I've trained with weights for over fifteen years. I've read about different training philosophies and through trial and error, tried nearly everything out there. Several years ago, my interest in high-intensity training arose again and I was determined to attempt to reproduce the results that Arthur Jones achieved with his groundbreaking study "Project Total Conditioning." Having already practiced version of high-intensity training several months, I was ready for the next phase - I was ready to perform brief, high-intensity exericse in a circuit. After spending quite some time tracking down a facility that could accomodate me, let me tell you - it was a wake-up call.
When asked, most people will say that they train hard. I would've certainly told you that I train hard as well. Very hard. Well, having someone else, like a trainer, there to motivate you and encourage you truly makes a big difference in how much effort you're able to put forth. Even if you're a highly motivated person you will certainly train at a higher level of intensity and exert more effort if you have an intelligent trainer or partner to oversee your efforts.
I spend much of my time reading about exercise and nutrition and scoffed at the idea of needing a personal trainer, because I thought, "What is this guy going to teach me that I don't already know?" Well, it's not necessarily about being taught anything, but having someone there to supervise your workouts has enourmous potential. For instance, my workouts take no more than 30 minutes and during that time my trainer charts which exercises I'm going to do, the weight used, settings, and performance on each exercise. He makes sure the equipment is properly set up for me, which results in less time wasted. But most of all, his encouragement and coaching is able to coax an extra repetition or two out of me. These things together make having a personal trainer or coach invaluable. That is...if you value your workouts and want them to be as productive as possible.
Which brings me to weight training done ciruit-style. Most people don't really understand what this is and even fewer have actually done it. What I'm referring to is what Arthur Jones (famed Nautilus and MedX inventor) prescribed doing: one exercise performed at a high-intensity until you reach momentary muscular failure and then immediately moving to another exercise.
How many sets? One per exercise.
This does not entail talking. This does not include water breaks. It is exactly what I said - you move from one exercise IMMEDIATELY to the next. No breaks. Do this for ten to twelve exercises and you've completed an entire workout. Doesn't sound too hard? Think again.
Performing a workout like I described above is one of the hardest feats that you will ever do. First of all, training to momentary muscular failure is foreign concept to a great many people. To summarize: training to failure consists of moving the weight until you can no longer perform another full-range repetition. If you are physically capable of performing another repetition - then do it. Stopping short does not consist of going to failure.
There are many high-intensity techniques that can be employed but "training to failure" does not mean moving the weight until you cannot move it another centimeter or letting your sets degenerate into spastic convulsions. It simply means that it is physically impossible for you to perform another repetition, in proper form, with the given weight. This, in itself, is physically very taxing. A great many people stop short of training to failure and this is evident by looking around any gym. Why is this? Training to failure is flat-out hard work. There is no other way to describe it. It's unpleasant and can sometimes cause nausea.
At this point, you may ask, "Why do I have to train so hard? Why can't I go in and just train at moderate intensity?" In an effort to be brief, I will say that your body will not want to change unless you give it a damn good reason to. Your body must be convinced that you have a good reason to add more muscle to your body otherwise it will see no need to add more metabolically active tissue to your frame. Your body must be convinced that your life potentially may depend on adding more muscle. Do you accomplish this by picking up a 5 lb. dumbbell and doing bent-over biceps curls - in a zombie-like fashion, while watching TV? Or...do you do this by performing a very hard and demanding set? The answer should be obvious to many but sadly, it still is not.
Mike Mentzer, years ago, used a fantastic example: he said that employing low-intensity, high-volume training was akin to the sun-worshipper attempting to get a tan by going out at Midnight and laying under the moon for several hours. The stimulus is just not there. That person can lay under the moon for 1 hour, 3 hours, or 5 hours and the result is still going to be the same: no tan.
You have to push your body above and beyond what it normally experiences in order to entice the adaptations that you're after. Going in and doing set after mindless set in the gym hoping to get results will not work. It may've worked for you when you started training with weights in high-school but the reason that it worked - back then - was that your body had not performed any resistance training ever; it had hardly, if ever, been stimulated. In that situation almost anything will yield results for a short period of time.
Okay, back to training:
After your first set, move as fast as possible to your next exercise. The goal is to keep your heart rate high. Why exactly do we want to do that? Keeping your heart rate at a very high level for 15 to 30 minutes has many health benefits and does wonders for cardiovascular conditioning.
After I completed my first circuit I was amazed at how difficult and taxing it was. Remember, if exercise is easy then it's not going to be very productive. There is a dirct correlation in exercise - the harder it is, the more beneficial it is going to be. The easier it is, the less.
The combination of training to failure on every set and then doing it in a very quick fashion really opened my eyes to what hard, effective training is. Unfortunately, duplicating this type of workout in most commercial gyms is very difficult, if not impossible. In order to do this effectively, you'll need to know the settings for every machine that you plan on using (or, if you use free weights, have them set up before you begin). Additionally, you'll have to cross your fingers and hope that no one is using a machine that you need during your circuit. If this happens it can become extremely frustrating but you can work around it if need be.
It's in your best interest to give this type of training an honest try. Just because everyone else trains in an easy fashion and takes 3 minute rest periods does not mean that you have to. Give it a try. You have nothing to lose and only time, muscle, and better conditioning to gain.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Information or Misinformation?
I was just reading some of my daily e-mails and stumbled across a Men's Health e-mail sent out to present and past subscribers. A couple of the articles that caught my eye were "Exercise Machines You Should Never Use" and "Muscle-building Myths". Being curious I couldn't help but read them.
Wow. I've come to accept over the years that magazines like Flex, Muscle and Fitness, Muscular Developement, etc., are merely supplement catalogs posing as informative magazines. When I was younger, I enjoyed these magazines but then after severa years, I noticed something: I was spending much of my hard earned money on supplements that were highly recommended in the muscle mags, yet none of them seemed to do what they claimed to. I spent literally, thousands of dollars on supplements before I came to the conclusion that virtually the entire industry is a scam and built on lies. I also worked in a national health food store as well for nearly five years (at different locations) and saw young and naive weight lifters come into the store and spend most of their paychecks on protein powders and weight gain drinks. They would usually do this for a month or two and then suddenly disappear from the store never to be seen again. My theory was that they soon discovered that all of the supplements that they were spending their money on was absolutely worthless. They discovered that the the secret to building large muscles doesn't lie in the tub of protein powder that they just purchased.
Like I said, after several years I realized that the muslce mags were just cleverly marketed supplement magazines so I realized that I should abandon them in hopes of getting real, scientific information. Occasionally there would be some bright spots: sometimes Flex and Muscle and Fitness would publish articles by Mike Mentzer and IronMan magazine had a long-running column by Arthur Jones entitled My First Half-Century in the Iron Game. But aside from those few and frequent articles, most of the information in the muscle magazines were either focused on pushing supplement or giving ridiculous training information. You can only publish so many "Pec Pounding" and "Quad Killing" articles and the mags quickly realized that they needed to constantly change up the information in their articles, lest they have fewer subscribers. So they consistently crank out new training routines that the pros supposedly do. I'm not sure about you, but I could care less about what a genetically gifted, drug abuser does to get his biceps bigger. Whatever it is, it probably isn't going to work for me. I think this sort of attitude is what has made people move away from the muscle magazines and instead flock towards magazines like Men's Health and Men's Fitness.
The only people that still appear to purchase the mucle mags are teenagers who seek to attain the 300 lb. bloated look that these bodybuilders display. Well, teenagers and the extremely small minority of competitive amateur bodybuilders.
In walks Men's Health and Men's Fitness (and any other magazine of a similar nature). Just as women's figure competitions were borne out of the repulsion and backlash of to women's bodybuilding, so was the current crop of Men's Magazine was born out of disgust for the muscle mags.
You'll find most men's "health" magazines (a term I'll use to describe any non-muscle mag) have several informative articles that deal with nutrition, fashion, travel, and of course exercise. Your average guy is far more apt to be drawn to a magazine like this than one of the muscle mags. Even to your average housewife, they understand that anyone in a muscle magazine is taking growth drugs. When they see 15 year-old Jimmy pick up an issue of Flex and show interest, I'm sure there's a bit of concern.
I'll agree that a men's "health" magazine is far less harmful than any of the muscle mags, but don't make the mistake of thinking that all of their information is accurate. The men's "health" magazines have been around long enough that they're fishing for articles of anything that would be of interest to the general public. They're also searching for any possible angle when it comes to weight training and exercise. Just like with the muscle magazines, they're having to rehash and conjure up exercise ideas just to fill the space in the magazine. This is displayed quite prominently in their articles and e-mail posts.
Just a couple of snippets from what I read just today from their online daily articles:
1. According to an expert, it's dangerous to do leg extensions. His argument is that the added torque on the momvement makes it dangerous. True, there is a large amount of torque placed on the knee towards the beginning of the movement but this is not a cause of concern for anyone that has a healthy knee. If you have knee injuries, there may be reason to perhaps avoid this exercise but to proclaim in a blanket statement that the leg extension is a dangerous movement is utterly ridiculous. How do you hope to develop your quadricep to its fullest potential without directly training it?
Let's take a different example. Let's say that you want to make sure that your biceps are as fully developed as possible. Would you then relegate yourself to only doing pulldowns and rows? I doubt it. Even though these exercises certainly stimulate growth in the biceps muscle, they do not offer the level of development given by a isolation movement such as the bicep curl. If you want to truly develop a muscle to its highest capacity you have to isolate the muscle and train it in a high-intensity fashion...without aid from other muscle groups. The same goes for any other muscle group, including the quads. Without doing leg extensions, you're ignoring the utlimate development that can be achieved in that muscle.
And lastly, just because a guy has huge legs and doesn't not perform leg extensions or any other form of isolation exercise does not mean that he woudln't benefit from adding such an exercise. Even though his development may already be high, it would assuredly be even higher would he isolate the muscle and train it through a full-range of motion. Genetics play a large role as well. An individual may be able to do nothing but squats his whole life and, because of genetics, may display phenomenal development. That doesn't mean that all other leg exercises are rendered irrelevant because Mr. Genetics doesn't do them.
2. A noted author, in response to super-slow training says that the best way to perform a repetition is to perform the positive part of the rep as fast as possible (i.e., explosively) and then lower the weight under control. I first must say that I'm not a proponent of Super-Slow training. I've seen no evidence that lifting and lowering weights on a 10 seconds up/10 seconds down scheme is any safer or productive than 2 sec. up/3 sec. down scheme. The concept, that some seem to be missing, is that you should seek to remove momentum from the movement. No explosions. No jerking the weights around. No explosive change in directions. Simply raise the weight, without using momentum, and slowly lower the weight - under control. What I do may seem very slow to your average trainee but the Super-Slow protocol is much slower. They preach a 10 second positive and then a 10 second negative. Is this safer than what you normally see in gyms? In my opinion, yes. Is it any more beneficial or safe than controlling the weight without using momentum? Science hasn't shown that to be the case. I hate to put a number on the rep cadence but it's suffice to say this: raise and lower the weight with completely control and at no point in time use momentum. When you change directions, make sure it's a solid, fluid motion and not a jerking-quick change of direction. That is the safe way to train and to also to fully stimulate the muscles.
Back to the point: the author instead pulls the complete opposite stance and says that the positive portion of the repetition should be done as quickly (i.e., as explosively) as possible. He then goes on to say that the lowering phase should be done under control. He doesn't give any reasons for performing the movement explosively or as quick as possible. It's just another "Hey, I'm a trainer. I'm right." type of attitudes. Follow his advice and you'll get what you deserve: hurt.
I realize that the state of exercise has degenerated into a heap of "everything out there works, so just do it all and you'll succeed." See what this means? Do you see the ramifications? How do you think medicine would work if doctors thought along those same lines? How do you think science would progress if every theory was equally valid and that everything had truth to it? That's what we're faced with in exercise. Some high-intensity principles have, through some weird osmotic way, found their way into the modern training grimoire of personal trainers while much of it has been thrown to the wayside. In favor of what? In favor of bosu balance balls and group training. In favor of explosive movements with bands that supposedly increase one's athletic ability. So instead of someone saying, "That's ridiculous and won't work," now we hear, "Yea, that's part of our exercise program," along with a million other theories and ideas all mashed into a bastardized training philosophy.
That is essentially what you'll find in any men's "health" magazine and muscle mag. They need fodder to print so any concept, any training method, any gimmick, is quickly put to print and supported...well, because that's the nature of the exercise industry.
Answers to many of the questions people had about exercise were answered several decades ago by Arthur Jones. He spent millions upon millions of dollars on research in the field and has given us - still to this day - the most informative studies ever done on the subject of exercise and injury rehabilitation. His conclusions were simple: train hard and train briefly. You can either train hard or you can train long but you cannot do both. Train a muscle through a full-range of motion and give it resistance throughout the entire repetition.
Too many people wander into the gym without any clear objective. They don't actually have a concrete goal in mind. At most it's a vague idea of what they want to achieve but they don't know how to achive it. Like many others before me, I believe that productive exercise shouldn't be fun. That may turn a lot of people off but it's the simple truth. If you want optimal results, you're going to have to train hard and experience discomfort. The magazines don't tell you this. They will lead you to do a set, quickly and explosively, and stop short of failure and to then take a 2 minute break. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat, ad nauseum.
Train explosively? Why? Where is the research showing that's safe and/or productive? No answer.
Take a 2 minute break in between sets? Why? Where is the reserach showing that will build larger and stronger muscles? No answer.
Do 7 sets? Why? Where is the research showing that doing multiple sets is any more productive than doing a single set to failure? No answer.
The answer lies partly in the laziness of the ENTIRE exercise community. I've seen countless numbers of people who've devoted much of their spare time (if not lives!) to the subject of exercise and I've yet to really find anyone who seems to really be all that interested in the subject. Yet these are the people guiding you down the path. Picking up Flex magazine does not make one a personal trainer yet that's exactly what we have in our gyms. Having a conversation with most exercise devotees quickly degenerates into irrational concepts, baseless theories, and just plain stupidity. Most devotees seem completely oblivious to the subject of genetics and thus it doesn't figure into their training. They assume that since Mr. Olympia was able to achieve his current size then they most certainly should be able to get that big too...it just takes time...right?
My personal advice? Put down all of your magazines and don't listen to their propaganda. Everything doesn't work. You're not going build a physique like Steve Reeves or Frank Zane by doing 15 sets of pushups. Embracing the concept of "everything works to a certain degree" is tantamount to saying, "I really don't know what to do. I don't understand the subject which I'm studying so if I try a little bit of everything then something is bound to work." that's what you're doing when you accept that concept.
Start with this:
1.) Keep a training journal. The goal is to increase your strength as often as possible and a
journal is critical to achieving this goal. If you knew that you were no stronger this year
than last year do you think you would change your training? You betcha, so start with
a training journal so that you monitor and record your results. If you're getting stronger
then your're doing something right. If you're getting weaker, well...time to re-evalute
things.
2.) Perform your repititions under control and remove all momentum. There is no
reason to perform repetitions explosively or in a ballistic fashion. When changing
directions during the rep, do it slowly and under control. Additionally, training this
way will ensure that each and every one of your repetitions are similar. This is
invaluable if you count your repetitions because when every rep is the same, you have a
true measure of improvement. If you've done two more repetitions on a particular
exercise and you know that you've done them in a similar fashion, then you know that
you have gotten stronger. On the other hand, if you perform your reps like most people,
you will cheat a little bit here and there, use some momentum when it gets hard, and if
you do manage to do another repetition, then how do you truly know if you've improved
because the reps were not done in a similar fashion.
3.) Train to failure. Many people shy away from this because it is hard work and some feel
that they will injure themselves. It is indeed hard work but it is also the most rewarding. Training
this way will ensure that you've done everything possible to stimulate muscle growth
(becaues you can't train any harder than 100%, thus you've done everything possible
to stimulate growth) so just keep in mind that while this may be uncomfortable, the results
that you get will be the maximum possible. Also, if done under control and without
momentum, you will not hurt yourself. Injuries come from g-forces and rapid
movements, not from training to failure.
What is failure? Simply put: it's when you cannot, under your own volition, do another
full repetition. If you're doing squats and you cannot get another full
repetition, then you've reached momentary muscular failure. Most people stop way too
short of this range and give up right as it gets uncomfortable. When you get to the point
where you think you cannot do any more I can almost bet you that you have another
couple of repetitions in you. I find that most people hold back because they're so
conditioned to doing multiple sets that they know that they cannot train to failure on every
set because that would stop them from doing multiple sets. Once you've trained a muscle
to failure, you're not going to be in the mood to do a second set.
There are other high-intensity techniques such as negative-only training or forced reps.
Simply training to failure is a good way to start. Every once in a while, throw in some
forced reps and negatives but there is no need to pull out every trick in the book on every
workout. Do a single set until you cannot perform another full repetition and stop there.
You've done everything that you can to ellicit muscle growth in that muscle.
4.) Rest. Studies have shown that when training to failure, the entire body can be trained
several times during the week. The study Project Total Conditioning had test subjects
train their entire body three times a week. There seems to be differing ideas on how
often is appropriate but I also think that depends on how many high-intensity techniques
are used as well. If you go in and train to failure, you've reached a certain inroad and will
probably be recoved in 2 to 4 days. On the other hand, if you do forced repetitions and
negative-accentuated training, one could argue that recovery would take much longer
because you've made larger inroads into the muscles that you trained by using higher-intensity techniques.
My suggestion: start off with training your entire body three times a week and when
results start to diminish, reduce your training to twice a week.
Instead of uncritically accepting each and everything that you read in the health/muscle magazines, stop for a second and think about the logic behind it. Is there solid reasoning behind what they're advocating or scientific research? Just because it is printed on paper does not make it true. Does it seem sound and logical? If not, don't do it! There are many charlatans and snake oil salesmen out there. Question what they say and demand logical answers.
Wow. I've come to accept over the years that magazines like Flex, Muscle and Fitness, Muscular Developement, etc., are merely supplement catalogs posing as informative magazines. When I was younger, I enjoyed these magazines but then after severa years, I noticed something: I was spending much of my hard earned money on supplements that were highly recommended in the muscle mags, yet none of them seemed to do what they claimed to. I spent literally, thousands of dollars on supplements before I came to the conclusion that virtually the entire industry is a scam and built on lies. I also worked in a national health food store as well for nearly five years (at different locations) and saw young and naive weight lifters come into the store and spend most of their paychecks on protein powders and weight gain drinks. They would usually do this for a month or two and then suddenly disappear from the store never to be seen again. My theory was that they soon discovered that all of the supplements that they were spending their money on was absolutely worthless. They discovered that the the secret to building large muscles doesn't lie in the tub of protein powder that they just purchased.
Like I said, after several years I realized that the muslce mags were just cleverly marketed supplement magazines so I realized that I should abandon them in hopes of getting real, scientific information. Occasionally there would be some bright spots: sometimes Flex and Muscle and Fitness would publish articles by Mike Mentzer and IronMan magazine had a long-running column by Arthur Jones entitled My First Half-Century in the Iron Game. But aside from those few and frequent articles, most of the information in the muscle magazines were either focused on pushing supplement or giving ridiculous training information. You can only publish so many "Pec Pounding" and "Quad Killing" articles and the mags quickly realized that they needed to constantly change up the information in their articles, lest they have fewer subscribers. So they consistently crank out new training routines that the pros supposedly do. I'm not sure about you, but I could care less about what a genetically gifted, drug abuser does to get his biceps bigger. Whatever it is, it probably isn't going to work for me. I think this sort of attitude is what has made people move away from the muscle magazines and instead flock towards magazines like Men's Health and Men's Fitness.
The only people that still appear to purchase the mucle mags are teenagers who seek to attain the 300 lb. bloated look that these bodybuilders display. Well, teenagers and the extremely small minority of competitive amateur bodybuilders.
In walks Men's Health and Men's Fitness (and any other magazine of a similar nature). Just as women's figure competitions were borne out of the repulsion and backlash of to women's bodybuilding, so was the current crop of Men's Magazine was born out of disgust for the muscle mags.
You'll find most men's "health" magazines (a term I'll use to describe any non-muscle mag) have several informative articles that deal with nutrition, fashion, travel, and of course exercise. Your average guy is far more apt to be drawn to a magazine like this than one of the muscle mags. Even to your average housewife, they understand that anyone in a muscle magazine is taking growth drugs. When they see 15 year-old Jimmy pick up an issue of Flex and show interest, I'm sure there's a bit of concern.
I'll agree that a men's "health" magazine is far less harmful than any of the muscle mags, but don't make the mistake of thinking that all of their information is accurate. The men's "health" magazines have been around long enough that they're fishing for articles of anything that would be of interest to the general public. They're also searching for any possible angle when it comes to weight training and exercise. Just like with the muscle magazines, they're having to rehash and conjure up exercise ideas just to fill the space in the magazine. This is displayed quite prominently in their articles and e-mail posts.
Just a couple of snippets from what I read just today from their online daily articles:
1. According to an expert, it's dangerous to do leg extensions. His argument is that the added torque on the momvement makes it dangerous. True, there is a large amount of torque placed on the knee towards the beginning of the movement but this is not a cause of concern for anyone that has a healthy knee. If you have knee injuries, there may be reason to perhaps avoid this exercise but to proclaim in a blanket statement that the leg extension is a dangerous movement is utterly ridiculous. How do you hope to develop your quadricep to its fullest potential without directly training it?
Let's take a different example. Let's say that you want to make sure that your biceps are as fully developed as possible. Would you then relegate yourself to only doing pulldowns and rows? I doubt it. Even though these exercises certainly stimulate growth in the biceps muscle, they do not offer the level of development given by a isolation movement such as the bicep curl. If you want to truly develop a muscle to its highest capacity you have to isolate the muscle and train it in a high-intensity fashion...without aid from other muscle groups. The same goes for any other muscle group, including the quads. Without doing leg extensions, you're ignoring the utlimate development that can be achieved in that muscle.
And lastly, just because a guy has huge legs and doesn't not perform leg extensions or any other form of isolation exercise does not mean that he woudln't benefit from adding such an exercise. Even though his development may already be high, it would assuredly be even higher would he isolate the muscle and train it through a full-range of motion. Genetics play a large role as well. An individual may be able to do nothing but squats his whole life and, because of genetics, may display phenomenal development. That doesn't mean that all other leg exercises are rendered irrelevant because Mr. Genetics doesn't do them.
2. A noted author, in response to super-slow training says that the best way to perform a repetition is to perform the positive part of the rep as fast as possible (i.e., explosively) and then lower the weight under control. I first must say that I'm not a proponent of Super-Slow training. I've seen no evidence that lifting and lowering weights on a 10 seconds up/10 seconds down scheme is any safer or productive than 2 sec. up/3 sec. down scheme. The concept, that some seem to be missing, is that you should seek to remove momentum from the movement. No explosions. No jerking the weights around. No explosive change in directions. Simply raise the weight, without using momentum, and slowly lower the weight - under control. What I do may seem very slow to your average trainee but the Super-Slow protocol is much slower. They preach a 10 second positive and then a 10 second negative. Is this safer than what you normally see in gyms? In my opinion, yes. Is it any more beneficial or safe than controlling the weight without using momentum? Science hasn't shown that to be the case. I hate to put a number on the rep cadence but it's suffice to say this: raise and lower the weight with completely control and at no point in time use momentum. When you change directions, make sure it's a solid, fluid motion and not a jerking-quick change of direction. That is the safe way to train and to also to fully stimulate the muscles.
Back to the point: the author instead pulls the complete opposite stance and says that the positive portion of the repetition should be done as quickly (i.e., as explosively) as possible. He then goes on to say that the lowering phase should be done under control. He doesn't give any reasons for performing the movement explosively or as quick as possible. It's just another "Hey, I'm a trainer. I'm right." type of attitudes. Follow his advice and you'll get what you deserve: hurt.
I realize that the state of exercise has degenerated into a heap of "everything out there works, so just do it all and you'll succeed." See what this means? Do you see the ramifications? How do you think medicine would work if doctors thought along those same lines? How do you think science would progress if every theory was equally valid and that everything had truth to it? That's what we're faced with in exercise. Some high-intensity principles have, through some weird osmotic way, found their way into the modern training grimoire of personal trainers while much of it has been thrown to the wayside. In favor of what? In favor of bosu balance balls and group training. In favor of explosive movements with bands that supposedly increase one's athletic ability. So instead of someone saying, "That's ridiculous and won't work," now we hear, "Yea, that's part of our exercise program," along with a million other theories and ideas all mashed into a bastardized training philosophy.
That is essentially what you'll find in any men's "health" magazine and muscle mag. They need fodder to print so any concept, any training method, any gimmick, is quickly put to print and supported...well, because that's the nature of the exercise industry.
Answers to many of the questions people had about exercise were answered several decades ago by Arthur Jones. He spent millions upon millions of dollars on research in the field and has given us - still to this day - the most informative studies ever done on the subject of exercise and injury rehabilitation. His conclusions were simple: train hard and train briefly. You can either train hard or you can train long but you cannot do both. Train a muscle through a full-range of motion and give it resistance throughout the entire repetition.
Too many people wander into the gym without any clear objective. They don't actually have a concrete goal in mind. At most it's a vague idea of what they want to achieve but they don't know how to achive it. Like many others before me, I believe that productive exercise shouldn't be fun. That may turn a lot of people off but it's the simple truth. If you want optimal results, you're going to have to train hard and experience discomfort. The magazines don't tell you this. They will lead you to do a set, quickly and explosively, and stop short of failure and to then take a 2 minute break. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat, ad nauseum.
Train explosively? Why? Where is the research showing that's safe and/or productive? No answer.
Take a 2 minute break in between sets? Why? Where is the reserach showing that will build larger and stronger muscles? No answer.
Do 7 sets? Why? Where is the research showing that doing multiple sets is any more productive than doing a single set to failure? No answer.
The answer lies partly in the laziness of the ENTIRE exercise community. I've seen countless numbers of people who've devoted much of their spare time (if not lives!) to the subject of exercise and I've yet to really find anyone who seems to really be all that interested in the subject. Yet these are the people guiding you down the path. Picking up Flex magazine does not make one a personal trainer yet that's exactly what we have in our gyms. Having a conversation with most exercise devotees quickly degenerates into irrational concepts, baseless theories, and just plain stupidity. Most devotees seem completely oblivious to the subject of genetics and thus it doesn't figure into their training. They assume that since Mr. Olympia was able to achieve his current size then they most certainly should be able to get that big too...it just takes time...right?
My personal advice? Put down all of your magazines and don't listen to their propaganda. Everything doesn't work. You're not going build a physique like Steve Reeves or Frank Zane by doing 15 sets of pushups. Embracing the concept of "everything works to a certain degree" is tantamount to saying, "I really don't know what to do. I don't understand the subject which I'm studying so if I try a little bit of everything then something is bound to work." that's what you're doing when you accept that concept.
Start with this:
1.) Keep a training journal. The goal is to increase your strength as often as possible and a
journal is critical to achieving this goal. If you knew that you were no stronger this year
than last year do you think you would change your training? You betcha, so start with
a training journal so that you monitor and record your results. If you're getting stronger
then your're doing something right. If you're getting weaker, well...time to re-evalute
things.
2.) Perform your repititions under control and remove all momentum. There is no
reason to perform repetitions explosively or in a ballistic fashion. When changing
directions during the rep, do it slowly and under control. Additionally, training this
way will ensure that each and every one of your repetitions are similar. This is
invaluable if you count your repetitions because when every rep is the same, you have a
true measure of improvement. If you've done two more repetitions on a particular
exercise and you know that you've done them in a similar fashion, then you know that
you have gotten stronger. On the other hand, if you perform your reps like most people,
you will cheat a little bit here and there, use some momentum when it gets hard, and if
you do manage to do another repetition, then how do you truly know if you've improved
because the reps were not done in a similar fashion.
3.) Train to failure. Many people shy away from this because it is hard work and some feel
that they will injure themselves. It is indeed hard work but it is also the most rewarding. Training
this way will ensure that you've done everything possible to stimulate muscle growth
(becaues you can't train any harder than 100%, thus you've done everything possible
to stimulate growth) so just keep in mind that while this may be uncomfortable, the results
that you get will be the maximum possible. Also, if done under control and without
momentum, you will not hurt yourself. Injuries come from g-forces and rapid
movements, not from training to failure.
What is failure? Simply put: it's when you cannot, under your own volition, do another
full repetition. If you're doing squats and you cannot get another full
repetition, then you've reached momentary muscular failure. Most people stop way too
short of this range and give up right as it gets uncomfortable. When you get to the point
where you think you cannot do any more I can almost bet you that you have another
couple of repetitions in you. I find that most people hold back because they're so
conditioned to doing multiple sets that they know that they cannot train to failure on every
set because that would stop them from doing multiple sets. Once you've trained a muscle
to failure, you're not going to be in the mood to do a second set.
There are other high-intensity techniques such as negative-only training or forced reps.
Simply training to failure is a good way to start. Every once in a while, throw in some
forced reps and negatives but there is no need to pull out every trick in the book on every
workout. Do a single set until you cannot perform another full repetition and stop there.
You've done everything that you can to ellicit muscle growth in that muscle.
4.) Rest. Studies have shown that when training to failure, the entire body can be trained
several times during the week. The study Project Total Conditioning had test subjects
train their entire body three times a week. There seems to be differing ideas on how
often is appropriate but I also think that depends on how many high-intensity techniques
are used as well. If you go in and train to failure, you've reached a certain inroad and will
probably be recoved in 2 to 4 days. On the other hand, if you do forced repetitions and
negative-accentuated training, one could argue that recovery would take much longer
because you've made larger inroads into the muscles that you trained by using higher-intensity techniques.
My suggestion: start off with training your entire body three times a week and when
results start to diminish, reduce your training to twice a week.
Instead of uncritically accepting each and everything that you read in the health/muscle magazines, stop for a second and think about the logic behind it. Is there solid reasoning behind what they're advocating or scientific research? Just because it is printed on paper does not make it true. Does it seem sound and logical? If not, don't do it! There are many charlatans and snake oil salesmen out there. Question what they say and demand logical answers.
Friday, October 16, 2009
When Will They Ever Learn?
I'm a fitness junkie. Any articles related to fitness usually catch my attention and I try to read anything and everything out there. This morning I stumbled upon the latest from the powerlifting community:
http://elitefts.com/documents/failure_fixation.htm
The article is hosted on www.elitefts.com which caters primarily to the powerlifting community. Being an ex-powerlifter myself, I tend to scour the site lately not for any pearls of wisom but just to see what the latest training methods are.
The article starts of with:
"Did Arthur Jones have it right when he essentially devoted his life to convincing people they needed to train to failure? Or was the Nautilus inventor and High Intensity Training (HIT) pioneer just an angry, dissenting crank whose primary goal in life was to upset the order and sell more products? Time will tell, and maybe it already has."
Hmmm. Where do I start? I'll say that Arthur is probably best known for his introduction of Nautilus machines. Just as important, Arthur's contributions to exercise science have been immeasurable. Arthur didn't merely spend his entire life convincing people that they needed to train to failure. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until he was in his late thirites or early forties (from what I recall) that he completely developed his theory of high-intensity training. Prior to this, he spent many years trading in animals, traveling to many different countries and making films. To say that he spent his entire lifely merely convincing people about high intensity training is not accurate and a disservice to the man.
My answer to the quote above: look no further than Project Total Conditioning. This study was conducted at West Point academy in the mid 1970's and showed - quite conclusively - that single set, high-intensity training, one exercise after another, is extremely effective at increasing strength, muscle size, flexibility, and cardiovascular fitness.
Was the study rigged? The research was funded by Arthur Jones but was overseen by the United States Military and also employees of Kenneth Cooper, who at the time, was convinced that weight training was utterly useless. Where was Jones? He was no where in site for he had no intentions of being involved or influencing the study in any way. The current orthodoxy would've loved to have said that Jones fudged the numbers but that was quite literally impossible: there were too many objective, independent people involved. The results speak for themselves.
Or how about the studies that have been conducted recently (if you want the research, please feel free to e-mail me and I will send the studies to you) showing that a single set is just as effective as three sets? More and more research has come out showing that what your average trainee is doing is either dead wrong or simply inefficient.
To ignore this staggering research is to literally bury your head in the sand which, to no surprise, the fitness orthodoxy has been doing for well over forty years. One has to understand that the exercise industry is propped up by the sales of their magazines and supplements. I flipped through Flex and Muscular Development lately and they were comprised of at least 50% advertisements. Ads for what you may ask? Supplements. Virtually worthless, sometimes harmful, supplements.
Why have we been duped into thinking that we have to eat every three hours and that we have to have a high-biological value protein in every meal? The answer is clear - the magazines preach this idiocy and everyone listens to them. I mean, come on, Mr. Olympia takes these supplements so he has to know what he's doing, right? I would hope everyone reading this knows the answer to that question already.
These are also the same people who regurgitate "new" training routines every month. I long gave up on "muscle magazines" a long time ago as they tend to hurt much more than help. Every single month there is a new biceps-blasting, pec-pounding routine "guaranteed to give you unparalleled growth." Oh really?
It's the same old trash. Pick 5 exercises, have the person perform a random number of sets...let's say 5 and then prescribe a 100 gram, high-quality whey/casein protein powder with 10 branch chain amino acid capsules right after the workout.
Some things never change.
Back to the article above - you have to ask yourself you who you're dealing with. The powerlifting community has, to my surprise, sort of lept out of the shadows and appears to be the hot new thing. Many gyms nowadays have incorporated resistance bands, box squats, board bench presses, and many other things that you could say came out of the powerlifting community.
Just as in bodybuilding, the powerlifting community is rampant with drug use. How is one to be objective about effective strength training when you're chemically altering your testoterone levels 10 fold? You can take an average man and alter his testosterone levels in a similar fashion - without ANY weight training - and he will gain some amount of muscle and srength. Throw in the religious fervor that these people have for supplements and changing workout routines weekly, you have to ask yourself, "How you can you figure out what does and doesn't work when you have all of these ever changing variables?"
In the field of exercise, in order to gauge your results, you have to approach everything like a scientist; because that is really what you're doing. You're acting as a scientist in a study on yourself. You need to record your weights, repetitions, length of your workouts, etc. This is rarely ever done by anyone in the field of bodybuilding or powerlifting. How do I know? I've been doing involved in both groups for over fifteen years.
Let's say someone does record their repetitions. Are they making sure that each and every repetition is done in the same cadence? Not a chance.
Most trainees consider a full repetition and also a half repetition as one in the same. Are they performing the repetitions at a steady cadence? No way.
Do they record their total time training? Nope. As most people do multiple sets, do any of them ever record their rest periods in between sets? Nope. Is it any wonder that many scientists and doctors think the average weight lifter is an idiot? It should come as no surprise.
I will say that training to failure is something that is not often done in the powerfliting arena. See, what happens in powerlifting is that an unusually heavy weight is lifted for, generally, 2 to 5 repetitions. Being that the weights are generally so heavy, reaching a point where particular muscles have truly reached a state of failure is pretty rare. You think I'm wrong? If you can do multiple sets of bench presses for thirty minutes or more....well, let's just say that you're not training very hard. You may perceive that you are training hard but your perception of the situation does not affect reality.
Then you have the machismo factor. Many in bodybuilding and powerlifting take offense if you even dare to claim that they don't work hard enough. They'll say, "Hey! I'm in the gym six days a week and I'm in there for two hours at a time!" 'Nuff said. If you're training that much and that long, then the argument is over because you can do one of two things but you can't do them both: you can either train hard or you can train long but you can't do them both. They're mutually exclusive.
Ironically, even though many powerlifters and bodybuilders stake their claim on being tough and indestructable not very many can make it through a truly hard training session. The few that do don't normally come back. Ask Arnold Schwarzenegger.
If you've never experienced the type of training that Arthur Jones advocated and developed, then you simply have no point of reference.
Do you have to be motivated? Of course! Pushing yourself to failure is a painful process but a wise trainee will know that by doing such he or she will get the maximal benefits possible. Instead of approaching strength training in this mystical "I hope it happens" approach that so many people do, it's refreshing to know that if you go in and truly push yourself to your limits and then rest, that you'll get all the results that you're capable of producing.
Sadly, I don't think the world of powerlifting will ever pull itself out of the fog that it finds itself in and some of it is due to ignorance and the rest is due to marketing. People have demonized Arthur Jones because he created Nautilus machines and then sold them but the same people that demonize him have sold their own products but, I would argue, have done it in the most deceitful way possible. The difference is that Arthurs machines were true to his word and actually worked but the junk these other people sell are a complete sham. HMB pills? Weight gain powders? Dessicated liver tablets? Glutamine? Protein powders? After several years, you'll soon realize that the health/supplement industry has just played a big joke on you.
Arthur had volumes of information regarding his Nautilus machines (and MedX) and stating explicitly why they were better and why it was best to train his way. There was no deception or sleight-of-hand in what he did. If you're curious about his ideas, feel free to search his name in Google and then choose from hundreds of different articles that he penned. There certainly was no, "Just trust me. It works," coming from his mouth. His methodology was the exact OPPOSITE of what the experts do nowadays. They beg you to trust them. They try convince you that they're right. They tell you that they've trained Mr. Olympia or Ms. Fitness and that makes them an expert. Or - my favorite - they'll reference some russian manual from 1960 that you'll never see or read so you have to merely believe in them.
Anyone who questions Arthur's motivation should simply look at the work that he's done. I don't see a single one of these experts doing anything - anything at all - to advance the field of exercise science. Make no mistake, there is a science of exercise. There are fundamental facts that are not subject to change. What has Joe Weider done? What has Robert Kennedy done? Steve Blechman? These are all the same people that directly, or indirectly, have attempted to make a mockery of Arthur Jones yet what have they contributed to the subject? I'll tell you what: they've given us decades worth of monthly catalogs full of worthless drivel and garbage.
The powerlifting community should be celebrating right now because this is their moment in the sun. The exercise industry, being intellectually bankrupt, has sought some new trendy movement and powerlifting has fallen into the "golden child" status. We now see explosive movements, elastic bands, box squats, and strong-man movements being performed now more than ever. Not coincidentally, injuries are up as well. Am I making a blanket statement? I sure am and I'll tell you why. Training "explosively" and doing speed repetitions is a recipe for injury. This is basic physics here. Throwing weights around creates tremendous impact forces on the body and you can very easily turn 100 lbs. on a barbell into 300, 400, or 500 lbs. of force. The next time you get hurt - and you will if you follow conventional training - ask yourself what you were doing and how you were doing it. Don't say you weren't warned.
Focusing on doing single repetition maximums is, in itself, a dangerous activity. The powerlifting community is rampant with injuries. A great many articles deal with how to cope with injuries and how to avoid them. The only other sport that I see that spends as much time dealing with injuries is running. You can't pick up a running magazine without seeing page after page dealing with injury prevention, injury rehab, best shoes so that you don't get hurt, etc. When you're doing something that invites injury in the way that powerlifting does, don't be upset if you're crippled by the time your forty.
During my several-year stint in powerlifting, I was injured quite often. I had numerous lower-back injuries (the most tramatic of which I obtained while lifting at West Side Barbell doing explosive rack pulls), bicep injuries, and shoulder injuries. I'm sure this won't come as a shock to anyone who is involved in bodybuilding or powerlifting, but I had a shoulder injury that was so severe I sought medical help from a chiropractor (in hind sight, bad idea) and a massage therapist. I've even had x-rays taken of my lower back shortly after an injury. I know what it's like to be hurt.
Tired of being hurt? Then do something about it. Lift weights without momentum. Are you in the gym to throw weights around or are you in the gym to use your muscles through a full range of motion? Take the g-forces out. Take the momentum out and you'll see your injuries evaporate.
Will you be forced to use less weight? Of course. That's what happens when you remove momentum and actually use your muscles to move the weight. Anyone can take a barbell and load it up with weight and do rep after rep of cheat curls but think about what you're doing for a minute. You're now training explosively and throwing the weight around which means your asking for an injury and, just as important, you're not placing all of the stress on the biceps. You've degenerated the exercise into a massive convulsion so that you can move the weight from A to B. It's not just about "moving" the weight; it's about using the muscles in question. Anyone can load a barbell up with a lot of weight and do bench presses so that the weight crashes to their chest and then, using the momentum of the bar, heave it back up. If that happens to be you then at some point in time you'll be joining the numerous ranks of the hurt and crippled. Not only that but you've degenerated your bench press into a partial-rep movement and, at very best, you'll only get strong during that range that you train and the portion that gets untrained will fail to increase in strength. That creates a strength and muscle imbalance.
Before you start to place too much emphasis on what the powerlifting community has to say about Arthur Jones and his efforts, step back and look at the source. Who is this information coming from? Scientists? Haha. Hardly. These are guys that are typically genetically gifted and found that whatever they did, to some extent, gave them good results. The end result: they're now experts on the subject. I apparently missed this lesson in school but what taught nowadays is that good genetics = expert. Just because someone is unusually large or strong does not mean that their training got them there or that it's the best way to train. They may have had phenomenal genetics that allowed them to arrive at this point even though they did dangerous things and trained far too much. They may also be taking growth drugs (which is far too often the case).
The best piece of advise that I could give someone, and it still holds true to this day, came from Arthur Jones. He once said something to the effect of, "Go into your local gym and find the biggest and strongest guy that you can find. Ask him what he does to get his results. Next, do the exact opposite of what he said."
The article that I refefenced above does have certain points where it recommend straining to failure but how they define training to failure and everything associated with it is vague. Okay, let's say that you've trained to failure (what exactly is training to failure?). How long should I rest? Should I go ahead and perform 10 more sets, just like all of the experts recommend? Should I ever do isolation movements or is the holy grail contained only in compound movements like the powelifting orthodoxy claims? All you'll get are semi-answers, guesses, and half-truths. They don't know but they claim to. Sadly, no where is high intensity training more removed than in the powerlifting world. Heavy weights performed with random, vague rep ranges and done over and over are what they prescribe. Think about it: if you don't know how to train properly what is better than to recommend a little bit of everything? That's what the exercise industry has degenerated into now. Instead of openly laughing at Arthur Jones, the industry embraces particular concepts that he had but then claims that every other training concept out there is equally valid as well. Can you imagine if we practiced such madness in medicine or physics? I hate to tell you, but all ideas are not equally valid and claiming such does not make it so. What this degenerates into is your average trainee ends up performing a different training style each and every week because they're taught that there is no single best way to train. That equals into saying that virtually everything out there, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous, may somehow be of benefit to you.
Don't say you weren't warned.
http://elitefts.com/documents/failure_fixation.htm
The article is hosted on www.elitefts.com which caters primarily to the powerlifting community. Being an ex-powerlifter myself, I tend to scour the site lately not for any pearls of wisom but just to see what the latest training methods are.
The article starts of with:
"Did Arthur Jones have it right when he essentially devoted his life to convincing people they needed to train to failure? Or was the Nautilus inventor and High Intensity Training (HIT) pioneer just an angry, dissenting crank whose primary goal in life was to upset the order and sell more products? Time will tell, and maybe it already has."
Hmmm. Where do I start? I'll say that Arthur is probably best known for his introduction of Nautilus machines. Just as important, Arthur's contributions to exercise science have been immeasurable. Arthur didn't merely spend his entire life convincing people that they needed to train to failure. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until he was in his late thirites or early forties (from what I recall) that he completely developed his theory of high-intensity training. Prior to this, he spent many years trading in animals, traveling to many different countries and making films. To say that he spent his entire lifely merely convincing people about high intensity training is not accurate and a disservice to the man.
My answer to the quote above: look no further than Project Total Conditioning. This study was conducted at West Point academy in the mid 1970's and showed - quite conclusively - that single set, high-intensity training, one exercise after another, is extremely effective at increasing strength, muscle size, flexibility, and cardiovascular fitness.
Was the study rigged? The research was funded by Arthur Jones but was overseen by the United States Military and also employees of Kenneth Cooper, who at the time, was convinced that weight training was utterly useless. Where was Jones? He was no where in site for he had no intentions of being involved or influencing the study in any way. The current orthodoxy would've loved to have said that Jones fudged the numbers but that was quite literally impossible: there were too many objective, independent people involved. The results speak for themselves.
Or how about the studies that have been conducted recently (if you want the research, please feel free to e-mail me and I will send the studies to you) showing that a single set is just as effective as three sets? More and more research has come out showing that what your average trainee is doing is either dead wrong or simply inefficient.
To ignore this staggering research is to literally bury your head in the sand which, to no surprise, the fitness orthodoxy has been doing for well over forty years. One has to understand that the exercise industry is propped up by the sales of their magazines and supplements. I flipped through Flex and Muscular Development lately and they were comprised of at least 50% advertisements. Ads for what you may ask? Supplements. Virtually worthless, sometimes harmful, supplements.
Why have we been duped into thinking that we have to eat every three hours and that we have to have a high-biological value protein in every meal? The answer is clear - the magazines preach this idiocy and everyone listens to them. I mean, come on, Mr. Olympia takes these supplements so he has to know what he's doing, right? I would hope everyone reading this knows the answer to that question already.
These are also the same people who regurgitate "new" training routines every month. I long gave up on "muscle magazines" a long time ago as they tend to hurt much more than help. Every single month there is a new biceps-blasting, pec-pounding routine "guaranteed to give you unparalleled growth." Oh really?
It's the same old trash. Pick 5 exercises, have the person perform a random number of sets...let's say 5 and then prescribe a 100 gram, high-quality whey/casein protein powder with 10 branch chain amino acid capsules right after the workout.
Some things never change.
Back to the article above - you have to ask yourself you who you're dealing with. The powerlifting community has, to my surprise, sort of lept out of the shadows and appears to be the hot new thing. Many gyms nowadays have incorporated resistance bands, box squats, board bench presses, and many other things that you could say came out of the powerlifting community.
Just as in bodybuilding, the powerlifting community is rampant with drug use. How is one to be objective about effective strength training when you're chemically altering your testoterone levels 10 fold? You can take an average man and alter his testosterone levels in a similar fashion - without ANY weight training - and he will gain some amount of muscle and srength. Throw in the religious fervor that these people have for supplements and changing workout routines weekly, you have to ask yourself, "How you can you figure out what does and doesn't work when you have all of these ever changing variables?"
In the field of exercise, in order to gauge your results, you have to approach everything like a scientist; because that is really what you're doing. You're acting as a scientist in a study on yourself. You need to record your weights, repetitions, length of your workouts, etc. This is rarely ever done by anyone in the field of bodybuilding or powerlifting. How do I know? I've been doing involved in both groups for over fifteen years.
Let's say someone does record their repetitions. Are they making sure that each and every repetition is done in the same cadence? Not a chance.
Most trainees consider a full repetition and also a half repetition as one in the same. Are they performing the repetitions at a steady cadence? No way.
Do they record their total time training? Nope. As most people do multiple sets, do any of them ever record their rest periods in between sets? Nope. Is it any wonder that many scientists and doctors think the average weight lifter is an idiot? It should come as no surprise.
I will say that training to failure is something that is not often done in the powerfliting arena. See, what happens in powerlifting is that an unusually heavy weight is lifted for, generally, 2 to 5 repetitions. Being that the weights are generally so heavy, reaching a point where particular muscles have truly reached a state of failure is pretty rare. You think I'm wrong? If you can do multiple sets of bench presses for thirty minutes or more....well, let's just say that you're not training very hard. You may perceive that you are training hard but your perception of the situation does not affect reality.
Then you have the machismo factor. Many in bodybuilding and powerlifting take offense if you even dare to claim that they don't work hard enough. They'll say, "Hey! I'm in the gym six days a week and I'm in there for two hours at a time!" 'Nuff said. If you're training that much and that long, then the argument is over because you can do one of two things but you can't do them both: you can either train hard or you can train long but you can't do them both. They're mutually exclusive.
Ironically, even though many powerlifters and bodybuilders stake their claim on being tough and indestructable not very many can make it through a truly hard training session. The few that do don't normally come back. Ask Arnold Schwarzenegger.
If you've never experienced the type of training that Arthur Jones advocated and developed, then you simply have no point of reference.
Do you have to be motivated? Of course! Pushing yourself to failure is a painful process but a wise trainee will know that by doing such he or she will get the maximal benefits possible. Instead of approaching strength training in this mystical "I hope it happens" approach that so many people do, it's refreshing to know that if you go in and truly push yourself to your limits and then rest, that you'll get all the results that you're capable of producing.
Sadly, I don't think the world of powerlifting will ever pull itself out of the fog that it finds itself in and some of it is due to ignorance and the rest is due to marketing. People have demonized Arthur Jones because he created Nautilus machines and then sold them but the same people that demonize him have sold their own products but, I would argue, have done it in the most deceitful way possible. The difference is that Arthurs machines were true to his word and actually worked but the junk these other people sell are a complete sham. HMB pills? Weight gain powders? Dessicated liver tablets? Glutamine? Protein powders? After several years, you'll soon realize that the health/supplement industry has just played a big joke on you.
Arthur had volumes of information regarding his Nautilus machines (and MedX) and stating explicitly why they were better and why it was best to train his way. There was no deception or sleight-of-hand in what he did. If you're curious about his ideas, feel free to search his name in Google and then choose from hundreds of different articles that he penned. There certainly was no, "Just trust me. It works," coming from his mouth. His methodology was the exact OPPOSITE of what the experts do nowadays. They beg you to trust them. They try convince you that they're right. They tell you that they've trained Mr. Olympia or Ms. Fitness and that makes them an expert. Or - my favorite - they'll reference some russian manual from 1960 that you'll never see or read so you have to merely believe in them.
Anyone who questions Arthur's motivation should simply look at the work that he's done. I don't see a single one of these experts doing anything - anything at all - to advance the field of exercise science. Make no mistake, there is a science of exercise. There are fundamental facts that are not subject to change. What has Joe Weider done? What has Robert Kennedy done? Steve Blechman? These are all the same people that directly, or indirectly, have attempted to make a mockery of Arthur Jones yet what have they contributed to the subject? I'll tell you what: they've given us decades worth of monthly catalogs full of worthless drivel and garbage.
The powerlifting community should be celebrating right now because this is their moment in the sun. The exercise industry, being intellectually bankrupt, has sought some new trendy movement and powerlifting has fallen into the "golden child" status. We now see explosive movements, elastic bands, box squats, and strong-man movements being performed now more than ever. Not coincidentally, injuries are up as well. Am I making a blanket statement? I sure am and I'll tell you why. Training "explosively" and doing speed repetitions is a recipe for injury. This is basic physics here. Throwing weights around creates tremendous impact forces on the body and you can very easily turn 100 lbs. on a barbell into 300, 400, or 500 lbs. of force. The next time you get hurt - and you will if you follow conventional training - ask yourself what you were doing and how you were doing it. Don't say you weren't warned.
Focusing on doing single repetition maximums is, in itself, a dangerous activity. The powerlifting community is rampant with injuries. A great many articles deal with how to cope with injuries and how to avoid them. The only other sport that I see that spends as much time dealing with injuries is running. You can't pick up a running magazine without seeing page after page dealing with injury prevention, injury rehab, best shoes so that you don't get hurt, etc. When you're doing something that invites injury in the way that powerlifting does, don't be upset if you're crippled by the time your forty.
During my several-year stint in powerlifting, I was injured quite often. I had numerous lower-back injuries (the most tramatic of which I obtained while lifting at West Side Barbell doing explosive rack pulls), bicep injuries, and shoulder injuries. I'm sure this won't come as a shock to anyone who is involved in bodybuilding or powerlifting, but I had a shoulder injury that was so severe I sought medical help from a chiropractor (in hind sight, bad idea) and a massage therapist. I've even had x-rays taken of my lower back shortly after an injury. I know what it's like to be hurt.
Tired of being hurt? Then do something about it. Lift weights without momentum. Are you in the gym to throw weights around or are you in the gym to use your muscles through a full range of motion? Take the g-forces out. Take the momentum out and you'll see your injuries evaporate.
Will you be forced to use less weight? Of course. That's what happens when you remove momentum and actually use your muscles to move the weight. Anyone can take a barbell and load it up with weight and do rep after rep of cheat curls but think about what you're doing for a minute. You're now training explosively and throwing the weight around which means your asking for an injury and, just as important, you're not placing all of the stress on the biceps. You've degenerated the exercise into a massive convulsion so that you can move the weight from A to B. It's not just about "moving" the weight; it's about using the muscles in question. Anyone can load a barbell up with a lot of weight and do bench presses so that the weight crashes to their chest and then, using the momentum of the bar, heave it back up. If that happens to be you then at some point in time you'll be joining the numerous ranks of the hurt and crippled. Not only that but you've degenerated your bench press into a partial-rep movement and, at very best, you'll only get strong during that range that you train and the portion that gets untrained will fail to increase in strength. That creates a strength and muscle imbalance.
Before you start to place too much emphasis on what the powerlifting community has to say about Arthur Jones and his efforts, step back and look at the source. Who is this information coming from? Scientists? Haha. Hardly. These are guys that are typically genetically gifted and found that whatever they did, to some extent, gave them good results. The end result: they're now experts on the subject. I apparently missed this lesson in school but what taught nowadays is that good genetics = expert. Just because someone is unusually large or strong does not mean that their training got them there or that it's the best way to train. They may have had phenomenal genetics that allowed them to arrive at this point even though they did dangerous things and trained far too much. They may also be taking growth drugs (which is far too often the case).
The best piece of advise that I could give someone, and it still holds true to this day, came from Arthur Jones. He once said something to the effect of, "Go into your local gym and find the biggest and strongest guy that you can find. Ask him what he does to get his results. Next, do the exact opposite of what he said."
The article that I refefenced above does have certain points where it recommend straining to failure but how they define training to failure and everything associated with it is vague. Okay, let's say that you've trained to failure (what exactly is training to failure?). How long should I rest? Should I go ahead and perform 10 more sets, just like all of the experts recommend? Should I ever do isolation movements or is the holy grail contained only in compound movements like the powelifting orthodoxy claims? All you'll get are semi-answers, guesses, and half-truths. They don't know but they claim to. Sadly, no where is high intensity training more removed than in the powerlifting world. Heavy weights performed with random, vague rep ranges and done over and over are what they prescribe. Think about it: if you don't know how to train properly what is better than to recommend a little bit of everything? That's what the exercise industry has degenerated into now. Instead of openly laughing at Arthur Jones, the industry embraces particular concepts that he had but then claims that every other training concept out there is equally valid as well. Can you imagine if we practiced such madness in medicine or physics? I hate to tell you, but all ideas are not equally valid and claiming such does not make it so. What this degenerates into is your average trainee ends up performing a different training style each and every week because they're taught that there is no single best way to train. That equals into saying that virtually everything out there, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous, may somehow be of benefit to you.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Enjoyable Vs. Hard
Should exercise be fun and enjoyable or should it be downright hard work? The old adage of "no pain, no gain," comes to mind. This question - I believe - has a very simple answer but there are also other issues that have to be factored in as well.
The short answer to the aforementioned question is that yes, exercise should be hard. It should be difficult. It should be challenging. Why do I say this and what evidence to I have to backup these claims?
First of all, you have to ask yourself: what am I trying to achieve with this exercise program? Am I trying to lose bodyfat? Am I trying to gain muscle and strength? Am I trying to improve cardiovascular performance?
If you take any of the above scenarios, a properly applied high-intensity exercise routine will give you the best results. Want to reduce bodyfat? The best way to do it is to control your caloric intake AND increase your muscle mass. How do you increase your muscle mass? Through a properly applied strength training program.
You want to gain muscle and strength? Same answer: a properly applied strength training program.
Want to increase your cardiovascular performance and endurance? Use a high-intensity strength training program done in circuit-style fashion. Don't think that you can get a good "cardio" workout from weights? If that's the case, then you've never tried performing ten or twelve exercises - all to momentary muscular failure - immediately after another, until you're finished. After a single 20 minute circuit, you'll be physically exhausted and have maintained a very high heart rate (my guess is that the average trainee would be between 80 and 90% HR Max during most of the training). Congratulations: you've just given your body one of the most efficient aerobic workouts possible. Oh, and you're building muscle and strength as well. Not a bad bang for your buck, right?
Remember: you don't have to fall into the trap of thinking that you have to do long, drawn-out exercise in order to build your cardiovascular system. For a very long time science has shown that is simply not the case. Enter high-intensity cardiovascular exercise.
Years ago, Dr. Tabata, published several studies (forgive me for not giving references but you can easliy find the research through Google) showing that very brief, very high intensity cardiovascular exercise produced superior results compared to the traditional steady state exercise that is typically prescribed by exercise experts. To summarize the results: collegiate rowers, who had already acheived a high level of fitness were instructed to ride a stationary bike for approximately 20 seconds at a high-intensity, all-out pace. After this 20 second period, they would then rest for 10 seconds. This process constituted one repetition. They completed eight of these repititions. I believe that they followed this routine three times a week for several weeks. The results: they had far better cardiovascular improvements than the steady state cardiovascular group. In essence, only an hour's worth of high intensity training yielded superior results as compared to the hours and hours of steady state exercise that the other group engaged in.
The fact that very high-intensity cardiovascular exercise could yield such good results -results superior to traditional cardio training - shocked many people out of their slumber. Even though I believe the research was done nearly ten years ago (with more recent studies showing similar results), other research, conducted in the early 70's came to that same conclusion and were largely ignored by the exercise community. These studes were known as "Project Total Conditioning" and they were conducted at the famous West Point academy with West Point football players. To make a long story short: the study clearly showed that an exercise program built around proper equipment, proper form, at a fast pace, and done brutally hard can produce phenomenal strength and muscle gains but it can also produce equally impressive cardiovascular improvements as well.
Based upon my observations, I see a many parallels in the Tabata training protocols and the research done by Arthur Jones back in the 70's and 80's. Jones hit the nail on the head with his training and, although his research was all but ignored by the academics, successfully showed that impressive cardiovascular benefits can be achived strictly by doing weight training.
This brings me back to my original topic of "Enjoyable Vs. Hard." Research dating back nearly forty years ago, has shown that to get optimal results (whether it's muscle/strength or cardiovascular improvement) one must train hard. There's no way around it. If it's pleasant, then you're not optimizing the benefits that you could be achieving. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that and feel that the cliche of "no pain, no gain" should be placed in the history books but research consistently shows that the harder you push yourself, the greater the benefits.
The only trouble is most people are not willing to push themselves very hard. I've been involved in the fitness/exercise industry for sixteen years and most people are just not willing to exert themselves to the levels needed to see optimal benefits. Getting someone to push themselves hard can sometimes be virutally impossible to do. This is especially difficult to do with people that just want to "tone-up" or just drop a few pounds. The way that I try to explain it to people is simply: "The harder you work, the better your results will be. If you hold back and don't physically push yourself to 100% then you're compromising your results. The choice is yours."
Think about it, you're already in the gym. You can either make yourself a little miserable for an hour and get mediocre results (if any) or cut your time in half and make yourself miserable and leave knowing that you've put forth 100% of an effort to build muscle/strength/conditioning possible. I don't know about you, but the discomfort that I feel after a workout is worth it knowing that I've done everything within my power to accomplish my goals. Anything less is a compromise.
Some may argue and say, "Well, true. We know that high-intensity training yields excellent results but it's hard to find the motivation to train in such a fashion. " That's fine but it doesn't change the facts of the matter: to get optimal results, one must train brutally hard. It's kind of like saying, "Well in order to score well on a test I know that I must study the material for eight hours. I can't really find the motivation to study that long. I'm only willing to study for two hours." What do you think will happen? Of course, you'll get compromised results. You may still get some type of results, but they won't be optimal results. For some people that may be enough but you're leaving untapped potential.
Think about that next time you're in the gym.
The short answer to the aforementioned question is that yes, exercise should be hard. It should be difficult. It should be challenging. Why do I say this and what evidence to I have to backup these claims?
First of all, you have to ask yourself: what am I trying to achieve with this exercise program? Am I trying to lose bodyfat? Am I trying to gain muscle and strength? Am I trying to improve cardiovascular performance?
If you take any of the above scenarios, a properly applied high-intensity exercise routine will give you the best results. Want to reduce bodyfat? The best way to do it is to control your caloric intake AND increase your muscle mass. How do you increase your muscle mass? Through a properly applied strength training program.
You want to gain muscle and strength? Same answer: a properly applied strength training program.
Want to increase your cardiovascular performance and endurance? Use a high-intensity strength training program done in circuit-style fashion. Don't think that you can get a good "cardio" workout from weights? If that's the case, then you've never tried performing ten or twelve exercises - all to momentary muscular failure - immediately after another, until you're finished. After a single 20 minute circuit, you'll be physically exhausted and have maintained a very high heart rate (my guess is that the average trainee would be between 80 and 90% HR Max during most of the training). Congratulations: you've just given your body one of the most efficient aerobic workouts possible. Oh, and you're building muscle and strength as well. Not a bad bang for your buck, right?
Remember: you don't have to fall into the trap of thinking that you have to do long, drawn-out exercise in order to build your cardiovascular system. For a very long time science has shown that is simply not the case. Enter high-intensity cardiovascular exercise.
Years ago, Dr. Tabata, published several studies (forgive me for not giving references but you can easliy find the research through Google) showing that very brief, very high intensity cardiovascular exercise produced superior results compared to the traditional steady state exercise that is typically prescribed by exercise experts. To summarize the results: collegiate rowers, who had already acheived a high level of fitness were instructed to ride a stationary bike for approximately 20 seconds at a high-intensity, all-out pace. After this 20 second period, they would then rest for 10 seconds. This process constituted one repetition. They completed eight of these repititions. I believe that they followed this routine three times a week for several weeks. The results: they had far better cardiovascular improvements than the steady state cardiovascular group. In essence, only an hour's worth of high intensity training yielded superior results as compared to the hours and hours of steady state exercise that the other group engaged in.
The fact that very high-intensity cardiovascular exercise could yield such good results -results superior to traditional cardio training - shocked many people out of their slumber. Even though I believe the research was done nearly ten years ago (with more recent studies showing similar results), other research, conducted in the early 70's came to that same conclusion and were largely ignored by the exercise community. These studes were known as "Project Total Conditioning" and they were conducted at the famous West Point academy with West Point football players. To make a long story short: the study clearly showed that an exercise program built around proper equipment, proper form, at a fast pace, and done brutally hard can produce phenomenal strength and muscle gains but it can also produce equally impressive cardiovascular improvements as well.
Based upon my observations, I see a many parallels in the Tabata training protocols and the research done by Arthur Jones back in the 70's and 80's. Jones hit the nail on the head with his training and, although his research was all but ignored by the academics, successfully showed that impressive cardiovascular benefits can be achived strictly by doing weight training.
This brings me back to my original topic of "Enjoyable Vs. Hard." Research dating back nearly forty years ago, has shown that to get optimal results (whether it's muscle/strength or cardiovascular improvement) one must train hard. There's no way around it. If it's pleasant, then you're not optimizing the benefits that you could be achieving. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that and feel that the cliche of "no pain, no gain" should be placed in the history books but research consistently shows that the harder you push yourself, the greater the benefits.
The only trouble is most people are not willing to push themselves very hard. I've been involved in the fitness/exercise industry for sixteen years and most people are just not willing to exert themselves to the levels needed to see optimal benefits. Getting someone to push themselves hard can sometimes be virutally impossible to do. This is especially difficult to do with people that just want to "tone-up" or just drop a few pounds. The way that I try to explain it to people is simply: "The harder you work, the better your results will be. If you hold back and don't physically push yourself to 100% then you're compromising your results. The choice is yours."
Think about it, you're already in the gym. You can either make yourself a little miserable for an hour and get mediocre results (if any) or cut your time in half and make yourself miserable and leave knowing that you've put forth 100% of an effort to build muscle/strength/conditioning possible. I don't know about you, but the discomfort that I feel after a workout is worth it knowing that I've done everything within my power to accomplish my goals. Anything less is a compromise.
Some may argue and say, "Well, true. We know that high-intensity training yields excellent results but it's hard to find the motivation to train in such a fashion. " That's fine but it doesn't change the facts of the matter: to get optimal results, one must train brutally hard. It's kind of like saying, "Well in order to score well on a test I know that I must study the material for eight hours. I can't really find the motivation to study that long. I'm only willing to study for two hours." What do you think will happen? Of course, you'll get compromised results. You may still get some type of results, but they won't be optimal results. For some people that may be enough but you're leaving untapped potential.
Think about that next time you're in the gym.
Friday, August 7, 2009
In Defense of...
If you go into any gym nowadays, you'll be inundated with thousands of different ways to train, numerous peripherals to use to aid your training, hundreds of different diet plans, etc. One doesn't need to be a logician to realize that not all of these concepts can be equally valid. Something either works or it doesn't. It's as simple as that.
Let's briefly tackle nutrition: you have high-protein and low-fat, high-carbohydrate and low-protein, carb-cycling, high-protein/high-fat, etc. The list is almost endless. To make matters worse, there is a constant flood of new diet books on the market. Apparently our attention spans must be incredibly short because we gobble up these books like there's no tomorrow. Does it follow that the human body is so incredibly complex and our science is so wrong that every week the human body requires some sort of different eating plan?
Of course not. The human body, while not completely understood in its entirety, and I may add - may never be, is not so infinitely complex that we don't have a firm grasp on nutrition. It's just a question of who you listen to. I ask: do you you listen to the gym guru who is more than willing to sell you his/her meal plan for a month, a muscle magazine who is, in fact, owned by a supplement company, or do you listen to the latest research that comes out of laboratories conducted by scientists? I know what my answer is. What is yours?
One has to understand with all things physical comes a large genetic component. Every human being has certain genetic components that allow them to do things easier than other people. For instance, one individual may have the genetic predisposition to gain muscle at an easier rate than someone else. Additionally, it appears that there are a very, very small amount of people that may have a gene that allows for unusual muscle expression, i.e., abnormaly high amount of muscle and muscle growth.
Where am I going with this, you ask? Okay, let's take the guy in your gym who is very large. Of course you would ask him advice on how to build strength and size but what if this individual is blessed with phenomenal genetics? Would his advice necessarily work for you? If his arms were truly impressive and he said that he got arms that way by doing 20 sets of bicep curls three times a week, do you you really think that would work equally as well for you? Of course not. Everyone has varying levels of development they can obtain and everyone responds somewhat differently to a training stimulus. Point being: don't seek out the biggest guy in the gym and ask for advice; likely he would've been that size regardless of what kind of regimine he used.
That's not to say that if you have poor genetics you can't make progress. You most certainly can. Can you obtain the physique of a champion bodybuilder? Probably not, but you can damn sure improve upon what you have.
You have to look at things from your own perspective. Don't be dissuaded if you cannot achieve the physique of someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dorian Yates. You're making the mistake of comparing yourself to someone else. All you can do is to compare yourself to YOURSELF.
Have you improved upon your size, strength, or leanness in the last year? Don't concern yourself with what other people are doing or what they have achived. They're not you.
While I'm on this subject something needs to be discussed that rarely surfaces - drug use. Unfortunately, many of they physiques that you see in today's muscle/fitness/health magazines are built with the use of drugs. Comparing yourself to someone in those magazines, frankly, is not a rational nor healthy objective to have. Think it's just the super-shredded bodybuilders that take drugs? Think again. Many females in figure and fitness do (as evidenced by their extreme leaness coupled with unusual amounts of muscle) and many pro athletes do as well. Once again, don't compare yourself to someone who is taking growth drugs. These chemicals allow for a large amount of mistakes to be made that would otherwise derail a normal individual.
The latest science clearly shows that a diet comprised of mainly vegetables, fruits, and nuts is the most beneficial way to eat. Should you cut out all meat? No one knows the answer to that question but science clearly does show that people who consume meat on a regular basis clearly have higher levels of heart disease. The evidence suggess little to no meat in a diet is perhaps the healthiest plan to follow.
What does "a little amount" consist of? Well, I can tell you that it would mean that meat is never your main course. It would essentially be something that is a topping or a something that would add flavor to a dish. Think of meat as a flavoring agent; something to be used sparingly to flavor your main dish.
What about protein, you ask? Simple. Eat grains and beans. Drink skim or soy milk. Eat bread that is fortified with protein (e.g., Ezekiel Bread). The list is endless but obtaining adequate protein is certainly not a problem. If you're ingesting adequate amounts of calories then it's probably safe to say that you're also eating enough protein.
Second question: how do I get 250 grams of protein a day from a diet like this? My answer would be: what evidence is there that the human body needs more than 100 grams of protein a day? None! One may choose to bury their head in the sand and believe what they will, but the belief that taking copious amounts of protein will build muscles has absolutely no basis in science.
What we're talking about is pre-historic illogic here. I'm sure everyone has heard of the ancient warrior who thought that to win battles and develop strength, he had to eat a bull or the meat of some ferocious animal. Well, science has developed quite a bit in the last 3,000 years. But don't tell the muscle magazines that. They discovered long ago in the 1950's that if they sold you a barbell set, then you weren't going to come back as a repeat customer. Your barbells will last a lifetime. The fledgling industry realized that if they sold customers food products then you would come back for more when you consumed all of their product. Hence, the protein industry was born.
If you doubt any of my claims, simply find any scientific nutrition/athletic journal and find studies related to muscle development and protein intake. Several studies have been done and they have all concluded virtually the same thing. An average male who weighs 180 lbs., needs about 60 to 80 grams of protein a day. Sixty grams for the average male and closer to eighty for the hard-training athlete. These amounts are easily obtained through a diet of natural, unprocessed foods. Supplements are not necessary.
What you say? You want to lose weight? Reduce your daily caloric intake. It's as simple as that. You doubt me? If so, then you doubt the immutable law of thermodynamics. It's very simple really - if you want to gain weight then you need to eat in excess of what your body requires to maintain its weight (what kind of weight you gain is directly influenced by your exercise program). If you want to lose weight then you need to have a caloric deficit, i.e., you need to eat fewer calories than what your body requires to maintain its weight. Once again, what kind of weight you lose is influenced by your exercise program or lack thereof. If you engage in anaerobic training, you're likely to maintain or stave off muscle loss. If you engage in aerobic training - or no training at all - then you're likely to lost a substantial amount of muscle alongside any fat that you lose.
Let's briefly tackle nutrition: you have high-protein and low-fat, high-carbohydrate and low-protein, carb-cycling, high-protein/high-fat, etc. The list is almost endless. To make matters worse, there is a constant flood of new diet books on the market. Apparently our attention spans must be incredibly short because we gobble up these books like there's no tomorrow. Does it follow that the human body is so incredibly complex and our science is so wrong that every week the human body requires some sort of different eating plan?
Of course not. The human body, while not completely understood in its entirety, and I may add - may never be, is not so infinitely complex that we don't have a firm grasp on nutrition. It's just a question of who you listen to. I ask: do you you listen to the gym guru who is more than willing to sell you his/her meal plan for a month, a muscle magazine who is, in fact, owned by a supplement company, or do you listen to the latest research that comes out of laboratories conducted by scientists? I know what my answer is. What is yours?
One has to understand with all things physical comes a large genetic component. Every human being has certain genetic components that allow them to do things easier than other people. For instance, one individual may have the genetic predisposition to gain muscle at an easier rate than someone else. Additionally, it appears that there are a very, very small amount of people that may have a gene that allows for unusual muscle expression, i.e., abnormaly high amount of muscle and muscle growth.
Where am I going with this, you ask? Okay, let's take the guy in your gym who is very large. Of course you would ask him advice on how to build strength and size but what if this individual is blessed with phenomenal genetics? Would his advice necessarily work for you? If his arms were truly impressive and he said that he got arms that way by doing 20 sets of bicep curls three times a week, do you you really think that would work equally as well for you? Of course not. Everyone has varying levels of development they can obtain and everyone responds somewhat differently to a training stimulus. Point being: don't seek out the biggest guy in the gym and ask for advice; likely he would've been that size regardless of what kind of regimine he used.
That's not to say that if you have poor genetics you can't make progress. You most certainly can. Can you obtain the physique of a champion bodybuilder? Probably not, but you can damn sure improve upon what you have.
You have to look at things from your own perspective. Don't be dissuaded if you cannot achieve the physique of someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dorian Yates. You're making the mistake of comparing yourself to someone else. All you can do is to compare yourself to YOURSELF.
Have you improved upon your size, strength, or leanness in the last year? Don't concern yourself with what other people are doing or what they have achived. They're not you.
While I'm on this subject something needs to be discussed that rarely surfaces - drug use. Unfortunately, many of they physiques that you see in today's muscle/fitness/health magazines are built with the use of drugs. Comparing yourself to someone in those magazines, frankly, is not a rational nor healthy objective to have. Think it's just the super-shredded bodybuilders that take drugs? Think again. Many females in figure and fitness do (as evidenced by their extreme leaness coupled with unusual amounts of muscle) and many pro athletes do as well. Once again, don't compare yourself to someone who is taking growth drugs. These chemicals allow for a large amount of mistakes to be made that would otherwise derail a normal individual.
The latest science clearly shows that a diet comprised of mainly vegetables, fruits, and nuts is the most beneficial way to eat. Should you cut out all meat? No one knows the answer to that question but science clearly does show that people who consume meat on a regular basis clearly have higher levels of heart disease. The evidence suggess little to no meat in a diet is perhaps the healthiest plan to follow.
What does "a little amount" consist of? Well, I can tell you that it would mean that meat is never your main course. It would essentially be something that is a topping or a something that would add flavor to a dish. Think of meat as a flavoring agent; something to be used sparingly to flavor your main dish.
What about protein, you ask? Simple. Eat grains and beans. Drink skim or soy milk. Eat bread that is fortified with protein (e.g., Ezekiel Bread). The list is endless but obtaining adequate protein is certainly not a problem. If you're ingesting adequate amounts of calories then it's probably safe to say that you're also eating enough protein.
Second question: how do I get 250 grams of protein a day from a diet like this? My answer would be: what evidence is there that the human body needs more than 100 grams of protein a day? None! One may choose to bury their head in the sand and believe what they will, but the belief that taking copious amounts of protein will build muscles has absolutely no basis in science.
What we're talking about is pre-historic illogic here. I'm sure everyone has heard of the ancient warrior who thought that to win battles and develop strength, he had to eat a bull or the meat of some ferocious animal. Well, science has developed quite a bit in the last 3,000 years. But don't tell the muscle magazines that. They discovered long ago in the 1950's that if they sold you a barbell set, then you weren't going to come back as a repeat customer. Your barbells will last a lifetime. The fledgling industry realized that if they sold customers food products then you would come back for more when you consumed all of their product. Hence, the protein industry was born.
If you doubt any of my claims, simply find any scientific nutrition/athletic journal and find studies related to muscle development and protein intake. Several studies have been done and they have all concluded virtually the same thing. An average male who weighs 180 lbs., needs about 60 to 80 grams of protein a day. Sixty grams for the average male and closer to eighty for the hard-training athlete. These amounts are easily obtained through a diet of natural, unprocessed foods. Supplements are not necessary.
What you say? You want to lose weight? Reduce your daily caloric intake. It's as simple as that. You doubt me? If so, then you doubt the immutable law of thermodynamics. It's very simple really - if you want to gain weight then you need to eat in excess of what your body requires to maintain its weight (what kind of weight you gain is directly influenced by your exercise program). If you want to lose weight then you need to have a caloric deficit, i.e., you need to eat fewer calories than what your body requires to maintain its weight. Once again, what kind of weight you lose is influenced by your exercise program or lack thereof. If you engage in anaerobic training, you're likely to maintain or stave off muscle loss. If you engage in aerobic training - or no training at all - then you're likely to lost a substantial amount of muscle alongside any fat that you lose.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Reduced Caloric Diet Increases Life Expectancy
The results of a decade-long study have just been published and they reaffirm what other studies have shown: caloric restriction in mammals increases lifespan and reduces disease. Here is a direct link to the story:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/uow-rdt070609.php
Study after study has shown that the one consistent thing that we can do to thwart diseases and prolong life is to reduce our intake of food. This has proven to be effective in nearly every study done on animals and most scientists now consider this an accepted phenomenon.
It doesn't mean that you should consume merely an apple a day (one's diet must still be healthy and nutritous) but it does mean that we should all rethink about how much food we eat on a daily basis.
As of yet, I don't believe there is any agreement on exactly why caloric restriction works so well. There are theories that by decreasing caloric intake to a low level the body, for lack of better words, turns its thermostat down and this slows down the aging process. Think of a wood fire. What happens when you let it burn at a slow, low rate versus what happens when you pour lighter fluid on it?
Another theory is that an excess amount of calories increases cellular division within the body and also increases not only healthy cell division but also cancerous as well.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/uow-rdt070609.php
Study after study has shown that the one consistent thing that we can do to thwart diseases and prolong life is to reduce our intake of food. This has proven to be effective in nearly every study done on animals and most scientists now consider this an accepted phenomenon.
It doesn't mean that you should consume merely an apple a day (one's diet must still be healthy and nutritous) but it does mean that we should all rethink about how much food we eat on a daily basis.
As of yet, I don't believe there is any agreement on exactly why caloric restriction works so well. There are theories that by decreasing caloric intake to a low level the body, for lack of better words, turns its thermostat down and this slows down the aging process. Think of a wood fire. What happens when you let it burn at a slow, low rate versus what happens when you pour lighter fluid on it?
Another theory is that an excess amount of calories increases cellular division within the body and also increases not only healthy cell division but also cancerous as well.
Obesity: America's #1 Killer; Part II
According to a report in the L.A. Times, a new government report shows that spending on healthcare for obese American adults has increased 82% between 2001 and 2006. *
According to the report, in 2001, healthcare expenditures for obese Americans totaled $167 billion. In 2006, the number totaled $303 billion.
In addition, the report concluded that out of all healthcare costs in 2006, thiry-five percent were attributed to obese Americans. From 2001 to 2006, the number of obese Americans have increased from 48 million to 59 million people.
Most people today agree that healthcare has to change but until we break the irrational political correctness and egalitarianism of our culture and say, "Look, you're killing yourself by how you eat and your lack of activity," then things will never change - they will only get exponentially worse. Numbers have consistently shown an explosion in obesity in Western Culture and there have to be some fundamental changes that have to take place in order to stop it and I think it starts with parenting:
1. Grow up and start parenting. Stop ramming ultra-processed, high-calorie, high-
fat food down your childrens' throats. It's your obligation as the parent to oversee what
your children eat. Do you supervise what your kids watch on TV? Well, maybe it's time
put forth some effort into making sure that your child is eating healthy meals. Study after
study has shown that overweight children have a much high propensity to become over-
weight or obese adults. Your eating habits need to be addressed as well - children
inevitably eat what their parents eat, so if you're eating habits are poor (you know who
you are) then it is likely your children's will be as well.
2. Activity: make sure that your children stay active. This doesn't mean forcing them to
participate in activities that they don't enjoy but it does mean that they shouldn't sit like
zombies in front of a TV or computer all day long either. Going to school and sitting all day
for eight hours and then coming home and playing the XBox for another three hours is not
a prescription for health. Get your kids outside and take a walk with them. Go bike
riding. Play basketball. Get involved in martial arts. The list is endless. It really doesn't
matter what you do just as long as you do it.
3. Take Ownership: if your 5 year-old is overweight take ownership of the problem. He/she
didn't get that way by themselves; it required your money, your food choices, to allow
them to get that way. Hormonal issues (i.e., thyroid problems) affect a very small
percentage of the population. Just take ownership and accept that your child's problem is
your issue to deal with. Your Type-2 diabetes? Yes, that's your problem as well. You can
fix it yourself. Your heart disease? Yep. Caused by yourself.
Once you take responsibility and ownership of the problem, you'll realize that you're not
just a pawn without volition but that you can make choices. You can choose to go outside
and take a walk instead of watching TV. I see far too many people who want to blame their
physical problems on someone else or some other factor. And please don't use the excuse,
"I just don't have enough time in the day to exercise or to make my lunch." If that's the
case, get up 30 minutes earlier in the morning. It's really not that hard to do. Also cut
down on the amount of time that you watch TV and instead use that spare time to get
active. Can't break yourself away from the TV? Go to a gym that has exercise equipment
in front of TVs. Buy a used piece of exercise equipment and use it while in front of your
TV.
Western Society faces a whole host of problems and obesity is at the forefront. Where will we be in another ten years? Will the majority of Americans become overweight and obese? The numbers tend to suggest so. I fear that there will come a time when being overweight and obese will become the norm and will no longer be frowned upon.
According to the report, in 2001, healthcare expenditures for obese Americans totaled $167 billion. In 2006, the number totaled $303 billion.
In addition, the report concluded that out of all healthcare costs in 2006, thiry-five percent were attributed to obese Americans. From 2001 to 2006, the number of obese Americans have increased from 48 million to 59 million people.
Most people today agree that healthcare has to change but until we break the irrational political correctness and egalitarianism of our culture and say, "Look, you're killing yourself by how you eat and your lack of activity," then things will never change - they will only get exponentially worse. Numbers have consistently shown an explosion in obesity in Western Culture and there have to be some fundamental changes that have to take place in order to stop it and I think it starts with parenting:
1. Grow up and start parenting. Stop ramming ultra-processed, high-calorie, high-
fat food down your childrens' throats. It's your obligation as the parent to oversee what
your children eat. Do you supervise what your kids watch on TV? Well, maybe it's time
put forth some effort into making sure that your child is eating healthy meals. Study after
study has shown that overweight children have a much high propensity to become over-
weight or obese adults. Your eating habits need to be addressed as well - children
inevitably eat what their parents eat, so if you're eating habits are poor (you know who
you are) then it is likely your children's will be as well.
2. Activity: make sure that your children stay active. This doesn't mean forcing them to
participate in activities that they don't enjoy but it does mean that they shouldn't sit like
zombies in front of a TV or computer all day long either. Going to school and sitting all day
for eight hours and then coming home and playing the XBox for another three hours is not
a prescription for health. Get your kids outside and take a walk with them. Go bike
riding. Play basketball. Get involved in martial arts. The list is endless. It really doesn't
matter what you do just as long as you do it.
3. Take Ownership: if your 5 year-old is overweight take ownership of the problem. He/she
didn't get that way by themselves; it required your money, your food choices, to allow
them to get that way. Hormonal issues (i.e., thyroid problems) affect a very small
percentage of the population. Just take ownership and accept that your child's problem is
your issue to deal with. Your Type-2 diabetes? Yes, that's your problem as well. You can
fix it yourself. Your heart disease? Yep. Caused by yourself.
Once you take responsibility and ownership of the problem, you'll realize that you're not
just a pawn without volition but that you can make choices. You can choose to go outside
and take a walk instead of watching TV. I see far too many people who want to blame their
physical problems on someone else or some other factor. And please don't use the excuse,
"I just don't have enough time in the day to exercise or to make my lunch." If that's the
case, get up 30 minutes earlier in the morning. It's really not that hard to do. Also cut
down on the amount of time that you watch TV and instead use that spare time to get
active. Can't break yourself away from the TV? Go to a gym that has exercise equipment
in front of TVs. Buy a used piece of exercise equipment and use it while in front of your
TV.
Western Society faces a whole host of problems and obesity is at the forefront. Where will we be in another ten years? Will the majority of Americans become overweight and obese? The numbers tend to suggest so. I fear that there will come a time when being overweight and obese will become the norm and will no longer be frowned upon.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Obesity: America's #1 Killer; Part I
As we all know, obesity has become an epidemic in not just the United States but in virtually every industrialized country on the planet. I would be beating a dead horse by going over the scores of diseases caused and exacerbated by obesity, so I'll skip that for now. The main issue is what is being done to combat this deadly epidemic?
First off, one has to realize that the human body is a truly marvelous invention. It is designed so that in times of starvation, it can utilize its own tissues to preserve the organism. During plentiful times, eating more calories than what you expend will result in the accumulation of bodyfat. Even though today excess bodyfat is thought of as unattractive it actually served a vitally important purpose in ancient times. During periods of starvation, the human body would call up these fat resources in order to provide the needed calories in order to survive. So you can see that when food was abundant, it would have been wise for ancient man to eat -or should I say gorge - in order to accumulate sufficient fat stores so that he would be able to survive the harsh periods of starvation that were sure to come.
Well, the human body hasn't changed significantly in the past few thousand years and we still have that wonderful fat storage trait. The main thing that has changed is that food constantly surrounds us and our physical activity level has plummeted. Additionally, the foods that are easily accessible are extremely high calorie foods - foods that you do not find in nature. Add these two issues together: high calorie, abundant food and minimal physical activity and you have a recipe for obsesity.
Are humans built to crave sweet things? Absolutely. Are humans designed to seek out high-fat items. Yes. In times of starvation, these were the foods that had the most "bang for the buck" so to speak. Obviously foods that were high in fat had potential for having tremendous amounts of calories. Additionally, humans have a desire for sweets but research shows that it's not what you think: it's not that we like sweets because we have a evolutionary trait to eat Oreos and cookies but instead it's built into us so that we seek out the nutrition in berries and fruits. Fruits have large amount of nutrients in them but we need an incentive to eat them. They're naturally sweet so we are drawn to eat them in order to stay healthy.
So, we can see that there are specifics reasons for our eating behavior but there are also other factors. Psychology plays a role as well. Some people use food to cover up emotional issues. Some people (myself included) eat out of boredom. In order to combat a chronic overeating problem you first have to ask yourself if you're really hungry. If you can etch that process into your mind I think you'll find it helpful in combating overeating. You can even go so far as to post a sign on your refrigerator "Am I hungry?"
Answering the question of, "Am I hungry," is fairly straightforward: is your stomach growling? Do you feel your blood sugar getting low? Perhaps you'll find it helpful to rate your level un hunger from 1 to 10 and then ask yourself where you fall on that scale.
Personally, I find night time to be the most dangerous time for overeating. During the day I find myself productive and staying busy; food is not really on my mind. Once I get home at night and relax, that is when my mind starts to wander towards food. I've found that if I keep myself occupied with things that I enjoy then I'm far less prone to overeat. Watching TV tends to make the situation worse so I try to do more mentally stimulating things. The more captivated and interested I am by the activity, the less I'm prone to let my mind wander off to think about eating. I'm just too engaged to think about snacking.
Remember: no one got fat overnight. Whatever techniques you choose to employ to keep the weight off have to be sustainable techniques that you can use for the rest of your life.
First off, one has to realize that the human body is a truly marvelous invention. It is designed so that in times of starvation, it can utilize its own tissues to preserve the organism. During plentiful times, eating more calories than what you expend will result in the accumulation of bodyfat. Even though today excess bodyfat is thought of as unattractive it actually served a vitally important purpose in ancient times. During periods of starvation, the human body would call up these fat resources in order to provide the needed calories in order to survive. So you can see that when food was abundant, it would have been wise for ancient man to eat -or should I say gorge - in order to accumulate sufficient fat stores so that he would be able to survive the harsh periods of starvation that were sure to come.
Well, the human body hasn't changed significantly in the past few thousand years and we still have that wonderful fat storage trait. The main thing that has changed is that food constantly surrounds us and our physical activity level has plummeted. Additionally, the foods that are easily accessible are extremely high calorie foods - foods that you do not find in nature. Add these two issues together: high calorie, abundant food and minimal physical activity and you have a recipe for obsesity.
Are humans built to crave sweet things? Absolutely. Are humans designed to seek out high-fat items. Yes. In times of starvation, these were the foods that had the most "bang for the buck" so to speak. Obviously foods that were high in fat had potential for having tremendous amounts of calories. Additionally, humans have a desire for sweets but research shows that it's not what you think: it's not that we like sweets because we have a evolutionary trait to eat Oreos and cookies but instead it's built into us so that we seek out the nutrition in berries and fruits. Fruits have large amount of nutrients in them but we need an incentive to eat them. They're naturally sweet so we are drawn to eat them in order to stay healthy.
So, we can see that there are specifics reasons for our eating behavior but there are also other factors. Psychology plays a role as well. Some people use food to cover up emotional issues. Some people (myself included) eat out of boredom. In order to combat a chronic overeating problem you first have to ask yourself if you're really hungry. If you can etch that process into your mind I think you'll find it helpful in combating overeating. You can even go so far as to post a sign on your refrigerator "Am I hungry?"
Answering the question of, "Am I hungry," is fairly straightforward: is your stomach growling? Do you feel your blood sugar getting low? Perhaps you'll find it helpful to rate your level un hunger from 1 to 10 and then ask yourself where you fall on that scale.
Personally, I find night time to be the most dangerous time for overeating. During the day I find myself productive and staying busy; food is not really on my mind. Once I get home at night and relax, that is when my mind starts to wander towards food. I've found that if I keep myself occupied with things that I enjoy then I'm far less prone to overeat. Watching TV tends to make the situation worse so I try to do more mentally stimulating things. The more captivated and interested I am by the activity, the less I'm prone to let my mind wander off to think about eating. I'm just too engaged to think about snacking.
Remember: no one got fat overnight. Whatever techniques you choose to employ to keep the weight off have to be sustainable techniques that you can use for the rest of your life.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
What About Supplements?
I get this question a lot: "What kind of supplements do you take?" It's very rare that someone asks me if I take supplements, but instead the question usually masquerades as, "Hey, how many supplements do you take and which ones?"
The answer to the question is that I take virtually no supplements at all.
How did I get to this blasphemous stage of taking no supplements? Well, I've been exposed to the health/supplement industry for quite some time. I started working at one of several different nationally known nutrition/supplement stores at the age of seventeen and worked there for nearly five years. In that time span, I was exposed to nearly every type of supplement that you could dream of - herbs, minerals, vitamins, oils, bodybuidling supplements, etc. During the first couple of years of working there I assumed that all of the products that are on the shelf must have some type of efficacy to them otherwise they wouldn't be on the shelf, right? In the quest for self-improvement I tried nearly every type of supplement known to man that professed to help in the bodybuilding process. After spending nearly half of my paycheck at my place of employment, for nearly two year, I came to the realization that every type of supplement that I tried yielded no results. Did taking extra protein powder help? Nope. Did taking the newest ultra-filtered whey isolate help? No. Did taking the bulk-up powders help in my quest for size and muscle. Well, it helped in my quest for getting fatter but that's about it.
The only exception that I found was creatine monohydrate and the now banned fat burning supplements (ephedra, caffeine, asprin combos). Creatine monohydrate has been found to effectively increase muscle size and strength, albeit to a small degree, but as we all know every bit helps. Not only has it been proven to work but it's been proven to be safe as well.
The ephedra, caffeine, asprin combos worked well but lets face it, they were essentially "drugs" in every sense of the word. It was basically a legalized stimulant that was found to suppress appetite and perhaps speed up the metabolic rate.
Before you jump head first into the crazy world of supplements and throw away your hard-earned money, ask yourself: are there any legitimate studies showing that this particular supplement will yield the results that I think it will? I'm amazed at the amount of people that will spend hundreds of dollars a month on supplement that don't a single scientific study done on them. On a related note, be cautious of who conducted the study as well. Was the study conducted by researchers in the exercise physiology lab at Ohio University or was it paid for and conducted by the company that owns the supplement?
Oh, and please - disregard the anti-rational establishment that feels that you can't trust medicine or the scientific community. By nature, scientists are seekers of the truth and you should put more trust in their findings even if it opposes what your favorite author in Flex or Muscle and Fitness says. Keep in mind, virtually every muscle magazine owns and runs their own supplement company. Make no mistake: they are out to sell you their supplements and push their ads. If you doubt my claims then pick up an issue and then gloss over the amount of ads in each issue.
In the future, other effective supplements may come down the pike but you really should first be critical and try to figure out if any reputable scientific organizations have studied the product. If they haven't, how do you know it works? What if it ends up being dangerous? What if you're prone to the placebo effect? Be as critical and inquisitive as possible and you just may save yourself a lot of money and a lot of frustration.
The answer to the question is that I take virtually no supplements at all.
How did I get to this blasphemous stage of taking no supplements? Well, I've been exposed to the health/supplement industry for quite some time. I started working at one of several different nationally known nutrition/supplement stores at the age of seventeen and worked there for nearly five years. In that time span, I was exposed to nearly every type of supplement that you could dream of - herbs, minerals, vitamins, oils, bodybuidling supplements, etc. During the first couple of years of working there I assumed that all of the products that are on the shelf must have some type of efficacy to them otherwise they wouldn't be on the shelf, right? In the quest for self-improvement I tried nearly every type of supplement known to man that professed to help in the bodybuilding process. After spending nearly half of my paycheck at my place of employment, for nearly two year, I came to the realization that every type of supplement that I tried yielded no results. Did taking extra protein powder help? Nope. Did taking the newest ultra-filtered whey isolate help? No. Did taking the bulk-up powders help in my quest for size and muscle. Well, it helped in my quest for getting fatter but that's about it.
The only exception that I found was creatine monohydrate and the now banned fat burning supplements (ephedra, caffeine, asprin combos). Creatine monohydrate has been found to effectively increase muscle size and strength, albeit to a small degree, but as we all know every bit helps. Not only has it been proven to work but it's been proven to be safe as well.
The ephedra, caffeine, asprin combos worked well but lets face it, they were essentially "drugs" in every sense of the word. It was basically a legalized stimulant that was found to suppress appetite and perhaps speed up the metabolic rate.
Before you jump head first into the crazy world of supplements and throw away your hard-earned money, ask yourself: are there any legitimate studies showing that this particular supplement will yield the results that I think it will? I'm amazed at the amount of people that will spend hundreds of dollars a month on supplement that don't a single scientific study done on them. On a related note, be cautious of who conducted the study as well. Was the study conducted by researchers in the exercise physiology lab at Ohio University or was it paid for and conducted by the company that owns the supplement?
Oh, and please - disregard the anti-rational establishment that feels that you can't trust medicine or the scientific community. By nature, scientists are seekers of the truth and you should put more trust in their findings even if it opposes what your favorite author in Flex or Muscle and Fitness says. Keep in mind, virtually every muscle magazine owns and runs their own supplement company. Make no mistake: they are out to sell you their supplements and push their ads. If you doubt my claims then pick up an issue and then gloss over the amount of ads in each issue.
In the future, other effective supplements may come down the pike but you really should first be critical and try to figure out if any reputable scientific organizations have studied the product. If they haven't, how do you know it works? What if it ends up being dangerous? What if you're prone to the placebo effect? Be as critical and inquisitive as possible and you just may save yourself a lot of money and a lot of frustration.
While we're on the subject, I highly recommend that you read the article entitled The Most Anabolic Diet - Real Food written by Dr. Richard Winett, PhD. The article can be found in its entirety here: http://www.cbass.com/WinettAnabolicDiet.htm.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Beware of Snack Food
Is snacking in between meals a good idea or bad idea? Well that depends a lot on what kind of snack food you're talking about. Even though some snack foods are touted as healthy or portion-controlled they may end up sabotaging your weight loss efforts.
One of the hottest selling items nowadays are the 100-calorie snack packs. You know. They have a myriad of different variations: Oreo, Twinkie, Chips Ahoy, etc. If you look at these packages they do contain 100 calories but the portions tend to be horribly small. You have to ask yourself, "If I eat this, is it going to satisfy me at all or am I going to be left wanting more when this is done?" If you look at the label you'll soon discover that you're certainly not eating anything worthwhile, at least from a nutritional point of view. If you're going to snack on something, in order to tide you over in between meals, then shouldn't you try to eat something with at least some semblance of nutritional value?
Personally, I find that when I start to snack on foods that are high in processed sugars and fats I have a hard time stopping the eating process. I eat a little bit of a cookie or a snack bar and I'm not satiated - I continue to want more and more. I've found myself in this situation many times and it typically starts with something innocent like a 100-calorie snack or a low-cal treat and then cascades into thirty minutes of non-stop eating. How did this happen? It's hard to say for sure but I've noticed that when I start to eat sugary foods it becomes extremely hard to become satisfied and I'm driven to eat more sugary foods. I don't notice this type of behavior when I snack on fresh fruit or other unprocessed foods. It seems that junk food turns on the eating mechanism in my body (and maybe yours too).
How have I overcome this situation? I've learned to steer clear of junk food in general. I've come to realize that when I start to indulge in just a tiny bit of junk food -especially if it's sweet-then I will have a hard time stopping. Just like a recovering alcholic tries not to go into a bar, I try not to indulge in sweets or junk food because I know what the end result will be.
Additionally, one should try to snack on healthy foods and not just empty calories. Unfortunately I think many people are happy to snack on these super convenient foods because they feel that the food is low in calories and does them no harm. Well, if you're very disciplined it may do you no harm but what about doing you good? Do you really think eating small versions of partially-hydrogenated, high-fat, high-sugar foods is really good for you? Don't fool yourself.
Try to eat foods that have a nutitional "punch" to them. Fruits can be a great snack and they pack a ton of fiber and phytochemicals in them as well. What about a small salad to get you through until dinner? If you're really pressed for time have a small packet of sugar-free oatmeal mixed with water. You'll find that you're much more satiated if you have a healthful snack as opposed to a package of mini-junk food.
You don't have to limit yourself to fresh fruits either. Studies have shown that frozen fruits can have just as much nutritional value and the fresh variety. Not only do these foods contain important vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that the processed junk food doesn't contain, it also provides fiber as well. Fiber is a key component to satiety and something that is sorely lacking in processed food - especially junk food.
Lastly, ask yourself, "Am I really hungry? Is my stomach growling," before you think about having a snack. The calories from little meals can add up quite fast so don't fool yourself into thinking that a snack is irrelevant because it's not. That small snack can set you up for more eating later on in the day (high sugar content can drop your blood sugar levels below normal and cause an urge to want to eat more sugars throughout the day), make you feel lethargic, or cause arterial inflammation. Yep, that's right. Science has shown that merely eating a single meal comprised of saturated or trans fat can cause immediate arterial inflammation. The effects occur within several hours and last for several hours afterwards.
Focus on having three main meals a day with a couple of snacks interspersed. The snacks can be whatever you're in the mood for: a banana, a baked potato with spinach, an apple, or a handful of almonds. It's never too late to start and the sooner you develop healthy eating habits the quicker you'll see positive results.
One of the hottest selling items nowadays are the 100-calorie snack packs. You know. They have a myriad of different variations: Oreo, Twinkie, Chips Ahoy, etc. If you look at these packages they do contain 100 calories but the portions tend to be horribly small. You have to ask yourself, "If I eat this, is it going to satisfy me at all or am I going to be left wanting more when this is done?" If you look at the label you'll soon discover that you're certainly not eating anything worthwhile, at least from a nutritional point of view. If you're going to snack on something, in order to tide you over in between meals, then shouldn't you try to eat something with at least some semblance of nutritional value?
Personally, I find that when I start to snack on foods that are high in processed sugars and fats I have a hard time stopping the eating process. I eat a little bit of a cookie or a snack bar and I'm not satiated - I continue to want more and more. I've found myself in this situation many times and it typically starts with something innocent like a 100-calorie snack or a low-cal treat and then cascades into thirty minutes of non-stop eating. How did this happen? It's hard to say for sure but I've noticed that when I start to eat sugary foods it becomes extremely hard to become satisfied and I'm driven to eat more sugary foods. I don't notice this type of behavior when I snack on fresh fruit or other unprocessed foods. It seems that junk food turns on the eating mechanism in my body (and maybe yours too).
How have I overcome this situation? I've learned to steer clear of junk food in general. I've come to realize that when I start to indulge in just a tiny bit of junk food -especially if it's sweet-then I will have a hard time stopping. Just like a recovering alcholic tries not to go into a bar, I try not to indulge in sweets or junk food because I know what the end result will be.
Additionally, one should try to snack on healthy foods and not just empty calories. Unfortunately I think many people are happy to snack on these super convenient foods because they feel that the food is low in calories and does them no harm. Well, if you're very disciplined it may do you no harm but what about doing you good? Do you really think eating small versions of partially-hydrogenated, high-fat, high-sugar foods is really good for you? Don't fool yourself.
Try to eat foods that have a nutitional "punch" to them. Fruits can be a great snack and they pack a ton of fiber and phytochemicals in them as well. What about a small salad to get you through until dinner? If you're really pressed for time have a small packet of sugar-free oatmeal mixed with water. You'll find that you're much more satiated if you have a healthful snack as opposed to a package of mini-junk food.
You don't have to limit yourself to fresh fruits either. Studies have shown that frozen fruits can have just as much nutritional value and the fresh variety. Not only do these foods contain important vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that the processed junk food doesn't contain, it also provides fiber as well. Fiber is a key component to satiety and something that is sorely lacking in processed food - especially junk food.
Lastly, ask yourself, "Am I really hungry? Is my stomach growling," before you think about having a snack. The calories from little meals can add up quite fast so don't fool yourself into thinking that a snack is irrelevant because it's not. That small snack can set you up for more eating later on in the day (high sugar content can drop your blood sugar levels below normal and cause an urge to want to eat more sugars throughout the day), make you feel lethargic, or cause arterial inflammation. Yep, that's right. Science has shown that merely eating a single meal comprised of saturated or trans fat can cause immediate arterial inflammation. The effects occur within several hours and last for several hours afterwards.
Focus on having three main meals a day with a couple of snacks interspersed. The snacks can be whatever you're in the mood for: a banana, a baked potato with spinach, an apple, or a handful of almonds. It's never too late to start and the sooner you develop healthy eating habits the quicker you'll see positive results.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Recommended Reading: Ripped
Back in 1980 the bodybuilding world was turned on its head by a gentleman by the name of Clarence Bass. The book was called Ripped: The Sensible Way to Achieve Ultimate Muscularity. What was the big deal you ask? Well just by looking at the cover you could tell that this guy knew how to get ultra lean. What the reader would come to find out is that not only did this person know how to get lean but he knew how to stay that way.
Clarence incorporated a way of eating and exercising that allowed him to obtain an unprecedented level of bodyfat - 2.4%! Not only did he achieve what some would consider an impossibly low level of bodyfat but he did it while remaining healthy and satisfied. He contends that starvation and deprivation should be nearly absent in any successful dieting plan.
The book was published in 1980 but that in no way means that the information is obsolete or out of date. The concepts that Clarence touches upon are just as valid today as they were thirty years ago.
Does the Ripped dieting philosophy work? Well, Clarence is a little over 70 years old today and still extraordinarily lean and muscular. He has remained this way for over thirty years and that's the key for any eating/lifestyle philosophy to work: it has to be a manageable and pleasant thing to do. Losing weight is no necessarily the hard part - keeping the weight off is. This is where I think the Ripped philosophy really shines through.
Clarence stresses that for any diet to work it has to be lower in calories and something that you can follow for a lifetime. It can't be some 1,000 calorie draconian diet that you can only follow for two months or a diet comprised only of hardboiled eggs and cabbage. Clarence stresses that your daily eating menu should be comprised of unprocessed fresh fruits and vegetables, grains, and minimal amounts of meat. His contention is that when you eat foods in their natural, unprocessed state, they will fill you up because they provide maximum bulk with minimal calories. He says that processed foods are full of salt, sugar, fats, and devoid of their natural nutrition. When we start processing foods and packaging them up we tend to strip the product of a lot of its natural nutrition. Additionally, you will become full on fewer calories when you follow this type of diet.
Clarence is also a proponent of a low-fat diet and he has several reasons for it. Primarily, fat has nine calories per gram whereas carbohydrates and protein have only four calories per gram. This makes fat twice as fattening as protein and carbohydrates. The logic is that in order to lose bodyfat one must keep their calories under control and there is no better way to do that than to keep the most calorically dense nutrient, fat, to a minimum. Clarence also recommends keeping dietary fat levels low in order to maintain a healthy blood profile. Using this program, one can eat a very large amount of food and not gain weight. You'll be satisfied and full and able to lose bodyfat.
He also touches on the low-carb diet as well. Clarence goes on to describe his brief stint with using a low-carb regimine while he prepares for a bodybuilding show and how it made him irritable and made him feel deprived. The nail in the coffin came when he describes a scene where, because of his low blood sugar levels, he gets into an argument with his wife and storms off while some fruit in hand. Once he ate some of the fruit he felt dramatically better and the fog of the low-carb diet had been lifted. He attributed his unusual behavior completely to the low-carb diet and vowed never again to attempt such a thing. He was convinced that the body needs carbohydrates.
Most diet books avoid the subject of exercise entirely or merely touch on it in such a brief way as to leave the reader with the idea that it's not important or helpful in the quest to be healthy and have a low bodyfat level. Clarence clearly states that in order for someone to become lean and maintain leaness one much include exercise in their program. The two go hand-in-hand, if you will. Of course you can lose bodyfat if you solely exercise or just go on a diet but you'll get much better results if you incorporate the two. The book has photos of several different exercises that Clarence is fond of and has his pre-competition workout listed so you can see exactly what he does. At this early stage in his career he does advocate aerobic exercise but not to the extent that he does now. Clarence clearly states that he achieved his rock-bottom 2.4% bodyfat level from his diet, weight training, and one single strenuous bike ride a week. Several years later, Clarence would come to amend his training slightly and place cardiovascular training on the same pedestal as weight training thereby giving them equal importance.
Go out and pick this book up. It's a relatively short read and it's very enjoyable as well. It comes in at around 88 pages and really is fantasic reading for anyone looking to read up about lowering their bodyfat and competitive bodybuilding. I certainly recommend this to anyone interested in health and fitness but it is geared somewhat more towards the competitive bodybuilder. Clarence has other books, which I hope to review soon, that aren't so directed towards the serious bodybuidling crowd and are more accessible to the general public. I hope to review these soon.
You can purchase this book at Clarence's site at http://www.cbass.com/. You can also purchase this at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Ripped-Sensible-Achieve-Ultimate-Muscularity/dp/0960971408/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240856520&sr=1-1
Friday, April 24, 2009
You just have to start
It's tragic, but obesity in this country is creeping up at an alarming rate. There are a multitude of different training programs and strategies and, unfortunately, just as many trendy, "what's hot now" type of diet programs. Which one do I choose? What do I eat? How many times should I go to the gym? How do I use that machine? The list goes on and on.
Where's the best place to start? Why not start with walking?
Years ago I scoffed at the idea that walking could be even considered exercise or even potentially have health benefits. I assumed that to derive any benefits it had to be a near Herculean effort. How wrong I was.
Walking is something that virtually anyone can do. It requires little to no equipment (perhaps a decent set of athletic shoes) and is pleasant. There is something fun and enjoyable about going outside, getting some fresh air, and enjoying the scenery. This aspect alone makes exercising a more enjoyable experience. The key to doing any type of exercise - and sticking with it - is to make it pleasurable. Don't enjoy the exercise you're currently doing? Guess what: you're not going to stick with it.
On average, walking a mile burns 100 calories. You can easily cover a mile within twenty minutes of walking at a very comforable pace (2 to 3 mph). If you do this every day for a year you'll have burned off the equivalent of 36,500 calories. That equates to nearly 10.5 lbs of body fat! Not a big deal you say? Ten pounds of fat added or lost makes a significant difference in how a person looks and feels. All of these results can be achieved just by taking a brief walk for thirty minutes a day.
The important thing to remember is that exercise doesn't have to be a high-intensity session. It can be something as comfortable as just taking a daily stroll or taking the dog for a walk. Try to get in at least thirty minutes of walking a day and do it consistently. Make it fun. Get an MP3 player and listen to your favorite music or listen to an audiobook. Get some light handweights and do some very basic exercises while you walk or just take the time to reflect on things and focus on upcoming goals or problem solving. Just make it fun...and you'll be ten pounds lighter by this time next year.
Where's the best place to start? Why not start with walking?
Years ago I scoffed at the idea that walking could be even considered exercise or even potentially have health benefits. I assumed that to derive any benefits it had to be a near Herculean effort. How wrong I was.
Walking is something that virtually anyone can do. It requires little to no equipment (perhaps a decent set of athletic shoes) and is pleasant. There is something fun and enjoyable about going outside, getting some fresh air, and enjoying the scenery. This aspect alone makes exercising a more enjoyable experience. The key to doing any type of exercise - and sticking with it - is to make it pleasurable. Don't enjoy the exercise you're currently doing? Guess what: you're not going to stick with it.
On average, walking a mile burns 100 calories. You can easily cover a mile within twenty minutes of walking at a very comforable pace (2 to 3 mph). If you do this every day for a year you'll have burned off the equivalent of 36,500 calories. That equates to nearly 10.5 lbs of body fat! Not a big deal you say? Ten pounds of fat added or lost makes a significant difference in how a person looks and feels. All of these results can be achieved just by taking a brief walk for thirty minutes a day.
The important thing to remember is that exercise doesn't have to be a high-intensity session. It can be something as comfortable as just taking a daily stroll or taking the dog for a walk. Try to get in at least thirty minutes of walking a day and do it consistently. Make it fun. Get an MP3 player and listen to your favorite music or listen to an audiobook. Get some light handweights and do some very basic exercises while you walk or just take the time to reflect on things and focus on upcoming goals or problem solving. Just make it fun...and you'll be ten pounds lighter by this time next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
