Este es James Fisher

HIT Resurgence 2013

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:31:00 +0000

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.

Intensity and Speed; the devil is in the detail

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:03:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:00:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:09:00 +0000

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

Red Meat and Rubbish Science

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:50:00 +0000

I'm a little late to pass any comment on this, in fact I was going to avoid it because Zoe Harcombe and Gary Taubes have done such an excellent job, but I can't overcome the urge any longer....

So you have likely heard all the fuss in the mainstsream media regarding the greater likelihood of death from consuming red-meat (or meat in general). All of this stems from a recent journal article which I am more than happy to link to and I genuinely hope you will go away and read because ultimately it proves some of the points I will be making.

The Media
Firstly people in the media aren't scientists, if they were they'd be in lab coats doing experiments somewhere, not writing or sitting behind a desk/in front of a news camera. I read recently the perfect quotation for media interpretation of science. I think you'll get the point.

SCIENTIST: "When taken out of context my results mean nothing!"

MEDIA: "Scientist reports 'results mean nothing' !"

Scientific Process
So within science there are different kinds of study; there are observational studies where we watch things for however long we deem appropriate and then we use this to come up with a hypothesis and to what they were doing that caused these things. And their are clinical trials or intervention studies, where we test said hypothesis. The first is an observation. It's an observation. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, and the point is that no-one can say that it really doesn't mean anything in the same way that no-one can say that it does. It is used to develop a hypothesis plain and simple.

I've blogged about this before and have shown a Tom Naughton video which discusses all of this in detail. An excellent example he gives was the observation that nurses supplementing with Oestrogen were less likely to suffer a cardiac condition (heart disease, etc.). Everyone jumped up and down and said A (supplement) prevents B (cardiac condition). Cause and effect. Right? Wrong? When the clinical studies were done they actually found that Oestrogen supplements were actually more likely to cause a cardiac condition!! So how did they even think that A caused B. Well imagine the kinds of people who take supplement, they look after their body, possibly exercise, possibly eat 'right', and so forth.

Proof or lack thereof...
So coming back to the present discussion.....well the Harvard School of Public Health guys who've come out with this decided not to do the second part. They did the observation bit, and then they skipped straight in to conclusion. What they're presenting to you is a hypothesis. They're suggesting that red-meat is bad for you. But this is NOT scientific evidence. I could claim that when I sing it rains, thus my singing must make it rain, but you wouldn't just believe that observation without some proof, would you?

Track Record
There's a final point I want to raise here. I want to look at Harvard School of Public Health's track record with hypothesis from observational studies, that are then proven correct or disproven after all. Now then, we can let the stereotypes sink back in here, this is Harvard after all....what percentage do you think? Go on have a guess....

Well...cited from Taubes' blog earlier (who has done the research - whereas I am just re-citing it)...Up to 2007, their average was....(drum roll please). 0.000. Yes, they got them ALL wrong. Not wrong most of the time (like me), or wrong just a bit of the time (like some people I know), or never wrong (like most women I know). They were wrong EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Now I could run some fancy statistics on all of this, but really; who needs it. Forget who likely meat are to kill you - how likely are they to be wrong over this!?!?

Be Well

JF

Practice Doesn't make Perfect; Perfect Practice makes Perfect

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:21:00 +0000

The title of this blog is a quote from Vince Lombardi. And without question it's true. But over the last year or so I've heard more and more about the 10,000 hour principle (that in 10,000 of good practice a person can become 'elite' at their sport). This blog is simply going to discuss this concept as well as recent revelations, and a recent interview with Anders Ericsson (father of the 10,000 hour principle)..reported from The Science of Sport blog.

A multitude of books have come out within this area discussing this 10,000 rule of thumb, and at initial inspection it seems quite appealing. The fact that anyone can do anything if we just put in the time and energy. It kind of makes me feel warm and cosy that somewhere inside I can switch on genes to help me be better, or more, be 'elite'. Last year I read 'Bounce' by Matthew Syed, and 'The Talent Code' by Daniel Coyle, both of which I would recommend to gain a better perspective of this area. 'Bounce' spends considerable time discussing myelin sheaths, best described as an insulating factor over neural pathways that act to reinforce and protect a skill as we practice it. Which is a nice way to protect the idea that 10,000 hours of practice is what's needed.

But looking back at the quote, it's about the quality of the practice, always challenging, always advancing, always perfect. In one of my first year classes I spend considerable time talking about neuromuscular pathways and skill specificity; that to be better at surfing you need to surf, not stand on a wobble board, or a fit ball or bosu. That to become better at swinging a baseball bat or basketball you need to practice the skill, perfectly, with the right weight and size bat or ball. That 'similar' is not the same, and that not the same is 'different'!

In one of my publications last year I talk of specificity with regard to resistance training: here is a brief extract:

"There is no evidence that skill development is aided by the performance of resistance exercises that bear some superficial resemblance to skills performed on the sports field. Skill enhancement is highly specific, with little correlation between the performances of different skills, even when they appear very similar. For example, Drowatzky and Zuccato [1967] showed that the correlations between performances on different (superficially very similar) balance tasks were extremely low and non-significant. They concluded that there is no such thing as a general phenomenon called ‘balance’. Instead, there are many different balancing skills, and because an individual is good at one type of balancing task it does not follow that he or she will be good at a different balancing task.
Not only is the transfer between superficially similar motor tasks quite low, but the performance of tasks in training that are similar (but not identical) to those used in actual performance can lead to negative transfer and a concomitant decrease in performance on the criterion task. For example, Mount [1996] examined the effect of learning a dart throwing skill in two different body positions (sitting on a chair and reclining on a table). Not only was performance poorer after switching position compared to remaining in the same position, but performance after practice in the alternate position was poorer than after no practice."

The article goes on to discuss resistance training movements so please check out the article here. However, I digress....

Ross Tucker and Jonathon Dugas spend considerable time arguing against Ericsson's 10,000 rule, with some key points, and you should definitely check out the blog mentioned above. However, I would suggest that Ericsson is perhaps misguided with his concept and has simplified what is a far more complex area than he presents.

For example the concept that 10,000 hours of training can make anyone elite does not consider the physiological training stimulus, e.g. the prescribed amount of exercise for each individual (it is not the same for everyone!). Tucker and Dugas discuss this and use it against Ericsson, however if you simply adapt the model to state that the 10,000 hours is required for skill acquisition then it becomes more realistic. In support of this is the concept that many people have a ceiling on their physical attributes, be it their height, or trainable variables like strength or endurance. Genetics will dictate how tall we grow as well as how strong we might be, or fit we can get, even with the right training.

A secondary consideration that I think is under reported is that 'elite' has a spectrum of it's own. Tim Henman would surely be considered an elite tennis player, and yet he never won a grand slam tournament. If you've got reservations on calling Tim 'elite' then consider basketball players in the NBA. They would surely be considered elite; essentially competing at the highest level, and yet they're not all Michael Jordan (not even Kobe Bryant). So you see that perhaps once a decade (or more or less frequent depending on sport, etc.) someone comes along with the genetics and the physical gifts, and the motivation (because we haven't talked about psychology at all!!), and puts in the right kind of training, and competes at the right era (how many elite athletes would have won a major tournament if it weren't for 1 or 2 others that dominated; Michael Jordan, Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods, Pete Sampras, etc.).

On a final note we have to consider learning rate, some people might master a skill set in sooner than 10,000 hours, I'm sure you would agree. Therefore, logically on the other end of the spectrum some people will not master a skill set until having practised for considerably more than the 10,000 hours!

It is an interesting area, and I don't claim to be an expert on this, on the contrary I consider myself an intelligent lay-person on the area and as such, and as always; welcome any thoughts or comments.

Of course, don't waste your 10,000 hours typing a response, maybe you better get back to it.

Be Well

JF

Cholesterol....the truth: Part 1.

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:49:00 +0000

Let's do a quick Cholesterol 101 test....

Cholesterol causes heart disease right?

No wait bad cholesterol causes heart disease, and good ones prevent it right?

And bad ones are LDL (low-density lipoproteins), right?

And good ones are HDL (high-density lipoproteins), right?

And food containing cholesterol raises your blood cholesterol, right?

We all know this, right? I mean we know this?

Errr, no, no we don't know this, because it's all wrong. All of it. Take everything you think you know about coronary heart disease (CHD), and cholesterol, and foods containing cholesterol and bin it. Without hesitation let me clarify; you've been lied to all along. Truly. Read on and let me put things in perspective...

Over the next two blog posts (Part 1 & 2) I shall put to rest some of the existing concepts on cholesterol, saturated-fat and coronary heart disease, and then later discuss what actually causes heart disease. Hopefully.

Now I know some of you are already sceptical because this is what you've been told by the Government and Dr's and health professionals and governing bodies and government agencies. And they took us into Iraq after WMD's and they said that JFK was killed by a lone gunman from a book depository. At this point I'll give you a minute to decide whether you are government fed on prime b*llsh*t or whether you are a smart human being who can self-educate and challenge falsehoods.

Still here, good. Sorry, I had to do that to get rid of the ones who weren't sure.....

Cholesterol the villain.

Not good or bad cholesterol, just cholesterol.

Cholesterol comes from fatty food and is bad for you, right? Wrong. Cholesterol is made in the liver, and is ESSENTIAL for your hormones and for healthy living. People with very low cholesterol suffer from a condition familial hypercholesterolaemia, and without being too blunt; they mostly die young. Very young in some cases. There is no good or bad cholesterol, there is cholesterol (as you will go on to read). So first off scrap the idea that cholesterol is bad. It isn't. I know you're leading on to good and bad cholesterol so just stay with me, remember you've left all you thought you knew at the door so stop trying to protect your previous ideas.

Blood cholesterol
So we can have blood cholesterol measured right, and this is a risk factor for CHD, yes? No; cholesterol does not dissolve in blood, so it is transported around the body via a lipoprotein. This also transports fats, and proteins. The biggest of these molecules is actually called a chlomicron; basically this is manufactured in the gut and fills with triglyceride (fat) along with a little cholesterol. the chlomicron then travels straight to fat cells where the fat is deposited and the chlomicron then basically shrivels up and is returned to the liver. below chlomicrons we have VLDL (very low-density lipoproteins), then IDL (intermediate-density lipoproteins - no, we don't talk about these much (at all!)) then LDL, then HDL. VLDLs are produced in the gut and in the liver, when they lose some triglyceride to fat cells a VLDL becomes an IDL, then when it shrinks down further it becomes an LDL, and then our HDL is the smallest lipoprotein. So....somehow Lipoprotein became interchangeable with the word cholesterol. They are not the same thing. Don't confuse them again. You do not have blood cholesterol measured.

Now basically what you've probably been led to believe is that HDLs (the supposedly good lipoprotein) travel around the body and when they find a plaque on an artery wall filled with cholesterol they kind of suck it out and then take it back to the liver for processing. Have a think on that for a second, and then laugh hysterically at how preposterous that is. I mean really, we must have some good evidence to back up this silly idea. Oh, we don't have any evidence, oh it's just an idea? Oh, OK then, shall I believe you anyway based on faith of pharmaceutical companies looking to sell me on this idea so that they can sell me 'cholesterol lowering statins'....it's a tough decision. We might come back to this point.

Saturated Fat
So this bit you know, right? Saturated fat is bad, right! That raises LDL's!!?....That was a test - you're meant to leave your pre-conceived ideas 10 minutes in to the past!! Saturated fat is transported via chlomicrons (well remembered) in to fat cells so it doesn't effect LDL levels at all. If you want to read about the glory that is saturated fat then go back to my palaeo blogs, this blog isn't about saturated fat, it's about cholesterol. Even the saturated fat that does get to the liver doesn't effect cholesterol, none of the so-called experts would tell you this because we know it doesn't. So what does raises LDL levels....well LDL's come from VLDL's so what raises VLDL levels....carbohydrates (you might have guessed eh!). See all the previous palaeo/low-carb blogs I've written. But to make this worse, saturated fat actually LOWERS VLDL's!! You're not sold on this....see what the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) think about this (abstract only I'm afraid), or click here for a full systematic review. Or even check this out:

"In the a recent study, presented at the annual scientific meeting of the American Heart Association in Chicago, Duke University researchers randomly assigned 120 overweight volunteers to the Atkins diet or to the American Heart Association's low-fat “Step I” diet. People on the Atkins diet restricted their carbohydrate intake to less than 20 grams a day, with 60 percent of their calories coming from fat.

After six months, participants on the Atkins diet had lost 31 pounds, had an 11 percent increase in HDL (good cholesterol) and a 49 percent drop in their tryglyceride levels (LDL). Step 1 dieters lost 20 pounds, showed no change in HDL, and their tryglycerides fell 22 percent. In particular, there was a strong link to VLDL type of cholesterol -- the cholesterol type most related to heart disease risk. Atkins dieters had a 49% reduction in VLDL levels, versus 17% for those on the low-fat group."

Apologies that it refers to lipoproteins as cholesterol; you all know better than that now. But still the point is there....

So what we're saying is that VLDL levels drop when you eat fat. So this should lower LDL levels as well then. Ah, no. I've not given you the whole truth yet. You see, it really doesn't matter what our VLDL levels are, our LDL levels are almost unaffected by this! They know this, now you know this. They don't know why though. What they tell you is this "If you eat saturated fat, then this will reduce the number of LDL receptors - the things that lock on to LDL and pull it out of the bloodstream - thus causing the LDL level to rise". What they don't tell you is there is no connection between saturated fat consumption and the needs of cells around the body to absorb LDL (see article from the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association).

In case you're getting a bit baffled by all of this, (which you actually should be, as you will see in a second) let me introduce to you a scientific method pioneered and used by two researchers Law and Wald in their consideration of the diet-heart/cholesterol is bad hypothesis; teleoanalysis. Genius'. Oh you don't know what that is? Ok, well here is what they define it as doing....

"provides the answers to studies that would be obtained from studies that have not been done and often, for ethical and financial reasons, could never be done."

Translated by me as "makes up data to support or prove our unproven or currently unprovable hypothesis!".

Cholesterol levels, stroke and death
Subheadings don't come more blunt than that, and whilst I can hear you screaming that I've said that cholesterol doesn't cause CHD, please read on....

Just to add to the mix I'm going to begin including the condition of a stroke. A stroke is most often caused when a plaque at the base of the neck (carotid artery) breaks off and then travels into the brain. As the arteries get narrower it gets jammed and blocks the blood flow. The reason I mention this is that if a stroke is caused through a similar process to CHD (e.g. the formation of cholesterol filled plaques) then if LDL levels cause CHD, then they should also be associated with an increase in stroke. Right? Err, no.....In 1995, The Lancet published a massive study that considered 450,000 people over 16 years including 13,000 strokes, and concluded "There was no association between blood cholesterol and stroke". Ah.

In fact, a 2004 study in the journal Stroke reported the following from a 15-year study of Japanese persons; "...the risk of death from stroke was reduced by 64% in the high cholesterol consumption group. Animal protein was not significantly associated with stroke after adjustment for animal fat and cholesterol. This suggests that....a high consumption of animal fat and cholesterol was associated with a reduced risk of cerebral infarction (stroke) death".

At this point I could begin citing a plethora of research which has linked low cholesterol levels with death. not death by CHD, or stroke, but simply death. E.g. that higher cholesterol levels are better for you than lower ones. There is a small mountain of research out there. If you need the information I can forward it on, or you can go and read pages 87-100 of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick's "The Great Cholesterol Con", (or you could use google for something better than you currently do). Yes, I have just revealed my source. This is an absolutely amazing book. Irrespective of your thoughts around my blog you should read this book. It should be everyone's birthday and Christmas present (or at least those you care about).

Summary
The point, other than the fact that I am not trying to rip-off the book and give you all the evidence, is that I am trying to deliver a simple message to people who should know better and to people who might discuss this and pass it forward to others.

Kendrick makes a brilliant reference back to a (mad - my addition) scientist; Iribarren and his hypothesis throughout the book, about proving and disproving a hypothesis, and how to make something fit. To summarise the final section I have talked about regarding the relationship between low cholesterol and death - and the kind of adaptation to a hypothesis that Iribarren would make; researchers have summarised that a persons low cholesterol must be a marker of some disease which is ultimately killing people (as opposed to it actually being low cholesterol (because we are still trying to say that we know that low cholesterol is good)...). But how do we know that they have a disease, well because their cholesterol is low, and they're dying.....sigh. You see what you're fighting against.

I know this has only been a brief introduction to this area, but hopefully we have dispelled some of the myths surrounding this area.

As always, comments or thoughts are very welcome, Part 2 will follow very shortly.

Be Well

JF

Self Justification, Cognitive Dissonance, and Confirmation Bias

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:09:00 +0000

Following a theme from a recent blog, and a recent article that myself and James Steele published, I thought it appropriate to talk a little about self justification, and cognitive dissonance.

In the article I briefly discuss the concept that many scientists appear unwilling to let go of deep-rooted beliefs even when evidence appears to prove to the contrary, and that this can effect the places of publication based on the philosophies of organisations and the like.

A few days back I started reading 'Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)' by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. The first section starts with a really nice description of the concept:

"...mindless self-justification, like quicksand, can draw us deeper into disaster. It blocks our ability to even see our errors, let alone correct them. It distorts reality, keeping us from getting all the information we need and assessing issues clearly....And it keeps many professionals from changing attitudes, and procedures that can be harmful to the public."

The book progresses to discuss cognitive dissonance which is best described by the discomfort of holding conflicting thoughts. An example of this might be the decision to smoke, whilst knowing the harmful effects. Choosing to justify these actions with whatever (false) logic you can apply; "only a certain number of people contract cancer", "my Grandfather/mother smoked every day and didn't get cancer", "if I quit I'll eat more", etc , etc.

Of course then there's confirmation bias. I've blogged about this previously when discussing mathematical probability and randomness; this is the concept that we set out to prove correct pre-conceived ideas.

I guess the point in this blog is to relate this back to exercise. Maybe you're a HIT advocate, or maybe not. Maybe you still train for hours at a time, for multiple sessions a week, with multiple sets and not training to muscular failure. Maybe you're justifying your training for some reason or another and ignoring all the scientific evidence. Maybe this has always worked for you so why change it? (by far the most common reason to avoid change - fear of the unknown) - but what if there was something even better than what you're currently doing. Perhaps you reassure yourself of your workouts because of a friend or a bodybuilder or a trainer (ignoring the genetic factors that allow them to grow well, whilst you struggle to grow at all!).

Are you choosing to do what you do because you are justifying it to yourself. Ask yourself the right questions for your goals and whether you're getting anywhere. If you are then great, if not then don't give yourself excuses; make changes; improve your workout.

The reality of it is that there are always things that we consider and perhaps provide some self-justification not to do, or continue doing. Just in the past few days this has opened my eyes to things I personally justify doing or not doing because of pre-conceived ideas or deep-rooted beliefs.

Perhaps it's time for each of us to open our eyes and our minds and test things, honestly, for ourself.

Be Well

Infimetrics, Isometrics and Logical Strength Training

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:33:00 +0000

It's been a while since I've blogged, and while that is partially due to my absence of good time management, it is also because I've had nothing to blog about....

Until now...

I was recently forwarded the embedded video by James Steele, a colleague of mine here at Southampton Solent University. I'm not showing it because I am in favour of it completely, but simply because the commentator is using a logical approach to training muscles. Which is the fundamentally the most essential part of everything we do. Watch it, and have a think, feel free to comment.

The other thing that this video has prompted is some novel ideas in my own training that I wanted to share. You likely know from my blogs that I am an advocate of slow, controlled movements, normally utilising resistance machines for a single set to muscular failure. However, I chose a different approach to a leg session a matter of hours earlier today.

We are blessed with a clinical MedX Knee Extension machine (see picture) here in one of the labs (which by the way is about as good as knee extension machines get), which in it's function is capable of isometric testing. (Isometric testing might best be described as locking the joint at a specific angle and measuring the force applied to the pad by attempting to move the joint normally - in this example a shin pad is locked in place with your knee at a pre-determined angle through the range of motion, and then the subject attempts to extend the knee with maximal force, this force (torque) is registered on a computer screen by way of a strain gauge).

MedX Knee Extension

So from the video it occurred to me that ultimately our goal in resistance training is to recruit as many muscle fibres as we can in a given part of the body to stimulate muscular growth (e.g. strength and/or hypertrophy) and also reap the rewards that resistance training has on the rest of our physiology.

[On the off-chance you're not clear on fibre recruitment and this principle please read Carpinelli's BRILLIANT article here!)

So for my workout, I chose to lock the machine at a given angle and apply maximal force.....for a while. Of course the muscle fibres fatigue and as such the force produced diminishes gradually, but essentially what we are seeing is that the effort remains constant irrespective of the force production. This is clearly the main goal of training our muscles. This being the case I elected to work maximally for about 90 seconds. No movement. No external forces, such as momentum. No rest phases or sticking points. Plain and simple. Knowing that I was always applying maximal effort to the pad. James Steele was on hand to provide some feedback reporting the force every 10-15 seconds as it decreased and of course encourage me (thank you!).

I elected to do 3 different angles ranging from near full knee flexion to near full knee extension. Each contraction phase was 1 minute long. That's 3 minutes of MAXIMAL work on my quadriceps whilst James watched the force decrease progressively to around 10% of my starting force.

When was the last time you did 3 minutes of MAXIMAL work on your quads. Phew. We're in the process of developing ideas as to more practical applications of this but essentially you need a joint locked in place and you need to be applying maximal force (which is the major limitation with any kind of isointertial exercise).

Anyway, I know isometrics is nothing new, but I thought I'd fill you in on that one. If you have any ideas how to progress it or apply it, or any other thoughts please feel free to comment below.

Be Well

JF

Limitations to the publication of Scientific Research

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:00 +0000

A somewhat contemporary issue that has arisen amongst some of my colleagues has been that of the 'spectrum of evidence'. Easily identified as the differing validity and reliability of the resources available and those we choose to use. Of course this exists in every sense; on a simply scale; the differences, and our perceptions of truth in news reporting from broadsheet or tabloid press, and so on.

However, what about the creme de la creme; the peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles? How reliable is the research? What biases have existed in the publication process? What effects are there with regard to the place of publication? What about 'impact factor', or accessibility? How do identify quality, and shy away from falsehoods?

Whilst this blog will go on to mention a number of articles with relevance to this including the sacking of a high profile cardiovascular physiologist in the Netherlands, the main focus of this blog is the (shameful self-promotion) recent publication of our own article discussing the limitations of the actual publication process. Including pre-conceived ideas over accuracy based on named author, or location of publication. Aptly titled "Truth in Authority or Authority in Truth?". Which to me is the best place to start.....

....Once you've read that....

Having considered the limitations to publication it is also worth recognising the limitation to the research process itself, and perhaps biased reason to even perform research, including progression of career in attaining tenure, notoriety, protection of a research discipline, and so forth. The renowned cardiovascular researcher; Donald Poldermans, having published over 500 articles was recently sacked from Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam for publishing falsified data. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) have discussed this in two recent articles.(1, 2). And indeed, the BMJ regularly discuss some of the concerns over inaccuracies in the research process.

More recently still PLoS Medicine published an article 'Why most Published research findings are False'. A controversial title that discusses false positive findings, sample size, effect size, and research for promotion, (e.g. tenure)

It's hard to recognise that biases exist in something we would at least hope to see is an honest institution of society, but alas human failings appear to lurk in every shadow, or every page. I was recently directed to this discussion of peer review, and as a published author and co-author of multiple articles as well as having been on the review process for journal articles and books this is obviously an area I am extremely passionate about. Ultimately though as myself and James Steele state at the end of our article:

"We can hope that by exposing and discussing these potential biases that we encourage reviewers, editors and scientists alike to retain nothing more than an attachment to scientific process and a search for the truth, whatever that might be, rather than previous research or a set of beliefs."

Be Well

JF

Dining in Poverty - Victorian nutrition compared to you....

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:47:00 +0000

I'll confess from the offset the reliability of sources from this blog is perhaps questionable at best. I am mid-way through 'At Home' by Bill Bryson (actually I'm not even a quarter of the way through but you get the idea)! On a tangent the hilarity of this book (and his others) is not questionable - buy them, buy them all damn it! Anyway, the point (highlighted by Mr. Bryson) is that the diet in Victorian times, comparative poverty to modern times was infinitely better than what you are probably consuming yourself. I (for some reason) implicitly trust Mr. Bryson to be well read (he usually he is), and his books to be as factual as possible, but I confess I haven't been through his bibliography and checked the validity of his sources.

To the point...

In 1851 the average person ate 8lbs of pears (compared with 3lbs in 2010), approximately 9lbs of grapes and other soft fruits (roughly double that eaten today), and just under 18lbs of dried fruit (against 3.5lbs). For vegetables the differences are even more striking - in 1851 the average Londoner ate 31.8lbs of onions (compared to 13.2lbs today), consumed over 40lbs of turnips or swedes (compared with 2.3lbs today), and packed away almost 70lbs of cabbages per year (compared with 21lbs nowadays). Sugar consumption was approximately 30lbs per year, approximately 1/3 of what it is today - yes that's right you likely consume in the region of 90lbs of sugar per year.

Are they eating better than you!?

I find this a little crazy that the perception of this era as a little less developed, financially more challenging, and so forth likely ate far far better than the average person today. Of course 80% of their income went on food, and because of sociological changes they spent more of their time working and we spend more of our time in leisure activities; this is expensive and so it is very likely that much of our income instead of being spent on food is spent on leisure time. Of course when you can buy something with chicken in the title from McDonalds or other fast food restaurant for 99p then why not!? Well because it's barely food, that's why not. I suppose if you're spending 99p on food then perhaps your body thinks you are living in poverty.

On a side note and purely for hilarity Bryson continues to point out perceptions of potatoes, stating that:

"..for the first 150 years or so after their introduction to Europe many people considered the potato an unwholesome vegetable because its edible parts grew underground instead of reaching for the sun. Clergymen sometimes preached against the potato on the grounds that it appears nowhere in the Bible."

In my opinion, clergymen should likely preach against McDonalds too since there's no mention of that in the Bible. Of course we could tangent in to the direction of religion but let's save it for another time.

Be Well (and try to eat well too!)

JF

Hillfit - A book recommendation!

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:10:00 +0000

I've recently been asked to review a book "Hillfit: Strength" by Chris Highcock.

People might look at it and think it's just for hikers, or hill walkers, or 'outdoorsy' people of some kind or another. They'd be wrong.

The reality of this book, is it's one of the most encompassing guides to health and fitness that I've seen, ranging from hormones and their effects on your hunger and fat loss, to bone density, to evidence-based strength training. It nicely links back to Chris' blog about simple elements that are hugely underrated in modern exercise philosophy, and openly examines common misconceptions about balance and skill. All the while providing simple pictures for the newcomer to strength training to cover fundamental exercises.

Of course all of this is underpinned by science and generally applied to the outdoors person, thought not so much as to lose the more general person. Fundamentally for me, this is a book about YOUR health and how to improve it, and more, how to enjoy doing it safely and effectively, whether you plan to use it to be outdoors or not.

That said, whilst I have a close relationship with nature in surfing, stand-up paddle boarding, mountain biking, and the like, this book is written in a way that makes me want to look outside and go explore.

My recommendation is to pick up this book, whether you're a hiker, or a gym enthusiast it's a safe addition to your library and will only help you to see health improvements and enjoy life a little more.

Thanks Chris

Be Well

JF

In the interests of disclosure: Chris asked me to objectively review this book, not write a blog about it, but the reality is even as a fitness and conditioning lecturer where my shelves are stacked; I believe you can never have too many books like this. The ones that re-affirm what you might know, and give you other perspectives.

Weightlifting for Strength and Conditioning - A critical analysis

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:34:00 +0000

So anybody who has previously read my Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations and/or follows this blog regularly might have the idea that I am not supportive of weight-lifting movements (a.k.a. 'Olympic Lifting). But I recently read an article "Weighlifting Movements: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?" (Hendrick, 2008) that , in my mind was supposed to do what this blog has done and provide a reasonable review of the pros and cons. It doesn't seem to, so I have laid out my own critique of that article herein. I know that I have discussed all of this relatively extensively in a previous blog, but the details are different, I promise.

Yeah this looks less dangerous than Badminton!!?

Firstly the author clarifies that weightlifting (e.g. the snatch, or clean, or derivatives of these exercises) should not be referred to as 'Olympic Lifts' because 'Olympic' lifts only occur in the Olympic games. This seems more than a little pedantic, and a complete waste of time in a peer-reviewed journal article. And potentially incorrect; is a 26.2 miles, only a marathon when it is performed under competitive conditions (e.g. an organised event). What about competition with oneself??

Anyway, to the point at hand....the article published in the Strength and Conditioning Journal, a product of the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) - a group notoriously supportive of weightlifting exercises - suggests that 'Yes, it is worth it'

The argument for Olympic Lifting is based around the following ideals:

Sports seldom require maximal strength, but rather maximal power. Since power is a product of velocity and mass, you (apparently) need to move a weight quickly to enhance power, rather than move a heavy weight slower which only enhances strength (there is no evidence to support this). Hendrick says: "....maximal strength is required in only a few athletic activities such as powerlifting..." but Hendrick fails to provide a reference for this argument. What about a rugby scrum? What about wrestling, or locks/holds in mixed martial arts? I would suggest that these are slow or isometric contractions that require maximal strength as opposed to maximal power. This is not considered anywhere within the article.
Skill element is similar. I've heard this a lot and it's a common argument that the triple-extension (forceful extension of the ankle, knee and hips) in O-lifting is used in most sports. This seems a fair argument, and whilst this extension might occur in both settings, it doesn't occur in the same sense. Hendrick seems to agree with this stating "...empirical evidence suggests that there is a relationship between the weightlifting movements and improving athletic performance". The articles cited to support this are either opinion or tenuous links between things like ground reaction forces between athletic movements and O-lifting movements. Of course in reality even if there was a strong relationship it would be near impossible to prove based on the sheer number of sporting variables, however, there is a plethora of evidence that suggests that skilled movements are specific, apparent similarities are exactly that - similar. Not the same. If things aren't the same they're different. Motor control research has suggested that even skills which appear the same show no relationship in performance, and worse skilled movements that appear similar might negatively effect each other. See Fisher et al, (2011) for a review of this area. Interestingly Hendrick makes an interesting comment regarding skill of weighlifting movements in regard to the length of time it takes to teach these movements: "The greater skill complexity required for the weightlifting exercises facilitates the development of a broader physical abilities spectrum, which seems to be better transferred to performance". Wow, now let me translate this just to be clear; the more complex the movement (or better the skill performance) the more this is transferred to physical abilities. For this statement they provide 8 references. Of these 8 references 2 consider the relationship between jumping with a weight and....well, jumping without a weight. 1 considers ground reaction forces between, well jumping with a weight, and jumping. The others are opinion. Oh dear.
Testosterone increase and muscle fibre type recruitment is optimised by this kind of training. Once again this is a common argument; that moving quickly means you recruit fast twitch muscle fibres. Hendrick says "emphasis on speed of movement may stimulate greater motor unit synchronization and increase power generation capabilities" both the references for this are review articles which are lacking evidence to support this statement (which makes sense, otherwise Hendrick would have simply stated the evidence himself rather than leave a puzzling trail). With regard to testosterone increase Hendrick says: "the authors of previous studies have demonstrated the potential to increase testosterone levels during a 2-year period of training in weightlifters". This would seem pretty conclusive; if compared to normal RT which is shown to increase testosterone levels, or....well, if compared to anyone. Instead Hendrick cites a single reference; an article which is an observational study which found that elite junior weightlifters had higher T levels than normal. There's no evidence to suggest this is solely due to weightlifting, or that this difference wouldn't have occurred with traditional resistance training.
The risk of injury is minimal. This is by far and away my favourite part of the article because there is a plethora of evidence that shows that fast movements and especially the risky 'catch' elements of this kind of training are dangerous, Hendrick seems to brush this all off as soft tissue injuries, as if it's OK, and whilst I agree that there are risks in everything, there are greater risks in throwing and catching heavy weights. Instead he provides a little sleight of hand....Hendrick says: "the risk of injury is as low or lower than most sports". I like this, he says there's less risk than sports. As a trainer there had better be lower risk of injury in training than in competing in a sport. In fact the main aim of training is to prevent injury in the sport. Imagine having to explain to a coach how their top athlete is a little broken through training!!! He even provides a table showing the risk of injury for: highest for soccer, and decreasing through rugby, basketball, track and field, squash, badminton, powerlifting, tennis and then weightlifting at the bottom of the lift with least risk. Well compared to the likes of tennis and badminton, yes, but once again these are sports. We are talking about weightlifting as a training method. It is the equivalent to saying that as a basketball player you should train using badminton because your risk of injury is low. In fact, you might as well do that based on the evidence above.

If this is your sport then perhaps this is OK.
If this is your training for your sport, perhaps
think again!

I know that this article is heavily critical of weightlifting or O-lifting, but ultimately I'm not against it in the slightest for any reason other than it seems a little useless for sports persons and athletes to use as a training tool. Any vendetta is against the organisations that promote the use of this training method using the arguments highlighted herein.

Think of it another way, if I prescribed a medicine saying that it did certain things, and it didn't you'd be pissed at me, right??? I'm aware of the complications in trying to prove exactly what can enhance sports performance due to the considerable list of variables. But if you can't prove it, then you can't just go making it up!!

I'm always interested in new evidence so if you have any good articles surrounding this then please contact me and I'll send my email address. I'm also very happy for people for or against O-lifting to comment on this blog.

Be Well

A Year in the Life.....

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:31:00 +0000

This blog post offers no teachings, it is just me over the past 12 months.

Queue music, for right now it's 'A Day in the Life' by The Beatles......

"I read the news today oh boy, about a lucky man who made the grade...."

So the past year, in my mind at least, I have made the grade.... I saw in the New Year with a large cigar and an even larger glass of Southern Comfort (which was following a considerable amount of other beeer and liquor), sat in a good friends back yard. I gradually moved from vertical to horizontal and well, there was not so much motion for a good while there, as I star gazed, and then closed my eyes on the world.

Coaches and Captains; the U25 World Championships, CA

That motionlessness didn't last...this year saw me travel to USA, Canada, Israel, and Germany. It saw me help coach the GB Women's Wheelchair Basketball team to a Gold medal at the Paralympic World Cup in Manchester, UK, and a Bronze medal in the European Championships in Israel. We also took a young team to the Under 25's World Championships in Canada, where we got another Bronze medal.

As well as some success in coaching, I watched my twin sister get married this July, and then announce her pregnancy over the Christmas period! I'm going to be an Uncle!! Awesome!!

I also (finally) got published this year, with a flurry of articles on resistance training, as well as further articles that are currently in review. This was a great process for me, as one of the publications was essentially something I'd be working on for a while, and lead to some other work for the Mike Mentzer website, and contact with some world leaders in exercise and physiology. I also settled in a steady position as a Senior Lecturer in Sports Conditioning and Fitness, at Southampton Solent University, which might help see me finally grow roots.

On top of all of this I sold my motorbike (sad face), and bought a stand-up paddleboard (very smiley face). But more than all of these incredible experiences; I learned SOOOO much. I moved to a (kind of) palaeolithic diet (which kinda means low-carb), learning from ancestral nutrition and improved my body composition and health substantially (although I felt like there wasn't that much to improve on). I read in the region of 46 books, (see previous blog for a list) (I'm currently working on "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman". An autobiographical book of stories by the great physicist Richard Feynman.

Moel Famau, North Wales, UK

And then there's the little things....on boxing day I walked up Moel Famau with my eldest sister. I live a couple hundred miles from my family so don't get to spend so much time with them these days. This was a really nice day for me and my big sister to catch up and earn some good food afterwards.

Then there was walking through Bournemouth one evening, when a girl sat in a doorway with her hand out complimented me on my hat. I stopped at the chip shop up the street and took her back a cup of tea and some chips. As I handed them to her I felt the need to apologise. Perhaps for not doing more, or for being more fortunate. I'm not sure.

But you know, all in all, for me; it's been a pretty amazing year, whether it be humbling experiences or moments of excitement. For another thing, I kept the blog going all year, getting near 1,500 hits in one month, and hitting over 1,000 hits for a single blog post. Whoever is reading this nonsense; thank you.

This has been a year of ups and downs, as is every day, and as will (no doubt) be every year. But I think that the success of the year lies not just in the ups but in learning from the downs. Something I hope I do more and more as I evolve.

Ultimately all is well in my world. And I hope all is well in your world.

In a final cliché let me leave you with this:

"The sun will rise and fall tomorrow.

Everything in between is up to you."

I normally sign this off 'Be Well'. But don't just be well, be great.

Loyalty and Winning; A preaching about basketball

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:56:00 +0000

With the start of the NBA season just around the corner, and a few interesting trades that might make for a few exciting games, there's a conversation I had recently that I've reflected on which I wanted to discuss.....but to clarify; if you don't know basketball, read on anyway, it will all make sense....

Loyalty and respect
In basketball, the comment I passed is that you must have it to truly be a champion, you must have given your all to a team and to team-mates and to a coach as well. You must have given that bit extra. It all comes in the light of the Chris Paul move from New Orleans Hornets to LA Clippers. Don't misunderstand me, I don't necessarily disagree with the move but I'm just commenting. The same is true of Lebron James and his movement to Miami Heat from Cleveland Cavaliers, he was there, he was the franchise player, he was the man they would build a team around, and they would have. I feel like making that move becomes something of a short cut, it becomes a quick fix.

I know that in the modern world we like more instantaneous gratification but it isn't so simple. I think to Michael Jordan and the years he worked to become the championship player. And in a similar sense the same is true of Kobe Bryant, especially after Shaquille O'Neal left the Lakers, he had to learn again, to evolve. And whilst it pains me to say it (I am not Kobe's biggest fan) - he is one of the greatest players of all time. But not because of who he is, because of what he does for his team. I always think back to Kevin Garnett, one of my favourite players, and how he stuck with Minnesota for so long and they failed to surround him with the right players to turn it into a championship franchise. But in the same sense I remember his $100 million plus contract in the late 1990's that essentially led to the last lock-out! How was his team going to afford the players he needed whilst he's being paid that much!?!?

In all of this my loyalty comment makes a nice playground analogy; that if you lose a pick-up game, you don't ask to change the teams, you should ask to play again, and this time improve or play better. Work harder. Work together. I always say basketball has to be about more than winning and losing games. A team can play well and lose, or play badly and win. I don't see the kudos in a lucky win. It has to be about always respecting the team, the players, the opponents and the game.

In coaching a game recently I am embarrassed to say that I did this. I lost that respect, and fortunately we lost the game. Whilst we had been up by 19 points at one stage, we were outscored by 20 points in the final quarter, and we were right to be. I do not take all the blame for this; I was, after all, on the sideline. But I did not lead the team the way that I should have done, and that carries significant weight. Had we won we might not have taken the lesson away that we did. Or that I did, and that I hope the players did.

I have spent previous blogs talking about the number of books I have read this year, and I am currently finishing up 'The Winner Within' by Pat Riley, and have recently finished 'On the Art of War' by Sun Tzu. Everything I read now is applying to basketball, is applying to success and to coaching, and to improving the team to their potential. I hope some of the players will read this and take the time to think about everything they need to do to give THE TEAM the best chance it has to win at 2012. I guess when it comes to loyalty and a national team it has to be about making sure you give your all, you commit your heart to being the best you can be. In doing so you make the team better that fraction. If everybody does that then the team gets better by a larger fraction. It might not get you selected on to your team for your sport, but if it makes someone else work harder to be selected and thus perform better, perhaps you have done enough at your stage to help the team win. I know that is a hard approach to have but to me it has to be that way. It has to be everything.

I read 'The Lombardi Rules' earlier this year, and a quote stuck out in my head. So much so, in fact, that it is the signature at the end of my email:

"Practice does not make perfect;

Perfect practice makes Perfect"

To me this means more than just working that hard all the time you're training, and having the discipline to know that you must train your weaknesses to be strengths and your strengths to be stronger. But knowing that someone else is out there doing it. Your opponent is on a court right now, working on their left, perfecting that post up shot that you missed in the last game. Are you happy knowing that whilst you're watching TV? Have you done enough today? This week? This month? This year? This is a team sport, when you go out there it's not about letting yourself down, it's about letting your team down, and them letting you down if they haven't done enough.

When you're at the highest level; in everything you do, every action you have you need to ask yourself:

"Will it help my team win"

Of course, the likeness here to business, or departments, faculties, etc. are hopefully obvious.

At some point or another, Life is a team sport.

Be Well, and have a great Christmas and New Year

JF

Learning to Learn and How (and Why) I read 40+ books in 2011

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:35:00 +0000

Firstly I wanted to start with a massive THANK YOU. Somehow I had nearly 1200 hits on this blog last month alone. Not bad going since I only did 4 posts!

As for this blog....

Well here's my truth....I've always been a bit of a geek. You don't become a lecturer in a science without it, and whilst I competed as a swimmer at a high level through my school years as well as basketball and track and field, amongst other things, I was also on the chess team, and went to some inter-school Mathematics competition. You can laugh if you like but I like to think of it as making me a well-rounded individual something like the 'intelligent warrior' (e.g. clever and sporty).

Not my bookcase, though ideas for my next one!

Anyway, something happened at the start of 2011, I turned over the New Year already pages deep in a couple of different books, and the more I read; the more I wanted to read. I couldn't get enough. Seriously. Have you seen Phenomenon, the John Travolta film where he reads at an exponential rate? It felt like that! (Of course if you haven't seen the movie then I appreciate that comment makes absolutely no sense at all, for which I apologise).

In this blog I'm going to list every book I've gotten through from January to December 2011. I've categorised them in the best way I can think of. They are not in order of which I read first, although you'll recognise commonalities between them, and in many cases reading one book led me to reading another two or three in a similar area. If you know the titles then you'll recognise recurring authors (Richard Dawkins, Tim Ferriss, Richard Wiseman). Interestingly (for me at least) I had no intention of reading so many books. I think I was some way in to the year when the number of books I'd read was piling up and then I figured to do a count and keep a record of them.

Anyway here goes:

Sports (including basketball, surfing, doping, coaching)
Juiced
The Big Book of Basketball
The Art of a Beautiful Game
The Jordan Rules
Saltwater Budha
Riding the Magic Carpet
Dunks, Doubles and Doping
Eddie Would Go
The Lombardi Rules

Nutrition, Healthy Living, Philosophy and Lifestyle
The Immortality Edge
Lights Out
The Paleo Diet for Athletes
The New Evolution Diet
The Diet Delusion
The Paleo Solution
Four Hour Body
Way of the Peaceful Warrior
The Virtue of Selfishness
Four Hour work Week

The book I would most recommend to
ANYONE and EVERYONE.

Entertaining Science
13 Things that don't make sense
Quirkology
How to drive a Tank
Placebo
Sleep Thieves
A Briefer History of Time
:59 Seconds
I Used to Know that
The Talent Code
The Genius in All of Us
Bounce
The Drunkards Walk

Evolution / History
The Greatest Show on Earth
The God Delusion
The Ancestors Tale
A Little History of Time
War of the World
On the Origin of Species

Biographical
Life and Laughing - Michael McIntyre
Confessions of a Conjurer - Derren Brown

Travel
Long Way Round
A Walk in the Woods

It's been an absolutely amazing experience; I've read in most places you can imagine staying still from finding the seat with the best lighting in the house to lounging on a bed in Israel, flying over Canada, or on a coach in Germany, on a beach in Boscombe, and on a cliff-top in Dorset. I just took to it. For a few weeks I would ride my motorcycle up to a place called Highcliffe and sit and read, rain, wind or sun. Some of the books are BIG and took a considerable time to read. Others not so big and due to their addictive nature took less than 24 hours (I'm not going to tell you which one!)

I started a few others that have returned to the shelf for the meantime, but the other thing I learned is to keep buying them; to accept that there is so much more to know, that there is someone else's experiences or opinions to consider. Amidst all of this I haven't kept count of how many scientific journal articles I've read this year. But the more you read, the more critically evaluative you become because of underpinning theory or difference of perspective.

I guess the point in all of this is that I realise so many students get to, or worse; go through, University without having learned to learn. I've spent so long reading coaching books and exercise physiology or psychology journal articles. In fact it's not that those readings have dropped off, I just hit that point where I wanted to learn more. A lot of it started with Nutrition, and Palaeolithic Diets, which led me to Evolutionary books, I always found time for anything on Surfing and Basketball and, well, I guess I can't explain all of this to you. It's something you have to do for yourself.

A lot of the books have been discussed in blogs, and whilst I have not outlined favourites, etc, there are some I would recommend way ahead of others. If you're interested on my opinions on specific texts then message me. Otherwise, buy a book, put it down and pick it up and take it in, word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and page by page until it's done. Then start all over again. And enjoy.

Be Well

JF

NB. I am currently 'involved' in 3 other books which look likely to be finished soon. I'll post a final tally at the end of the year.

Probability and Randomness

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:15:00 +0000

I'm gonna start with a puzzle for you...there are 3 light switches outside a room, one of the switches turns on the light inside the room, the other two do nothing. There is a door to get in to the room and you can only open it once, you can't flick any switches with the door open, but before opening the door you can flick as many switches as you like. So how do you figure out which switch turns on the light inside the room?

OK so we'll come back to that a little later. At the moment I'm reading a book called 'The Drunkard's Walk' by Leonard Mlodinow, subtitled How Randomness rules our lives. It's a really interesting book with some great anecdotes and examples for the lay person to understand the science he explains. Before I get on to the great examples here's why I chose to read the book. It was an Amazon recommendation. No, just kidding, I'm fascinated by how we see patterns that don't exist. E.g if we toss a coin 10 times and get heads, what is most likely to be the 11th time?.....in reality we often make assumptions based on what it has been; e.g. the previous 10 coin tosses have helped us to know the 11th coin toss. No it hasn't, not really. When you toss a coin you have a 50:50 chance of heads and tails. Eventually, as long as the coin is not weighted it will likely balance out, but that might take 100, 1,000, or even 100,000 coin tosses to get to that 50:50 ratio. The 11th coin toss is completely independent of the other 10. You might think that works against the following initial example but remember that we have no idea how many tosses we need to see to get a balanced result, and 10 coin tosses is potentially not enough.

Regression to the mean
This essentially means that "in any series of random events an extraordinary event is most likely to be followed, due partly by chance, by a more ordinary one". Mlodinow uses an aeronautical example but I'm going to provide a different one:
Consider a basketball player who on average is shooting 50% from the field, if he has a game where he shoots 60+% he will likely get praise from the coach.Another player averaging the same 50%, shoots <40% but he gets (let's call it..) 'less positive feedback'. Often in this situation in the next game the player receiving positive feedback shoots closer to their average, but so does the player receiving negative feedback. The coach giving positive feedback thinks; "great when I give positive feedback he get's worse". And the coach who gave negative feedback thinks "Jeez, when I chew this guy out, he performs better". In reality neither coach is right, the player's performance simply regressed to their average. If they performed particularly badly, or particularly well then next time out they were likely to perform closer to their average.

Confirmation Bias
This is a phenomenon where someone with preconceived ideas/theory is more likely to see the evidence that supports their ideas/theory. I find this a common occurrence in sport science as well as every day life. And don't for a moment think that you don't have pre-conceived ideas, because we both know that you do. So here's the example that Mlodinow gives; Here is a sequence of numbers that follow a rule. 2, 4, 6. As the budding scientist you are trying to find the rule so you can test it by giving me a sequence of 3 numbers to check the rule, and I will tell you whether or not they fit the rule. Have a think about your sequence of numbers.......

....I'm waiting....

...OK then, so you said 8, 10, 12.....or 18, 20, 22....or 16, 20, 24. And I tell you that yes, it fits the rule. So what's the rule? At this point I am betting (and you will probably deny it) that it was something to with even numbers or multiples of two. If this was your theory, then your test has proven the rule, right. So it the rule correct!? No. The rule is simply that each successive number in the sequence must be higher than the previous. You chose to test your hypothesis, you tested your theory, or preconceived ideas. And because it fitted you assumed you were right. If you had chosen to test your rule by looking for something that would have given a negative result to your theory e.g. 3, 6, 9, or 11, 12, 13, (which wouldn't have fitted in to your even number theory) then you would have found it did still fit the rule and had to ask more questions, or revise your hypothesis.

Back to the Puzzle
OK then so back to the puzzle we go. How did you get on? Did you get it?

So there are 3 light switches outside a room. And a light behind a closed door. So the solution;

Let's call them Light switch (LS) 1, 2, and 3. You flick LS1 and leave it a few minutes. Then you flick it back. And flick LS2 and open the door. if the light is on, then it was LS2, if the light is off then you know it was LS1 or LS3 right. Is the bulb hot? If so then we can pretty safely assume that it is LS1, if the bulb is cold then we have a good idea that it is LS3.

OK so that's not hugely relevant to the discussion of probability and randomness, my tenuous link is that perhaps your preconceived ideas of how you tell if a light switch works is built solely on whether the bulb is illuminated.

Anyway, now you can go try it on someone else.

Be well

JF

The Paleo Case Study

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:41:00 +0000

I'm not going to post before and after pictures, because they were never taken. I'm not going to give you detailed girth or body composition measurements, or diet diary's, or other values to fall back on. I'm not going to try to baffle you with science, I'm going to tell you something real.

I got to chatting about palaeolithic nutrition and the low-carbohydrate concept a good few weeks back (probably end of September/start of October) with a close friend of mine. He was talking about losing some excess weight and getting in to better shape but he didn't want to do some fad or go on some diet where he'd lose weight and then put it back on. Eventually over the course of a series of discussions he decided that he'd give it a try.
I guess it started with some simple decisions about cutting down obvious complex carbohydrates such as bread, rice and pasta, but I explained about cereals and the like as well. He would always ask what I ate, e.g. for breakfast if I don't eat cereal what do I eat....I would explain; eggs, bacon, mushrooms, whatever I wanted as long as it was fitting with palaeolithic. Of course the reality is that this is quite appealing! I remember early on he asked about salmon and eggs and ham, to which I responded yes, yes and yes! He smiled.

I normally avoid showing this image, but I like that the last
stage in this evolution is a tall, strong, athletic man - not a
chubby short guy, crouched over with illness and disease.

Week One
By the end of the first week we estimate that he'd lost about 6lbs of weight, and he was excited. I made a point of explaining that much of this was likely excess water weight that he didn't need, but that he would not sustain this continued weight loss. We talked about training and he committed to a more rigid schedule, employing simple HIT philosophies; controlled movements, brief intense workouts on body-weight exercises (e.g. pull-ups and dips) or resistance machines (e.g. shoulder press, etc.).
We also talked about fatigue. I had mentioned that he might feel quite tired but if he could get through it then to do so as it would not last (as your body transitions from carbohydrate intake, we switch to a more ketogenic diet, where our body essentially produces all the sugars that tissues will need!). He wasn't feeling any degree of fatigue and so was happy to carry it on.
Week Two
My friend showed a great degree of commitment to it, expressing that it was not a difficult change in his lifestyle and diet. He ate a lot of stir-fry and quick and easy food like that. We talked of cooking with butter and coconut milk and flavoured things that are wrongly considered unhealthy because of their fat content. I talked about maintaining protein intake and fluid intake as well and he seemed happy that all of this was easy to do. We estimated that he lost maybe another 1-2lbs over this week.
Week Three
I had been trying to get him to commit whole-heartedly to this change in the early stages but by this week we were overdue a few Friday night drinks. At this point I unveiled the key......the 80:20 principle! Some of you may be familiar with this, that generally 80% of our productivity comes in 20% of our time and effort. It's pretty well documented, so check it out if you haven't already. In context, my policy is that eating following palaeolithic principles 80% of the time is generally good enough. I travel a lot and spend weekends away coaching where I have little control over what is available to eat so those days I eat what I want and what is available without concern. When you consider the odd few beers or a slice of pizza here and there it all adds up to about 20% of the time, but it's OK (or at least it seems to work for me). he expressed interest in this and of course liked the idea of having a few guilt-free drinks and not being on anything too rigid. This week his training continued and he probably lost another 1-2lbs.
Week Four and onwards
It was a couple of weeks back he popped around and stood in my door way chatting I commented that he was looking really well, certainly the shape in his upper body seemed to have changed considerably. The bulk was missing from his mid section and he had certainly filled out his chest and shoulders (or got an expensively flattering suit!) He continued to comment about how happy he was and the weight he was losing albeit small increments of a lb here of there.
We spoke about all of this just the other day and while a couple of weeks back he was suggesting that he wouldn't stick with this on a long term basis, he's now stating that it's a lifestyle choice and that he's settled into it. We estimate that from day one he's lost approximately a 14lbs, but I would reckon he's dropped closer to 16-18lbs of fat and put on the rest in muscle mass. His words were that he's tightened two belt sizes, he feels better, lighter, more athletic. He doesn't get hungry between meals, he never feels the need to snack and so on; all the things we all wish when we're trying to lose weight or get fitter. He's more comfortable in his body, happier with his body shape and ultimately and most importantly healthier for it.

You can go back through my blogs and look at how carbohydrate intake screws up hormones like insulin and testosterone. The reality is there's no wonder he's doing so well.

So there you go. No photo's. No measurements. Just reality. Just a guy following some simple rules. And more proof that it works.

So give it a try.

Be well

JF

Heavy Duty - A Scientific Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:26:00 +0000

Mike Mentzer, potentially one of the greatest body-builders of all time, and the only one to get a perfect score in the Mr. Universe competition in 1978 in Mexico, was also a leader in strength training theory and practice. Having worked under the expertise of Arthur Jones for many years, he then progressed some of Arthur's ideas and almost revolutionised the world of strength training and body-building.

Low-volume, high-intensity training is almost synonymous with Mike Mentzer, and many of the current greats still preach his training philosophies. Indeed, Mike was also a big advocate of Ayn Rand, and her Objectivism philosophy; essentially supporting self-worth, and personal value above all else. He once intelligently wrote:

"Man, is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of mind and body."

Myself and a colleague have recently put together something of a tribute article which looks at Mike's exercise theories from a scientific perspective, and evaluates their merits. His logical, unbiased, forward thinking approach has, for want of a better term, led us in to the light, and his Heavy Duty high-intensity training (HIT) principles, are unquestionably supported by the scientific research.

Here is the link to his site, and the article Heavy Duty - A Scientific Perspective should be in the top middle of the page with a big NEW sign next to it.

This is a must read for anyone interested in strength training, bodybuilding, or Mike Mentzer.

Mike, tragically never won the Mr Olympia but placed a controversial 5th in the 1980 line-up that saw Arnold (Schwarzenegger) win again. Without going in to it, this whole competition was riddled with controversy and ABC the US news station who filmed the event refused to show it believing it to be a fix. Whilst he never won himself he went on to train Dorian Yates, one of the greatest of all time, who collected 6 consecutive wins from 1992-1997, before retiring with injury.

You can find a bunch of Mike's books on there with all his teachings and strength training work-outs and words of wisdom, including details of his training of Dorian Yates. You'll also find some reading about how mind and body connect and his life philosophies, in addition to t-shirts, tank tops, etc. Pay it a visit!

And enjoy the article

JF

Nature vs. Nurture - The making of excellence

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:34:00 +0000

Wow dare I really interject in the long debated area.....well of course I do.

So having recently read The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle and The Genius in All of us by David Shenk (with Bounce by Matthew Syed waiting patiently in the antilibrary), I thought it only fair to impart my acquired knowledge.....

The Talent Code goes in to considerable detail to discuss and emphasise "deliberate practice". The relatively well-known 10,000 hour practice model (which essentially discusses that to attain expert level at anything, sports, music, etc. you need to have been practising for 10,000 hours). The term "deliberate practice" relates to the level or quality of practice needed; better defined by Vince Lombardi:

"practice doesn't make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect"

What we're talking about here, is both understanding the processes required in the performance and continuously challenging ability. One of the elements is best described by failing and trying again. Coming short must be the ultimate in motivational experiences. As a basketball coach it is easier to coach the appropriate technique in shooting a ball if the player has missed as opposed to if the player has scored. Imagine a child shooting a basketball, and by chance it goes in, the child would struggle to understand why there is a need to change the technique when they just watched the ball go through the hoop. Alternately children struggling to score might better listen to directions and challenge themselves to perform the directed actions. Indeed, Coyle talks about the correlation between some of the best sprinters in the world and their birth in relation to their siblings. In order of most recent, here are the 100m world record holders and the place of their birth:

1. Usain Bolt (2nd of 3)
2. Asafa Powell (6th of 6)
3. Justin Gatlin (4th of 4)
4. Maurice Greene (4th of 4)
5. Donovan Bailey (3rd of 3)
6. Leroy Burrell (4th of 5)
7. Carl Lewis (3rd of 4)
8. Leroy Burrell (4th of 5)
9. Carl lewis (3rd of 4)
10. Calvin Smith (6th of 8)

The relationship here being that in play the younger children have to work harder, or fall short and thus try again to catch their elder (and thus likely faster) siblings. Of course this is not a scientific study, but it is an interesting observation. It compares well to the analogy of rough play and strength; the older child wrestling with his younger sibling barely applies any effort, where the younger child has to work as hard as possible in an effort just to keep up.

The Genetics equation
Of course nothing so far seems too irrational, or anything less than obvious to be honest. However, at this point we generally assume that these sprinters have the genetics to allow them to be that fast to begin with, whereas you might argue that you might not be blessed with those same genes.....or are you!?

The world is littered with those exceptional people that just could. You know, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Shakespeare, Mozart, and the like; as well as child prodigies who were born with amazing gifts; e.g. Beethoven. Or so the fairy-tales would have us believe. The reality is a little different. These people worked, no, really they worked to achieve any degree of greatness. They worked like you cannot imagine working. Their achievements are a product of their efforts. Shenk makes the brilliant comparison that "to assume Mozart or Beethoven could just play is like assuming a clown could just juggle". The reality in fact is that Beethoven was beaten as a child, forced up on to a step stool to reach the keys of the piano, and allowed time off only to pick up the violin. Musical theory was everything in his life, he was forced to play, his 10,000 hours came early, and as a product he excelled as a musician.

Self Belief
So the reality that these authors are hinting at is that everyone might have these genetics. You might have been (and still might be) capable of being an amazing poet, tennis player, cellist, or chess player. But another of the missing ingredients is self belief (unless of course you're young enough to not have had an option). Both Shenk and Coyle discuss Roger Bannister and his achievement of breaking the 4 minute mile. Perceived by physiologists, athletes and coaches to be simply impossible! Coyle states "Bannister systematically attacked the record; how he broke the mark by a fraction of a second". Without doubt, a personal self belief that he can achieve this impossible feat. Both authors continue to discuss what most people do not know about the weeks following.....an Australian runner John Landy also broke the four-minute barrier. The next season many more did, and within 3 years of Bannister's accomplishment the four-minute barrier had been broken no fewer than seventeen times. Ultimately very likely a result of the change in perception that this was not impossible, and more; "if he could do it then so could I".

Indeed for many it is the challenge of great competitors that drives greater accomplishments; Michael Jordan had to overcome Magic Johnson and Larry bird, Leaonardo Da Vinci was in constant competition with Michaelangelo, the reality is that the nature of competition that drives us, drives excellence, drives excellent performance. This is not new thinking, Friedrich Nietsch, the 19th Century philosopher wrote:

"Every natural gift must develop itself by contests"

Epigenetics
Charles Darwin, apparently most famous for his arguing for the "survival of the fittest", should have been known for a far more appropriate quote; "it is not neither the strongest who survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change". But what are epigenetics and how does this effect our traits, or our abilities. Consider; Epi is Latin for above or outside, research has found made some interesting discoveries:

Mouse colour is hereditary; it passes through the DNA, genes, and so forth.....unless it eats a certain diet. A pregnant yellow mouse eating a diet rich in folic acid or soy milk would be prone to experience an epigenetic mutation producing brown-fur offspring. And even with the pups returning to a normal diet, that fur could be passed to future generations.
In 2004, Michael Skinner at Washington State University discovered that exposure to a specific pesticide in rats spurred an epigenetic change that led to low sperm counts lasting at least four generations.
In 2005, New York University's Dolores Malaspina, et al., discovered age-related epigenetic changes in human males that can lead to lower intelligence and a higher risk of schizophrenia in children.
In 2006, Marcus Pembrey presented data from Swedish medical records to show that nutritional deficiencies and cigarette smoking in one generation of humans had effects across several generations.
In 2007, Megan Hitchins, et al., reported a link between inherited epigenetic changes and human colon cancer.

The reality then; that what we do might not only effect our genes by switching them on or off, by proteins, timing, etc. but also effect that of future generations.

Summary
So ultimately we come back to the same question; nature or nurture? Well previously it's been thought that they interact in a way described by Shenk as Genetics + Environment (G+E). In reality, we might all have the genes to become great at any one thing, or another, or in fact any number of things, with the right hours and type of practice, as well as motivations and self belief. Shenk considers the simple formula to be better described by G x E (Genetics x Environment), giving E a far larger effect in the equation. So we might all have the right genes to be highly skilled with the right practice but it is our environment that ultimately allows us to switch on or off those genes, that provides us with the right proteins, at the right times, and the right experiences to encourage the development of our excellence.

Low-carb options 1: The devil is in the detail (the 'detail' being the ingredients)

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:54:00 +0000

I've spent a considerable length of time this year educating myself (and hopefully some of you) on nutrition. In honesty it's never been something I've been hugely interested in, but this year it just seems to have hit me. And of course, since we all eat, I feel like it's perhaps one of the most important choices we make on perhaps an hourly basis!

I've gone on about low-carbohydrate options and the chemical wizardry behind my advocation of this choice and discussed in detail paleolithic nutrition (as in learning from, not emulating). And the more I read the more I see low-carb, light, carb options, Max, Zero, Diet and the like as products that tell you, "you're right to go low-carb, so here I am!". But is this good and what are they replacing all that sugar and starch with.....

What follows is Part 1; of likely a series of blogs looking at how the food and drink industry has catered to your demand by changing it's product.

Sweet is a bitter pill to swallow
One of the major goals of any kind of artificial sweetener is to reduce calories but still have a sweet taste. This way you (the public) think you're getting the deal of a lifetime. Your taste-buds say "mmmm" and you're happy, right? Well not quite. The problem is at the taste level you send the same signals around your body to say sugar so you still get the same insulin response (e.g. you release insulin to deal with the sugar). But you haven't got the sugar there. Well insulin release is normal, we need it to put amino acids into muscles anyway. In fact, our insulin response will rise when we smell food. But part of the problem is that when our insulin rises we get hungry. In addition elevated insulin levels are good from time to time, but not all the time. You might have heard of insulin resistance, also known as metabolic syndrome, this is bad, our body does not respond to the insulin and it causes all sorts of problems. It can happen when our insulin levels are elevated for extended periods of time. I've best heard it compared this way; if you go into a room and smell perfume eventually your senses adapt to the smell and you don't really notice it after a while. If you leave for a short time and then go back in, then you notice it again. If insulin is there all the time, then our cells become resistant to it.

But what are they replacing sugar with to give us this taste...

Aspartame
Go get the diet soda or juice out of your fridge and take a look at the ingredients.....you see it? Right then, let's continue. When I first came across aspartame it was described to me as being one molecule away from plastic, the idea that our body has to break down this product makes it a little scary, but lets take a closer look.

Symptoms associated with aspartame include:

headaches/migraines
dizziness
seizures
nausea
numbness
muscle spasms
weight gain
depression
fatigue
irritability
tachycardia
insomnia
vision problems
hearing loss
heart palpitations
breathing difficulties
anxiety attacks
slurred speech
loss of taste
tinnitus
vertigo
memory loss
joint pain

Phew. Did you get bored half way through the list? Yeah; me too. but I list it because I don't want you to sit there and think "well I'm gonna die of something!" Of course you are, hopefully when your very old having led a very fulfilled life. But isn't that the point; fulfilment of life!? This doesn't kill you, it potentially ruins your quality of life.

Now then, as if all that wasn't bad enough, it's been linked to brain tumours, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia and diabetes.

This is something you might want to think twice about putting inside your body.

I 'googled' "Aspartame Products" this is the image I got.
Don't sue me, just stop putting it your products!

Aspartame is made up of aspartic acid, phenylalinine, and methanol. Aspartic acid (and glutamic acid (about 99% of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid - look out for that too)) acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain transmitting information from neuron to neuron. However, too much aspartate (or glutamate) kills these neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which then kill the cells. Aspartic acid (when unbound to proteins) raises blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate.

Of course we have a protector against this; the blood brain barrier (BBB). However:

this is not fully developed in children
it does not fully protect all areas of the brain
it can be damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions
it can still allows seepage of excess aspartate and glutamate into the brain

Hmmm, a little worrying, no? I know I haven't spent the time going in to Phenylalinine and Methanol, but you definitely google them or wikipedia them. Methanol for example is used in anti-freeze!

My point simply is that fundamentally we know that soda is bad for us right. We know it. So we choose what is labelled as the healthier option. But is it really healthier? I'm someone who up until recently has enjoyed the odd diet soda, but it's time to start asking whether this is a good choice. Ultimately if nothing more this is now an informed choice. I have a bunch of friends with children out there, and hoping they read this for their children's sake for the health and longevity of their spouses.

I guess when it comes to nutritional choices both of food and drink I heard it best described by Drew Baye; "it's not about going low carb, it's about going low-crap!"

Be well

JF

UPDATE: As a result of this blog, I got advised to check out research discussing aspartame and formaldehyde. Apparently the methanol can be broken down into formaldehyde.....which is recognised as a human carcinogen and strongly linked to cancer. I was also guided to this, I know it's Wikipedia which isn't the most reliable source and I haven't read the whole thing but apparently there is a page devoted to Aspartame controversy.

Movember...and the health of men.

noreply@blogger.com (jpfisheruk) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:42:00 +0000

Mike Mentzer is a hero of mine, therefore
I'm going to try to emulate his amazing Mo.

For those of you who don't know, Movember is a charity that aims to raise vital funds and awareness for men's health, specifically prostrate and testicular cancer.

This is a worldwide charity that is growing exponentially. Last year there were over 450,000 registered Mo Bros.

So let me clarify, throughout the month of November a Mo Bro grows a moustache. Simple. In this effect, and partially cause he might look a little silly, he "becomes a walking billboard" answering questions and raising funds.

For me, personally, my involvement is simply that we know that men are reluctant to discuss health issues, and too lazy to go to doctors (although it might be because if we didn't know the way then we'd have to ask directions to the doctors and get stuck at the first hurdle!). There are a million and one great causes out there, and I've no doubt everyone does their bit in one way or another, but ultimately every little helps. Don't think that giving £5.00 or £10.00 is too much, or you'll look stingy giving less. I'd rather you sign over 50pence and help me raise funds. If everyone reading this gives 50p then I'll have done my bit.

Of course, as the proud owner of finely rugged beard, I'll need to shave the beard and grow the moustache. (sad face!)

All pictures of my Mo will be posted on my blog.

Many thanks

JF