibly have been prevented had their bodies been better prepared.

3. Enhance Performance
This should be our final goal, not our primary goal. I see too many coaches teaching young S&C coaches to be, that this is the priority. It is not. Be clear. Performance enhancement is almost always done in performing the sport, we know the best way to train a soccer player or even prepare his fitness is for him to play soccer. Or for a basketball player to play basketball. In each case most athletes perform the majority of the training they need, making sprints or plyometric exercises specific to their sport by performing tip drills or rebounding drills, not jumping from a step with a weighted vest etc.

That said of course, I cannot state that Olympic lifts or plyometric exercises do not enhance performance. I cannot argue for what I do not know. But in the same sense there is no evidence to support the efficacy of Olympic Lifting, Sport Specific Exercises, or Plyometrics. All of the research around these modalities considers them alongside strength training, which means we cannot be certain that it was not the strength training that catalysed an enhanced performance. In fact since we know that strength training makes muscles stronger, and helps connective tissues adapt to impacts and forces then we can be relatively sure that it was more likely to have been the strength training.

Reality check
In perspective, most sports are highly complex, and physical attributes whilst plentiful in variance are still a small part of sports. Continuing with our example of an American Football player; strength, speed, agility, quickness, power, vertical jump, etc, etc. Well in reality we can measure each of these attributes, we can pre- and post-test them. But even if they improve they do not necessarily correlate to an improved performance. Consider all of the other variables in such a team sport, from the weather and field conditions to the other players, coaches, strategies, not to mention psychological factors in both our athlete and everyone else's heads. Are you really to tell me that Olympic Lifts (or the like) can enhance performance? As if performance in this case is quantifiable and measurable in something other than a statistics line. The reality of all of this is that Olympic lifting might be good, plyometric drills might be beneficial. But we don't know that. In fact we don't even know simple things; e.g. whether they enhance lower body power through a wingate test, or whether they improve 5m, 10m, or 20m sprint times, or how they effect the Illinois agility test; all in comparison to simple SAFER strength training exercises like a squat, leg press or leg extension/leg curl combination. - These are relatively simple studies to perform so why aren't our strength coaches or our scientists testing them!?

The area, like many in the industry, is fraught with pseudo-science and history, and performing exercises and techniques because they once worked for someone some time ago. We should not consider our training with such sentimentality to what has gone before without good cause.

The reality is that science has moved us forward, and that many strength and conditioning coaches have at the least a little catching up to do.

JF

Misinterpretation of reality (subtitle - How Comedy will save the world!)

Well this has all come about because someone where I work sent out a group email asking about something missing from the post-room. I hate these group emails, sent to everyone in our department but I replied to all suggesting that perhaps we should keep the post-room door locked. I then got a response to that email saying:

"is this for real?"

I wasn't quite sure where to go with this one. My initial response was to reply "are you for real?". But it felt like that would just be immature and whilst I am pretty immature I wasn't in that kind of mood. So then I went in a different direction......

I started to discuss the paradigms of reality and suggested if he was able to read the email then it must exist in some sense or another and depending upon his interpretation of reality and electronic mail communications within the said paradigm then, yes it was likely to be real.

That just seemed a little immature as well. But it got me thinking about being offended and our interpretations, which handily led on to something far more comical....



I felt it was important to open with that video for 2 reasons:

1. It's f*cking hysterical
2. We can learn a lot from the application of logic to how far society has gone to attempt to govern based on subjective emotions.

But more importantly here is the video that I really want to show.



So; what can I say. This blog was all about showing a couple of brilliantly funny videos. And I'm OK with that.

Oh, and in case you're interested; I didn't bother sending an email back. It seemed like a lot of effort. Actually it didn't seem like much effort at all, but the reality is that it would have been some effort for a value of nothing. E.g I would have gained nothing by doing so.

Still, if you're reading this you prick, "Yes, it was for real!"

JF

What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 10: Carbohydrate Loading and the Athlete's Diet - Why it's bad for you!!

I've blogged previously about paleolithic diets (very low or no carbohydrate and high in protein, fresh fruit, vegetables and fat) and I've suggested other resources so I didn't want to labour the point. But I've more recently spoken with some athletes I do physiological testing with and work with in other aspects about their diet and about what other nutritionists advise, and been a little disappointed with what I've heard.

For the record the term "Nutritionist" isn't a protected term; you could label yourself a nutritionist if you like. The term dietician is what you should be looking for, and even then it doesn't cover all bases. This is not me having a go at them, and whilst this represents my knowledge, and to some extent; my opinions there are some very bright people out there whether they are nutritionists or dieticians or whatever label they use.

A carbohydrate rich diet
might not be good for you

I've most recently changed my diet to a paleolithic orientated diet removing most of the carbohydrates in my life. Interestingly I upped my calorie intake to accommodate this shift, and notably a handful of my students commented that they always see me eating (they really do; I love food what can I say!). In 1 week I lost 3kg and 2% body fat. I wasn't trying to lose weight I didn't change my exercise habits, in fact I potentially exercised less. But the reality of it is the glucose spike from carbohydrates causes an insulin upsurge which prevents our body from using fat as an energy substrate. By cutting carbohydrates all I did is allow my body to use it's fat stores; evident by the decreased body fat. (In case you're wondering those details are means from double measurements taken in a bod pod!)

The Athletes
So back to our carbohydrate loading; I remember reading sometime ago that Sir Steve Redgrave consumed some 6,000 calories per day starting with 4 Weetabix, and later including porridge, pasta, a bag of doughnuts (to keep his blood sugar up!), spaghetti, and apple-pie or rice pudding for dessert. Of course we can go one step further than this to Michael Phelps and his alleged 12,000 calorie per day diet. I could go into detail but after commenting that his breakfast starts with 4,000 calories; likely most peoples maximum for a day, there doesn't seem much point.

Both stories and both athletes adhering diligently to the calories in = calories out philosophy. You'd think nutrition had moved on from that pre-school way of thinking. To clarify;

"a calorie is NOT a calorie"

The Science
In reality both of these athletes are placing ridiculous demands on their pancreas. The cells that sense and release insulin in response to glucose, and the insulin receptors that respond may literally wear out from the amount of glucose and free radicals. Inflammation causes the cells and cell receptors to be less sensitive, and thus over time these athletes are likely to require a larger release of insulin with each elevated dose of carbohydrates that they consume.

In addition; refilling the muscles with glycogen so soon after exercise is almost counterproductive; the low muscle glycogen is the state that raises insulin sensitivity - thus continuing to numb the cell receptors. Restricting carbohydrate intake after exercise enhances insulin sensitivity (this is good!) and allows the body to continue burning fat as fuel. The reality of it is that at a cellular level, athletes dosing on high carbohydrate diets are causing mitochondrial damage by flowing so much energy through their oxidative pathways releasing large amounts of free radicals. Over time it is likely that the damage to the mitochondria will reduce their energy producing capabilities.

The Research
Athletes wishing to consume such a calorie diet might be better to consume fat rather than carbohydrate, which would place a lower demand on their digestive system for one. But what of the scientific research; well it's hazy at best. The consensus is that low carbohydrate diets cause a reduction in performance. The problem is that none of the studies reporting this allowed sufficient time for the body to adjust to low carbohydrate diets. However, what we really do know is that high carbohydrate diets are eventually going to damage health. - Modern hunter-gatherers have phenomenal endurance even though they consumer predominantly protein and fat in their diets; members of the Ache tribe in Paraguay and Inuit Eskimos both have very little carbohydrate in their diet.

A study by Dr. Stephen Phinney pre-tested peak aerobic power and endurance and then allowed a six week adaptation to a low-carbohydrate, moderate protein, high fat, very low calorie diet, whilst ensuring each subject had adequate sodium and potassium. The results reported that the average subject lost over 20lbs over the 6 weeks, that their peak power did not decline (which suggests that there muscles were not depleted of glycogen) and that endurance performance, whilst initially declining a little, increased to a higher level than before the 6 weeks.


In a second study Phinney considered cyclists preparing and testing them whilst on a diet made up of 67% carbohydrates. The subjects then underwent 4 weeks on a diet where 83% of their energy was fat, 15% of their energy was protein, and less than 3% of their energy intake came from carbohydrates. In addition the subjects were given a supplement containing 1g of potassium, 3g of sodium, 600mg of calcium, 300mg of magnesium, as well as a standard multivitamin to maintain mineral balance throughout the adjustment period. The results were similar to the previous study; maximum oxygen expenditure returned to baseline by the end of the 4-weeks and endurance performance had once again increased slightly.

The reality of all of this is that high carbohydrate diets are unnecessary, and potentially harmful to anyone, even highly athletic persons. The body is capable of using fat not carbohydrates to fuel the body.

I have lived a very athletic lifestyle as a swimmer and a basketball player, and I have always eaten my share of carbohydrates. I was not open to this diet to begin with, but eventually the logic becomes undeniable and the change is easy because of the amount of meat and fresh fruit and vegetables you eat. When I read more and more about the harm of carbohydrates, such as the decrease in testosterone, it seemed a natural progression to adopt this logical diet.

Why not give it a try!?

JF

What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 9: Steroids, doping and the truth

I blogged about steroids some time ago (follow the link), talking about Jose Conseco, and his autobiography 'Juiced' this will be a little more detailed (well; a lot, really)!

This is a somewhat controversial area, and I need to be very careful with regard to this. To clarify I am a UK anti-doping tutor (UKAD), and I am involved with a national team. Thus my opinion is that within sports, rules exist for the fairness of competition and should not be broken. Period. There are no 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybes'. The rules clarify what an athlete can and cannot take (as well as methods that are not allowed) regardless of opinion. In this area I support the rules wholeheartedly and would never want to see anybody I know tested positive.

However, there is something of a blinkered view to all of this that I want to talk about. I've been around steroids. I've seen people inject them, and I know people who have and continue to take them, and for the most part I have no problem with it. If they're not competing in a sport that tests against it, and it doesn't affect me in any way at all then why should I have a problem. In the UK anabolic steroids are illegal to buy and sell but not to use. The myths are that they kill you, cause heart attacks, give you 'roid rage', etc, etc. The reality is that as with anything in extreme over long periods there is a potential risk, but it is far from quantifiable and not supported by evidence. Ethical and legal issues around steroid use make any real scientific testing almost impossible. 'Roid rage' is the claimed phenomenon that when in a hypermasculine environment men act 'aggressively', or to clarify - more masculine. Think wrestlers, bodybuilders, bouncers, etc. Are we really surprised when they puff out their chests a little!? Part of their role is intimidation, and obviously within their job they need the respect of their colleagues. I'm not condoning aggressive behaviour but evidence does not prove that this is steroid induced.

Drug Testing Horrors
I have two stories I'm prepared to share about drug testing that might shock you a little.
The first is a professional basketball player from a few years back who was tested positive for a recreational drug. The governing body agreed not to go public over the incident so long as the player served a 'quiet' 1-year suspension due to a 'back injury sustained in a car accident'. The player was also required to do promotional appearances for the club, the league and the sport as a whole.
The second story is a professional rugby player who when sat in a locker room prior to training was advised publicly by the coaching staff, to the entire team, that the drugs testers were here, and if anyone had any reason why they shouldn't give a sample then to take the back exit and leave now.
Neither of these stories surprise me but they left me a little disheartened.

Dwaine Chambers and The Business of Sports
I don't think you can mention steroids or performance enhancing drugs in the UK without hearing the name. I hate it. I hate that he got caught when he wasn't tested positive. His name was implicated in the BALCO scandal and his sample was re-tested once they knew what they were looking for. I can remember seeing him portrayed as some kind of devil in UK sports across the newspapers, wit comments about how steroids kill and so forth, and on the shelf above seeing 'Flex' magazine, 'Muscle and Fitness' and the like. Of course in case you didn't know almost all professional bodybuilders are taking steroids. Fact. Sorry. It's true. If you chat to them openly and without judgement they'll tell you what they take. Of course if they don't admit it, then it's fine just consider how many other sports have a natural category and then ask them why they're not in that category. (For the record I believe the testing is so much more severe in natural bodybuilding that they really are clean!). My point of course with the DC and bodybuilding magazine comparison is that on one shelf we publicly hang someone, and on the shelf above we accept with a blind eye, and worse allow them to promote supplements.

The reality of the supplement industry is shown perfectly in the movie "Bigger, Stronger, Faster"; when speaking to a model they ask if he uses steroids for his physique and he agrees, when asked if he feels bad for  deceiving purchasers of the supplement he is advertising he comments that he uses that as well, but if consumers believe it then it's their own problem. The movie continues with the following scene:

The reality of all of this is that there's too much money in it. And that's the reality of sport. You think the Olympics would be a success if everyone came out and ran 10.5 in the 100m final. Or if the Tour de France took didn't just increase in time by minutes or hours, but took an extra day!?! People would be disappointed, they would lose interest and money would be lost. Nike, Adidas and the like would stop sponsoring athletes, and the world of sports would seem a little blander. I've included this scene on supplements to give you an idea that these guys in the magazines are not taking this stuff, they're using steroids, and they're making a sap out of people.

Tour de Dopage

But when it comes to doping and steroids what's the problem? I mean doesn't everyone do it? Forgive me I'm a cynic; I seem to be the only person who believes Lance Armstrong isn't clean. I mean, I'm not taking away from his achievements, I just cannot believe that for 7 Tour de France titles the riders finishing from 2nd and below who have admitted doping couldn't beat someone who was clean. Are you serious? Lance who are you trying to kid here? The guy is a phenomenal athlete, but the reality is that they're all doing it. In 1998, the riders proved control of the event when they felt that some heavy handed investigation of doping after finding quantities large enough to fuel the entire field of riders was inappropriate. They came out at stage 17 and sat down on the ground next to their bikes. Any one of them could have said "Hey I'm clean; I'm riding!" but they all sat there and the stage was voided. It was the ultimate display of power. It was labelled by the French newspapers as the "Tour de Dopage". Potentially  as a result the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) made a choice not to accept WADA's (World Anti Doing Agency) policy on doping. They were supposed to test for EPO (erythropoietin) a banned substance, but instead chose to measure red blood cell count. Essentially EPO increases red blood cell count allowing more oxygen to travel around the body, which beyond a certain level is unhealthy. The UCI took a stand against WADA saying they're not interested in banning cyclists only in their health. By measuring red blood cell they stated that if a rider was over a certain level then they were not medically cleared to ride on that day, but no charges of doping were brought against them. To the best of my knowledge this is no longer the case but the point simply that for some time doping has almost been acknowledged and accepted.

The Foundations of WADA

The World Anti Doping Agency is built on 4 simple policies with regard to drug control and why doping should not be allowed. Health, fair play, and the spirit of the sport. I was fortunate enough to have studied Sociology of Sport through my undergrad and since then reading on the area has educated me to the sociological perspective around this. I should state that this is not necessarily my opinion but rather the opinion of other persons provided here to educate the reader. Sociologists rebuttle WADA's policies on these simple claims:

1. Health

Sociologists argue that sport in itself is inherently unhealthy. Remember there is a difference between health and fitness. Is getting up at 4am to run, then lifting weights, then spending an hour at the end of the day healthy? Shin splints, torn Achilles, broken bones, and worse. Carbohydrate loading, and sacrifice of relationships for commitment to the sport, is that not physically and psychologically unhealthy? A study asked 1000 NCAA division 1 athletes if they would consider using illegal substances to win a gold medal if it halved their life span. 50% of them said yes. Consider the effort required to even be successful enough to make a European or World Championship team. I've worked and lived with elite athletes and I know the life very well. If you felt that come that day everyone else was doing it anyway why wouldn't you!?

2. Fair Play and the Spirit of Sport

Are you serious? Have you ever watched a football match? Players dive and cheat all over the place, sports is not about fair play, it is about winning and sponsorship and the business. Basketball players quote "a foul is only a foul if the referee blows the whistle". Rugby players get up to all sorts in the scrum and don't mind admitting it. In almost all sports there is some way that one athlete seeks an advantage over another, and they would not defer it should they get away with it. Thus the Spirit of Sport appears something of an idealistic and blinkered approach toward doping.

3. The 'medicalisation' of life

This is a personal favourite of mine. It is the argument that pills exist in so many forms for so many ailments that we are a drug cultured society. You have a headache - take a tablet, you have the flu - take a tablet, you can't sleep, you can't wake up, you can't get it up - take a tablet, take a tablet, take a tablet, you have swelling, you have a rash, you want more vitamins, minerals, or better joints - take a tablet. Why should we be surprised when someone gives the same answer to running faster, jumping higher, or lifting more weight.

This blog has gone on long enough, and the reality of it is that there's far more to it; from a recreational stand point I recently gave a guest lecture about Muscle Dysmorphia, and the perception that males are not as muscular as they actually are. This could go on. But I want to finish with this scene. Once again from "Bigger, Faster, Stronger". Perhaps you need to check out the movie!?

So after all this, what's wrong with the fitness industry? They don't give you the truth. They don't do enough to tell you what pro athletes or bodybuilders of powerlifters take, and they let you throw money down the drain on supplements that are worthless. They make their money from advertising, and they're happy with that, the rest is down to you. Shameful.

JF

What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 8: Frequency of training, Breaking a Plateau and Rest

I guess this isn't the Fitness Industry per-se; it's more the mass media. But to be honest I don't know much of the fitness industry that promote what I'm explaining here aside from Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, and similar HIT (High Intensity Training) advocates.

So basically I was reading through a manuscript I once wrote about training philosophy (it's prompted a couple of these blogs) and I wanted to discuss with you this myth of breaking the plateau. I googled 'plateau busting techniques' and got links to several bodybuilding websites and magazines and read through with a greater understanding of why people do not understand their bodies. So here's some information that might help.

Our nemesis: The Plateau
Those of us that go to the gym on a regular basis (whatever our goals) see improvements and eventually we begin to plateau. So what do we know about breaking that plateau (whether it's time trial running or cycling, or weight lifted or number of reps, etc)...no, seriously; have a think about what you know......

You done yet?

OK, so you have probably come with a list something like change your reps and sets around, finish with a set of 50 repetitions on every exercise, increase intensity, increase volume, train more, run before you lift, or lift before you cycle, eat more, or supplements, etc, etc, etc. Sigh.

Almost all of these advocate 'more' and seldom do they highlight the key terms REST and SLEEP. Let's have a think about training with a logical approach, and for those of you unfamiliar let's introduce a concept called 'total tonnage'. recovery is not measured in lbs, and the figures are arbitrarily chosen so don't take this literally but you will see what I mean as you read on.

I enter the gym on day 1 of a program and I do 10 different exercises each for only 1 set of 10 repetitions, and handily I lift 100lbs on each exercise. It looks like this:

Each exercise = 1 set x 10 repetitions @ 100lbs = 1000lbs

Each workout = 1000lbs x 10 exercises = 10,000lbs

I plan to train with 2 days rest in between workouts so I must recover from 10,000lbs of work in 48 hours. This equates to 5,000lbs per day. My nutrition is good for this and my sleep is good for this so my body recovers well and I get stronger. But by week 5 the weight has gone up considerably to 120lbs (unbelievably for EVERY exercise again :).

Each exercise = 1 set x 10 repetitions @ 120lbs = 1,200lbs

Each workout = 1,200lbs x 10 exercises = 12,000lbs

My recovery demands have now increased to 6,000lbs per day, which is a 20% increase. Again my body seems able to cope with that increase, so I get stronger again: a further 8 weeks later I've improved to 150lbs per exercise:

Each exercise = 1 set x 10 repetitions @ 150lbs = 1,500lbs

Each workout = 1,500lbs x 10 exercises = 15,000lbs

My recovery demands now needs to be 7,500lbs per day. However, if my threshold was 6,500lbs per day then I can no longer recover in time to continue getting stronger. Consider our previous 'plateau busting' advice; more sets, more reps, more weight, more exercise or more food. They don't help. In fact they are the OPPOSITE of what is actually needed. This will only lead to greater exhaustion, over-training and will almost certainly not help to break the plateau. Logically. What about more rest? So now I have an extra days rest between workouts; the weight lifted has increased by 50% why not increase my rest by 50%. So I now split the 15,000lb workout over 3 days recovery which equates to 5,000lbs per day. Since my threshold was 6,500lbs per day I am now under the threshold; I recover over the 3 days and thus am now able to continue increasing my strength.

Pretty simple right!? It is when you know it, and you haven't been told the opposite by every magazine or website, or steroid induced bodybuilder. Of course other methods might be to decrease the amount of exercise you do. So shifting to 8 exercises instead of 10 (1 set x 10 repetitions @ 150lbs = 1,500lbs; x 8 exercises = 12,000lbs) or if performing multiple sets then reducing the volume of work (evidence suggests it is not volume, but intensity that stimulates muscular growth). 

What about time trials or endurance training. Well if you're going to do a marathon do you give yourself a few days rest before hand. Yes. Then why not before your workout!? Alas this is not what the magazines EVER suggest; plateau busting workouts always consist of more work, more training, more exercise, more weight, more sets, more reps, never MORE rest! I can't tell you the number of clients that have found significant improvement from this. Most people can only really recover from two intense workouts per week, whilst some might be able to handle more frequent workouts, some might only be able to recover from 1 workout per week. As each persons get's stronger they require more rest, as explained.

Split Routines

Well I know a lot of people reading this will be commenting that because they do split routines they're OK. Their shoulders and back recover whilst they train their legs the next day. This is not really the case. In the examples above I didn't specify muscle groups or exercises and perhaps you might train different muscles on different days. But the amount of energy you exert takes a toll on your central recovery not just the specific muscles trained.

I best read an example of central fatigue as performing pull-ups to failure (until you can do no more), and then performing negative only pull-ups until you can do no more. For that last rep whilst you climb to the bar to support your weight before slowly lowering yourself to the floor your legs are shot to pieces, you can barely take a step up, your breathing is incredibly heavy and your heart is racing. But you have only been performing pull-ups so why would your legs be tired? This is central fatigue kicking in. Don't believe for a second that a split routine on consecutive days doesn't leave a degree of fatigue in your body after the first day. If performing split routines or choosing any form of different exercises on different days, make sure you allow adequate recovery time between workouts.

To Follow
This is not shameless advertising but out of request, my next blog will be:
"What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 9: Steroids, Doping and the Truth"

JF

The breeding of mediocrity

"Most men lead simple lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with their song still in them"

- HENRY DAVID THOREAU

I was speaking with my parents recently about paleolithic diets, and my recent interest/obsession with nutrition. My others reply "everything in moderation". I explained about carbohydrates and insulin spikes, and the inability to use fat as an energy substrate as a result of this. I even explained about testosterone reduction as a result of sugar consumption. And her reply remained "everything in moderation". Bless. My parents are intelligent healthy people and I was never proposing they change their diet, but I expected a far more logical answer than that. But they cannot be blamed for this response; society indoctrinates this view.

I've previously come across similar ideas in the health and fitness industry (which I've blogged about repeatedly) and in a place of work where use of the word "historically" and the phrase "that's what we've always done" ring out against progress. Sigh.

However I recently read a story that epitomizes this trend with a perfect analogy (forgive the comedic value):

The Five Monkeys
Five monkeys are thrown in a cage by a sadistic monkey-hater, with enough food at the bottom of the cage to sustain their survival. Of course they live a boring, unsatisfying life, staring out of the cage at the excitement of the world beyond their prison. However, there is a ladder in the cage  leading to the top where hangs a bunch of bananas. The food at the bottom of the cage is bad but sufficient so the bananas are an attractive prospect to say the least.


After a while the shock of being placed in the cage and the lure of these bananas causes a monkey to scale the ladder, however, as it nears the top a hose appears and soaks not only him but the rest of the monkeys as well. This is a typical exercise of group punishment for the sins of the one monkey.


Over the next few days the experience repeats itself several times; one monkey makes a run for the bananas the whole troop of monkeys gets soaked. Pretty soon the group starts to beat up anymore attempting to climb the ladder for the protection of the group, reluctantly accepting a fate of living without bananas.


Then one day things change; the sadist takes one monkey out of the cage and replaces it with a new monkey. Not knowing the consequences this monkey begins to scale the ladder after the bananas but is pulled down by the other monkeys. The next day another monkey is replaced, and then another, and the process repeats itself: the new monkey lunges for the bananas but is pulled back down by the other group, and adapts to this process. After 5 days, none of the original monkeys remain and none of the monkeys in the cage have been soaked with cold water  - but every monkey knows they are not supposed to to climb the ladder. One of the monkeys finally asks "Hey, why can't we eat the bananas?" The other monkeys just shrug their shoulders and say, "We're not sure - we just know we can't!"


The moral of the story of course is that we often settle for an unremarkable, average life. Accepting what is "good enough" but not what we want. And in the same sense we argue for what is, or what we know reluctant to accept change.

JF

URGENT - Sugar decreases testosterone!

I've blogged a lot recently on varying subjects and I wasn't going to blog again for a few days....until I read this, and I NEEDED to pass it on.

I've just finished reading 'The New Evolution Diet' by Professor Arthur De Vany. I bought it 6 days ago, and it is fantastic. Make no mistake if you're interested in health you need this book (everyone should be interested in their own health!)

There is a section on alcohol and testosterone, that I read this morning; upsettingly after a night out last night! Ladies this is for you as well; testosterone is an essential hormone to both males and females!!

I heard a few years back that alcohol is linked to hypogonadism (shrinking of the testicles) and decreased testosterone, but there's far more to it. Alcohol is certainly a prime contributor to hypogonadism and feminization of males, but also obesity, type-2 diabetes, heart disease and low sperm count. However, the chapter continues and discusses similar effects from elevated sugar in the blood stream! Shocked and intrigued, I jumped on to Google and did a search for some journals, and found the following:

A study presented at The Endocrine Society's annual meeting in 2009, in Washington DC reported some interesting data. The study included 74 males; 42 with 'normal' blood sugar, 23 with impaired blood sugar ('pre-diabetic'), and 9 recently diagnosed with type-2 diabetes. The men had their testosterone levels measured (66 out of 74 had normal testosterone levels) and then drank a sugary solution (75 grams of glucose) to trigger a spike in blood sugar level. They then had their testosterone level re-tested.

....Drum roll please....

They found that regardless of whether the men had diabetes or not blood levels of testosterone dropped by as much as 25% after drinking the sugary drink. This continued for more than two hours after consumption. They also reported that 15 percent of the 66 men with normal testosterone levels beforehand had low testosterone (hypogonadism) at some point during the test!

Unbelievably their key evaluations from this data was not to do with sugar consumption, fizzy drinks, fast food, beer, doughnuts, sports drinks, pasta, rice, bread, grains and cereals, etc., it was to highlight that to accurately measure testosterone levels people should be in a fasting state. This is kind of like watching the titanic sink and saying "it should have been a different colour!".

Hopefully this blog draws a slightly better conclusion, and highlights to you as the reader that carbohydrates (sugar) can emasculate a male by reducing the testosterone levels. Simple. Scary to think that typical sugary sports drinks can be as harmful as alcohol.

JF

What's wrong with the world? - The grinding halt of evolution.

Those of you that follow my blogs will know that I have done a series 'What's wrong with the Fitness Industry?' with an array of considerations including (PART 7:) biomechanical intricacies of training, (PART 6:) core strength and stability, (PART 5:) genetic factors and why women should lift weights, (PART 4:) barefoot running and back to basics, (PART 3:) fads, fashions and functional training, (PART 2:) skill acquisition and specificity of training, and (PART 1:) understanding and education. Within these blogs I've touched upon de-evolution, and been acceptably criticized with the following comment:

"according to Dollo's law de-evolution is impossible, meaning that once primitive traits have been removed from the gene pool of a particular species via natural selection they are extremely unlikely to re-emerge"

Of course my colleague is absolutely correct and he picked up on a hasty comment that I had not thought through. But now I have.....and hence the following blog........

In fact we have not stopped evolving but our rate of evolution has slowed to an almost grinding halt! I heard a respected author speaking about paleolithic man recently quote:

"If we did something stupid enough we die"

And he was right, but this is no longer the case. We are blessed with a social life raft.


Cigarettes and Alcohol
Imagine if you will a simple tribal culture with all the many of the ailments we have in modern society. For example smoking, and lung cancer. A person getting cancer from smoking would once have been the ultimate anti-smoking campaign; dying a slow and relatively painful death. It would likely become extinct in itself since once the society had devised the cause and effect between smoking and cancer no-one would be stupid enough to do it. But our society does not exist like this; cancer and it's side effects are all-but curable these days, and potentially as a result we have not reaped the consequences. Our government uses the masses and their National Insurance contributions and taxes to keep these people alive and in health. And partially because of the government taxation on cigarettes and alcohol. So our government essentially accepts the deaths and illness by cigarettes because of the income due to taxes. Interesting. But also because it spreads the cost of curing or treating these people amongst the general public. In a simple culture identifying something that harms someone would have two solutions:
1. Either they advise people not to do whatever it is that harms them (in fairness the UK government do place health warnings on cigarettes and tobacco products - although they do little to cigarette manufacturers to control the number of chemicals in a cigarette; including arsenic).
2. Or they let people do it, and if they die then the surviving members of society don't have to worry about it.

How about this one....If you ate something, and every time after doing so you would feel terrible, then you would likely not eat it again. If you decided to drink water from a puddle and it made you light-headed, vomit, and gave you dizziness and sickness the next day as well as a terrible headache then you wouldn't drink from the puddle any more. Tribal elders would advise, or Governments might go so far as to, outlaw drinking puddle water for public health reasons. Yet we consume alcohol in copious amounts, almost all of us suffering the said consequences. Absurd. And just about the only reason it is so is because of the high taxation and thus financial value to the government. Of course we do it by choice (I drink alcohol as well; I am not pointing fingers without including myself!). But should someone's liver fail then we all pay, make no mistake. Of course much of this government income is redirected towards education and other worthy causes. But it also covers high government employee salaries.

This would never happen in a basic tribal culture. If persons harmed themselves almost intentionally then tey would be left to suffer the consequences, logically.

Simplified; we appear to have ceased evolving as a society.

And let me explain my support for this comment.

In tribal groups persons unable to conform to accepted protocols or processes or acting without the favor of the group were cast out, or in some way removed from that aspect of society (perhaps by death)  - in our society criminals are kept under welfare guidance and protected by the likes of the Geneva convention, forcing even persons in relative poverty to pay taxes to sustain a lifestyle for persons who have fundamentally been cast out because of their own doing.

Disease and Illness
Persons suffering from illness and or disease that would normally die are now surviving (which whilst I agree might be a good thing) the reality of it no matter how sentimental we might be is that longevity of life has increased but health has decreased. Paleolithic man, and tribal cultures, deemed to be poor by modern standards were taller and stronger with larger brains than modern man. Diseases that would normally kill persons (which would, by it's nature, potentially reduce the prevalence of  the disease, or even make it extinct) remain in existence. Persons suffering ill health through obesity for example simply WOULD NOT survive in paleolithic times, (they could not hunt to eat, and they could not escape death) and yet they do so in part due to government care and support. Because of this the prevalence of metabolic disorders like Type 2 diabetes continues to grow. I could fill a paragraph with modern health issues that have arisen because of our diet and lifestyle that we should not have to suffer from.

I'm intrigued by this paradigm, and have no answers for it. Imagine taking the simplest of cultures and now explaining that any food they gather or kill has to be split between themselves and those who are not allowed to hunt/gather because they are cast away as non supportive members of society, as well as the sick, and/or dying. We knowingly damage the planet around us, with almost no conception of what harm we are doing to the human race as a whole. Sugary diets and fast food, tobacco and alcohol, and disrespect for our bodies with regard to exercise are killing or at the least gradually destroying the health of human beings. I am a 32 year old male, and I am stronger, fitter and healthier than most of my University students aged 18. And I've no doubt this is a trend I shall continue to see for a long time to come.

Many of the comments in this blog are an observation, I am not campaigning for government change or the like, but these choices are ours as human beings. We should live for the enjoyment of our life, but we should not live for the sacrifice of our health, or at the expense of those around us.

Interestingly I speak of de-evolution as saying that we seem to be forgetting things which we once knew. Things of nature, things that have served us well for 40,000 years, and continue to serve tribal cultures well. But not so in western society. The world is no longer 'survival of the fittest', and I accept it no longer needs to be.

And though we might not be in a state of de-evolution; our evolution has slowed to a grinding halt, make no mistake about it.

JF

What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 7: Biomechanical Intricacies of Exercise

First Fitness, Southsea

Last year I did the IFBB Weight Training Prescription Specialist course (IFBB = International Federation of Bodybuilders). The course was excellent and I would wholeheartedly recommend to anyone with an interest in exercise and/or strength training. I was fortunate enough to do the course in a gym called First Fitness, which claims to be one of the first, if not THE first gym in the UK. It was an amazing facility with an homage to the history of bodybuilding throughout. I could go into tremendous detail on the facility but that's for another time; needless to say that if you're ever on the South Coast it's well worth a look.


The course was run by Dr. Mauricio de Arruda, a Brazilian Professor in Biomechanics. Without question the course was heavily biomechanics orientated but because it was led in a gym environment there was always practical application and demonstration so that even the less academic people on the course could clearly understand. I want to pass on some of that information to you.


Without the course there was a great deal of discussion around lever systems (1st, 2nd and 3rd class) as well as moment length, rotary and translatory forces. This is all important stuff and I guess if you're not clear on what this means then you need to do some reading. Or ask, and if there's enough requests I'll post a blog specifically devoted to those factors.


Scapulo-Humeral Rhythm
One of the main areas of interest for me was the concept of scapulo-humeral rhythm in abduction at the shoulder joint. Consider the arm abducting in a lateral raise movement; our deltoids (primarily medial) concentrically contracts and pulls on the humerus abducting the arm.Up to around 20-30 degrees our shoulder muscles have been responsible for this movement (I say muscles (pl) because our supraspinatus has done a considerable amount of contraction). Beyond ~30 degrees our scapula starts to interact within the movement - our deltoids are now almost fully contracted and their force production is limited by this. Therefore as our arm continues to abduct our scapula rotates within the movement (the scapula rotates ~1 degree for every 2 degrees of movement). The scapula is rotated by contraction of the upper trapezius (pulling up), the lower trapezius (pulling down and in), and the serratus anterior (pulling the lower part forward and across).

Cable Lateral Raise

We can also consider that the supraspinatus, and it's contraction through abduction. In fact since, at the start of a free weight lateral raise,  the resistance is directly below the point of rotation (fulcrum) there is almost no resistance applied to the supraspinatus at this point (moment length =0). As the shoulder abducts the supraspinatus contracts and resistance is applied as the moment length increases. However, our supraspinatus and our shoulder joint are capable of much more; and in an effort to train our smaller shoulder muscles more efficiently we need to make other considerations. As with all free-weight exercises we need to change our body position (since a free weight is only effected by gravity acting downwards), so if we lie on our sides and now perform a lateral raise then we can allow the weight to extend across and in front of our body and as we raise the weight up to our side (horizontal) then we now have maximal tension and thus a great exercise on the supraspinatus. Of course this is a limitation of free weight exercise. If we move over to a cable pulley machine, setting it low down, we can take a side step away from the machine (so that our arm is pulled across the body) and thus as we now begin to abduct the arm through a greater range of motion we can train the supraspinatus through the early stages of the movement and then the deltoids and then allow scapulo-humeral rhythm to occur naturally (see picture above).

Force-Length Relationship

Force-length relationship

I don't want to go into great detail here, simply to say that know that as our muscles shorten the amount of force they can produce changes throughout the movement due to their length, and thus the number of cross-bridges within the muscle. Generally at either extreme (fully lengthened or fully shortened) the force you can produce in a muscle is significantly diminished in comparison to the mid length where maximal force can be produced (see picture).

Active Insufficiency
Based on what we know about muscle length and the force they can produce we can manipulate body positions to better train other muscles. For example in a sit-up exercise consider our actual movement; a decrease in angle between the femur and the torso around the pelvis. Funnily enough if we stand up and do this we would think of it as being a hip-flexor exercise, and we'd be right. However, if we lie down into a horizontal position and bend our knees (and thus our hips) to around 90 degrees then we put our hip-flexors (primarily the Iliopsoas) into a position of active insufficiency. E.g. the inability of a muscle to produce enough tension due to it's length; we reduce the amount of force it can produce by shortening the muscle. If it can produce less force then it cannot help so much in our movement. Thus our abdominal muscles perform more work.

Passive Insufficiency
Passive insufficiency generally occurs as a result of a lack of inflexibility and is more common on bi-axial joints (e.g. the rectus femoris, hamstring muscles, or the soleus). It is the inability of a muscle to lengthen enough to allow full range of movement across both joints. An example would be that in a squat exercise if the soleus or hamstrings are too 'tight' and thus does not allow sufficient lengthening in the movement. Thus often people flex more at the hip by tilting the body forward. (Alas; this a greater moment length from the pelvis across the lumbar spine, potentially damaging discs and muscles).

The same concept applies in a leg extension exercise; try this one where you are. Sit with your body and femur at a 90 degree angle and now straighten your leg as far as you can. It's likely your feeling a stretch in your hamstrings. Now lean back a little so that you're closer to ~100 degrees, and straighten your leg again. You probably didn't feel the same stretch in your hamstrings and that's because it is being extended over the back of your knee but with your body angled back it is being lengthened or 'given' across the pelvis. In fact at the 90 degree angle if we do reach a full stretch because of this tension in our hamstrings we are likely pulling our pelvis into a posterior tilt which with force can potentially harm our Lumbar 5 to Sacral 1 (L5-S1) vertebrae). In the same example at a 90 degree angle our rectus femoris is shortened across the hip and so we are causing an element of active insufficiency in the quadricep. The take home message; leg extensions should be performed with the hip at an angle greater than 90 degrees.

If we also consider a prone (face down) leg curl, as we progress through a set of repetitions and it becomes harder we often see people raising their hips. This is because the as the muscle is shortened through the range of motion it no longer has the force producing capacity to complete the repetition (active insufficiency). Thus raising the hips decreases their hip angle lengthening their hamstrings at the pelvis. And therefore, as we perform knee flexion with the hamstring muscles we move the hip to better aid our contraction and find a more favorable length to produce force. In a seated hamstring curl, we see the same thing except this time the person simply leans their body forward. In reality, should keep strict form and ensure we train the muscle properly without movement at the hip.  Consider also , dorsi-flexion of the ankle which lengthens the gastrocnemius and soleus. So that as the gastrocnemius and soleus shorten over the back of the knee during a knee flexion it lengthens over the ankle with dorsi flexion. If it stayed short by the ankle through a neutral or plantar-flexed foot position we would see active insufficiency. Thus in a leg curl while the hips should stay still we are happy to see dorsi-flexion.

Phew. I hope I explained that clearly enough. In my mind this is not the most crucial thing in the world but so many trainers don't seem to have a reasonable concept of what is happening with hip movement, and they do not help their clients to train their body by allowing too much movement where it should be restricted. In most cases we can use active or passive insufficiency to our advantage to train our clients optimally.

Any thoughts, questions or comments feel free.

JF

My latest reading list....

I guess I got onto a bit of a blogging frenzy of recent with my series "What's wrong with the Fitness Industry?". Well I've taken a couple of days from that to continue my own education, and I guess I thought I'd share where all of this is coming from. I've read 6 books since the start of the 2011, including 'The Way of the Peaceful Warrior' by Dan Millman, and 'Juiced' by Jose Conseco; both of which I have mentioned in previous blog posts (follow respective links). But I am currently reading 4 separate books (see below). 

Here's some background on those books for your perusal. I'd highly recommend any/all of them to anyone with any interest in my blogs/health/fitness/philosophy/basketball.

In 'Arthurs Shadow' - Gary Bannister.

Arthur Jones was a pioneer, he revolutionized the fitness industry any way you look at it. Coming from a family of doctors he knew about anatomy and biology and he knew about biomechanics and physics, qualities seemingly lacking in many modern exercise experts.  If you've never read his work before then I would suggest you go to his site and download some of the pdf files available. Alternately this book gives great examples of how he helped educate others, and more personal examples from some of his colleagues. He discusses many facets of the health and exercise industry and explains where people have gone wrong, and what should be done. Varying from discussion and examples about split routine training, free-weights and resistance machines, genetics, and far far beyond.

'The Book of Basketball' - Bill Simmons

If you like basketball you should get this book. If you LOVE basketball you NEED this book. It's phenomenal. The information given is excellent ranging from the inception of the NBA and competition against the ABA, to rule changes, and comparing players and broadcasting, and far far more. It is scientific in detail in conversational in nature. He is brilliantly opinionated over certain players which makes for a better read because he is human. We all debate who is better, any why and we all of our own opinions and feelings. He recognizes favoritism but shamefully accepts it (he does NOT like Vince Carter!) - I love Vince Carter because of his dunk on Freddy Weis. He talks of errors made in trading and drafting players, as well as a fantastic section of 'what ifs' (I won't spoil that one!).

If you love basketball buy this book.

'The New Evolution Diet' - Professor Athur De Vany

This is the lay guide to why we have health and illness issues in modern society. It's not referenced by research which is somewhat frustrating for me (as a scientist) but it is ideal for the non-scientist and is still a great read. It explains how our bodies have not evolved over the past 40,000 years, and what our bodies were like then (e.g. stronger, more athletic, bigger brains, less illness). In detail it discusses why carbohydrates are a product of social evolution and not biological evolution and how we are harming our bodies with high carbohydrate diets. The book considers everything from nutrition to lifestyle. And advocates more relaxation and time management and de-stressing, and hormones, and nutrition, and why fasting is not a bad thing. He does not suggest we live like our ancestors he suggests we learn from them and from what they did. A great read.

'The Virtue of Selfishness' - Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist and philosopher. Her work including 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead' detail her philosophy of Objectivism.The essence of which is: "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason his only absolute". Don't be laden down with that sentence. This philosophy promotes YOUR health and wellbeing and considers anything that threatens that to essentially be a form of oppression. This book considers logically that selfishness is a virtue, and that it is ridiculous to think that we should not consider our own health and welfare of utmost importance in society. I am making progress through this book, and afterward will probably get back to 'Atlas Shrugged'. If you're interested in this kind of reading I might suggest by starting with 'The Fountain Head'. That said the movie of 'Atlas Shrugged' is set to be released in 2011. In the book Rand uses a novel to present and discus philosophical perspective which when portrayed in a movie format might be a little easier going than the book(s).

So that's what I've got on the go right now. As well as everything else in my life. I hope that was a somewhat interesting trip into my reading experiences and I guess my motivations and inspirations. 

JF

What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 6: Core Stability Training; reconsidering the obvious

One of the best definitions I've ever come across for core strength is “proximal stability for distal mobility”, i.e., that a strong core provides a solid base for the movement and forces generated by the limbs (Kibler, Press and Sciascia, 2006; and Akuthota et al. 2008). Research supports this, showing significant contraction (up to 30% Maximal Voluntary Contraction (MVC)) of core muscles such as the transverse abdominis prior to limb contraction/movement. If you don't believe me sit on a chair with shoulder width feet, now lift up one leg. Did you feel your core muscles contract before your leg lifted? This is your core getting to work. This is essential to understand since many persons still perceive 'core' training to be somewhat faddish. In reality, it is essential for daily life and injury prevention as well as enhancing sporting performance.

The problem is that we got misled somewhere along the line; we found balance to be challenging and we decided that this must work our core muscles. This is not so. In reality we don't stand on unstable surfaces, even when playing rugby, or basketball. And when we do use unstable surfaces, such as a surfboard) it is impossible to mimic the exact balance skill required (see previous blog: What's wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 2: Skill Acquisition and Specificity of training). So how do we train the core muscles? Well this blog is not necessarily designed to give you all the answers (sorry) but to give you some ideas.

Unilateral Dumbbell Raise

Personally I train the abdominal muscles in the same way I train other muscles; through their entire ranges of movement, to muscular failure, from different angles. E.g. I do hanging leg raises, I do a form of crunch or sit-up, and I perform torso rotation and lumbar extensions; each exercise solely devoted to a movement. However, I also add unilateral exercises which now challenge my trunk muscles to balance my body and the weight I'm lifting. (I perform these on a separate day from other exercises, so that for example, when I train my shoulders I am focused on training my shoulders, not worrying about balancing a weight). The benefit of unilateral exercise as opposed to alternating movements is that the removal of the contralateral dumbbell eliminates the counter balance effect, requiring the core muscles to stabilize the torso. Consider performing a lateral raise with only your right hand (see image). As you lift the weight you extend the length of the moment arm away from your body causing a lever effect and at full extension (arm horizontal) the centre of mass might be outside of the base of support so your obliques on the opposite should be contracted to stop your body from toppling towards the weight. Your obliques on the same side as the weight are contracted to stop you from leaning away from the weight (a natural response to try to counter the effect of this lever). Indeed, in the same sense a common response is simply to widen the base of support by altering our foot position. In this example the removal of the contralateral dumbbell in this case eliminates the balance effect forcing your muscles to do the job. Do not speed up the movement, if anything slow it down, and pause at the top of the movement.

Note wide stance for balance, and poor core control. This is
how NOT to perform this exercise.

So why are there an array of stability objects in the gym these days. Well they challenge your proprioception (knowledge of your body in space), and thus challenge your balance, but are not such a strain on your muscular system. Because of this, performing exercises on an unstable surface reduces the force production of the muscles and thus results in training the balance, not the desired muscles. Think of it this way; you can chest press 50kg dumbbells on a bench, but you can only press 30kg dumbbells when on a swiss ball. But what are you training when using the swiss ball? Simply; to lift weight while lying on a ball, you are training the skill. The concept of specificity (see previous blog: What's wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 2: Skill Acquisition and Specificity of training), suggests that this skill is literally non-transferable and thus useless in everyday life, and certainly in competitive sports. I know this is upsetting somebody somewhere because this is what they've been doing, and anecdotally they'll be arguing how good it was for them. Well you might think so. But scientifically there is no evidence, and realistically there is no logic to suggest so. However, keep your swiss ball, and your dumbbells; but put one of them down. Now perform your press with one dumbbell, and don't widen your feet too far apart. Keep your abs tight, and don't let your back hollow. Good, now this is unilateral and thus is training your core. This proximal stability in your tranverse abdominus, obliques and rectus abdominus allows that distal mobility (your arm performing the press). [See the picture shown, but please note this is terrible form]. For greater difficulty, try a single arm dumbbell fly exercise. As before this fundamentally extends the lever length, adding difficulty.

I used to ask my clients to give what I think is still a good demonstration of core strength which I'll try to describe. Two persons stand facing each other, slightly offset so that one persons right shoulder is opposite the other persons right shoulder. They now place their right hands against the other persons, and they push. Simple. So what is happening is now not dependent on the amount of force they can produce from their pectorals, deltoids, or triceps (as in a traditional chest press), it is the core's ability to retain rigidity whilst those muscles apply a force. If the force from the upper limbs is too great the body will simply rotate. E.g. the strength in their pectorals, triceps and deltoids will work against them. If the opposing persons core is stronger then they can transfer more force through their push irrespective of their strength in a bench press or chest press. Thus highlighting the importance of core muscles. I hope that makes sense.

Try it, and let me know how you get on.

JF

What's Wrong with the Fitness Industry? - Part 5: Genetic Factors and why women should lift weights

DNA strand

A few years back I wrote a manuscript about training. Fundamentally it was a compilation of everything I'd read and experienced with regard to training principles, muscle physiology, logic and science. I had a chapter in it titled "Why you don't listen to the big guy!"

I started this series of blogs and a very good of friend of mine got in touch asking why I wasn't writing a section on genetics. Idiot Fisher (me). Of course I should be writing a section on genetics, and you should be reading it; it's without question the single most defining variable towards your physique and physical appearance. Don't think I'm talking to just the guys here. Listen all; I'll say it again;

Genetics is the single most defining variable towards your physique and physical appearance.

I guess it kinda sucks that it's the one thing that we can't do anything about. Well not yet (we'll get to that!).

Ladies
I figured I'd start by talking to the girls first because.....well; I like talking to girls. So here goes; you don't have the hormones to build big muscle. There I said it. In fact the reality of it is that most guys don't have the hormones to build big muscle either, that's why they aren't all massive. That's why many/most bodybuilders take vast quantity of steroids - commonly testosterone, insulin or human growth hormone (hGH). Have a think about how many buff, muscular girls you know....probably not many, if any! The reality of it is that most women waste their energy spending copious amounts of time doing traditional 'cardiovascular' exercise. [For the record I'm not going to call it cardiovascular any more; resistance training also improves cardiovascular performance. Therefore, I'm going to call it 'aerobic' training. I could call it 'time-wasting' but I'm trying to be diplomatic]. This burns some calories while you exercise, no doubt. But that's about it. Resistance training, or lifting weights, whatever you want to call it has far far greater benefits. Most women enter the gym with the goal of 'toning' ....aside from the fact that most people with a knowledge of training and physiology HATE this term because it doesn't mean anything. What is usually inferred is to reduce body fat and change the body to a more desirable shape. So, resistance training burns at least as many calories during the exercise, then it makes the body continue to burn calories long after you leave the gym, and if you train right then you build (some) muscle. Muscle is metabolically active (which fundamentally means that it burns calories just by being muscle). OK, so at this point there is probably a minor panic at the earlier comment about building muscle. Don't panic this is not a visibly noticeable amount. It might appear in weight; but unlikely in girth or aesthetics. Think of it as density rather than size. Since resistance training is also generally of higher intensity than aerobic training then you will use the sugar supplies stored in your muscles, then your body will release insulin which will help those tissues absorb some of the sugar in your blood reducing your blood-glucose (this is a good thing). In addition resistance training is non-impact so you don't have to worry about the wear-and-tear on your knees, and it increases bone mineral density. I could go on, but I won't. As I do with most women, you might be getting bored of me labouring the point.

Oh yeah; the point. Get in the weights section. Men aren't that territorial (in fact they likely are; but to other men, not women). Or speak to the trainers at the gym and get a guide around the resistance machines. You don't even need to go to the free weights section try some large compound movements; shoulder press, lat pull-down, chest press, leg extension, leg press, etc.

Gentlemen
Take a look at the Mens Health, Flex, or Muscle and Fitness magazine nearest to you. Let me help you out; I don't know what the cover model does for a workout or a diet, but he has good genetics. FACT.

Belgian Blue Cattle

Allow me to take a step back and explain. There are 3 different body types; endomorph (a higher proportion of body fat and generaly 'round' in shape), mesomorph (higher in muscle mass and generally 'square' in shape), and ectomorph (a decreased body mass in relation to surface area, and generally 'skinny' in shape). Research (Van Etten, Verstappen & Westerterp, 1994) has shown that mesomorphic persons are more able to build muscle mass above ectomorphs. Beyond that consider the following; myostatin is a protein that inhibits muscular development (there is a breed of cattle called a 'Belgian Blue' which has a mutation which suppresses myostatin leaving it incredibly muscular (see picture) which gives you an idea of what we're working with here - Damn you myostatin!!). Then there's interleukin-15 (IL-15), ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), alpha-actin-3 (ACTN-3), angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE), which all have genotypes that either favour, or reduce the potential, for muscular development of force and hypertrophy. I'm not going to go into details but if you're interested in a thorough review then try this article by Stewart and Rittweger (2006).

Mike Mentzer

So what does all this mean? Well primarily it means that bodybuilders or weight lifters most likely have a genetic predisposition to be as muscular as they are. It was estimated by Mike Mentzer (a previous Mr. Universe) that approximately 1 in 10,000 people have the genetic capabilities to become a professional bodybuilder (and only 1 in 20,000 have the desire and training commitment!) This should in fact be obvious, if it was easy, there'd be far more huge guys walking around. However, what this also means is that the guy at your local gym who has 18" arms and bench presses more than everyone else doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about when he keeps giving people advice. He is more likely to respond to any kind of training than someone with less favourable genetics, who (in reality) might never be able to achieve that level of muscularity or strength (sorry guys). We see, the big guys become trainers; it seems like a natural route for bodybuilders because people look at them and think 'they must know something right?' Well the reality of it is that they might not, and you cannot base your training on someone else's potential. In fact, to take this one step further, I have a colleague who worked with a famous British sprinter and his strength and conditioning coach. My colleague, appalled at the workout passed some comments about what the athlete could have done better. The athlete, upset by the criticism of him and his coach, replied with a comment about "who has the medals here?". My colleague calmly replied, "yes, but imagine how many more you could have won if you'd been doing it right all along!" You see, we are only ever working within, and to, OUR POTENTIAL. We are not comparable to others in strength or physique because of genetics. And worse because someone achieves a level of strength or muscularity beyond the average they think they have done the right training, where in reality their body was likely to respond to anything, and in fact they could be have the potential for far more. Therefore, I don't worry about listening to the big guy in the gym who tells me what he's done, and thus; what I should do, I pity him for likely not having achieved his own potential. And often I tell him so (much to his disdain).

What next?
Ladies and Gentlemen, get back into the gym, and train right. Train hard and brief, and allow your body to rest in between; growth occurs between workouts not during workouts. The workout is simply the necessary stimulus to initiate a response, our bodies will handle the rest if we don't interrupt it with another workout too soon. A great analogy is tanning. When we go out into the sun we have the potential to get a sun tan, (the sun being the stimulus) but too much sun causes negative, not positive affects. In addition we are all genetically different; darker skinned persons can handle more sun without burning, where pale skinned persons might be more liable to burn to a crisp in half the time. Why is it we can learn that about the sun and our skin but seldom understand it with our muscles. My bet is that most people could halve their training time and achieve better results, especially if they do not have particularly good genetics to aid recovery. Try something different, try something logical. Keep your own training journal monitoring bodyweight, or strength, or weight lifted and repetitions, and follow what your body says, not what Men's Health, Flex, or Muscle and Fitness says.

Enjoy your extra time.

JF