Most people realize that in order to reach their fitness goals, there are two factors that they have to get right: diet and exercise.
What I've come to realize is that training is perhaps the easier of the two to master. For lack of better words, when it comes to training, you do it hard and you do it briefly. After that you recover and then go back in when it's time to train again.
In regards to diet, I see a lot of people struggle. In part, I believe it's because training can be addressed in an hour or two a week. I'm an advocate of brief, high-intensity training, so I do not recommend spending hours a week in a gym. It simply is not needed if you're willing to put forth the effort to train hard. On the other hand, what one eats is a constant decision and requires more attention.
Put another way, you can spend one hour a week training and have that problem taken care of. Eating, on the other hand, is something that you have to deal with constantly; all the time.
You go into the kitchen to pour yourself a glass of water. Do you also open up the fridge to look and see what there is to eat? You make yourself lunch and finish your meal but then have the desire to eat more. Do you do it? You have a business lunch with clients. Do you have a healthy salad or opt to eat a high-calorie meal? All of these questions arise, for most of us, daily.
The way that I've looked at these situations is that they're small battles. Just face it: you're going to be faced with dozens, if not hundreds, of eating choices a day and you can choose to do what will further your fitness goals or what will sideline them. Every time that you make the right eating decision, consider it a small battle that has been won. A smaller step forward towards winning the war, if you will. On the other hand, every time you make a poor eating decision, consider that a small loss.
I use this concept because ultimately what matters is if you reach your fitness goal. If you make a couple of poor eating decisions, make note of it (either mentally or on paper) and figure out how you're going to remedy it. Perhaps you could be more active for the day or decrease your portion sizes for the remainder of the day.
Having a treat or "falling off the wagon" once or twice isn't going to derail your progress all that much. Remember: it's nearly impossible to lose much fat in a day and the same is true for gaining fat. It's not what happens in a single meal or a single day...but what you do for a period of time that matters.
Why is proper eating so important to one's fitness goals? It is commonly accepted that carrying an excess amount of body fat contributes to poor health. Hypertension, Type-II diabetes, high cholesterol, and high cancer rates have all been associated with unhealthy levels of bodyfat.
If you're in the gym training to develop strength and muscle size, you're not going to be very pleased if your newly developed muscle is being hidden under a thick layer of fat. Not only are you going to be much healthier with lower levels of bodyfat, but you're going to look far more impressive if you're lean.
Guys especially seem to fear losing much body fat for fear of becoming too small but once you become lean you'll realize that you look far more impressive than when you have a smooth, bulked-up look.
I see people on a weekly basis that train very hard. They likely have the training part of the puzzle figured out. But many of them will admit to not following a proper diet and overeating on a regular basis. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because you've gone to the gym to train that you're now immune to the effects of poor nutrition. While it is true that exercising will allow you to eat more food without consequence, in reality the amount of calories that you're burning are relatively small. Look at it this way: a pound of fat is roughly 3,500 calories. Walking at 3 mph, for one hour, burns three hundred calories. You would have to walk over eleven hours to burn off one pound of fat! Likewise, if you go into the gym and have a hard weight training or cardio session, you may burn 400 calories, but that 400 calories is equivalent to a slice of pizza. In other words, that hard workout that you just put in can be nullified, if you will, by a single slice of pizza. So don't fall into the trap of thinking that you're immune to the effects of poor nutrition just because you exercise.
In regards to diet, I usually recommend that people follow one of two options: eat constantly changing variety of healthy food and count the calories in the food, or, find healthy foods that you like and stick with eating those same foods, in lieu of counting calories. Either way will work. I've found that it's easier for me to eat the same foods, at the same time of day. This takes away the math and the constant tracking of calories. But then again, I enjoy this so I've found that it's not a chore to eat the same foods every day.
If you're someone who likes constant variety, then I suggest having a big list of healthy foods that are allowed on your diet and simply adding them into meals until you've hit your caloric goal for the day. While this may seem like more work, it really doesn't take a considerable amount of time (most foods have nutritional information on the labels now) and gives you a considerable amount of freedom in your diet.
Ultimately what matters are calories. You may've heard the saying: calories in, calories out. The idea is that everyone requires a particular amount of calories, every single day, to maintain their current body weight. You are likely eating somewhere close to this number already. How do you figure this number out? Well, you can do a quick search on the Internet for a "daily calorie chart" of something similar. You plug in your sex, age, height, and activity level and the chart will likely give you a pretty accurate idea of how many calories you need per day to maintain your weight.
Another option is to track your meals for an entire week. At the end of the week, add up all of your calories and then divide that by seven. If you've not gained or lost any weight, this will give you your daily caloric needs.
Most people, instinctually, eat close to their caloric needs every day. We have a complex hormonal system that regulates such things. The problem is that most people tend to overeat a slight amount every single day. Let's say that you require 2,500 calories a day to maintain your current bodyweight. What happens if you eat 2,800 every day for an entire year? That equals out to be 109,500 excess calories that you've ingested over the course of a year. So what are the practical implications of this, you ask? It comes out to be 31 pounds of bodyfat.
Thirty one pounds of bodyfat is a large amount of fat to add...especially over the course of one year. You may ask yourself, "Eating three hundred calories a day doesn't sound that horrible. I may be doing that but I haven't gained that much weight. Why?" As I mentioned earlier, the human body is really an amazing thing. There are a cascade of homones that interact in the body to cause certain reactions. In most people, these hormones work as intended. You have ghrelin, leptin, and many other homones in the body that control our hunger (there are probably many more that we're not away of). If you change the level of one hormone, you're less hungry. If you increase the levels of another hormone, you're hungrier. In addition, it has been shown that the human body comes to expect the same volume of food per day. Your body becomes accustomed to saying, "Hey, we need a certain volume of food per day. If you don't feed it to us, we are GOING TO MAKE YOU EAT!" This is one of the reasons that dieticians have long advocated eating foods that are low in calories but high in bulk (think vegetables and fruits). These foods fill the stomach up (they fullfil the bulk requirement) all the while providing few calories.
The kicker is that our society has done an incredible job of making extremely tasty, high-calorie foods. These foods don't exist in nature and are almost always high processed. It's not secret that if you add salt, fat, and sugar to a product, we are going to want to eat more of it. These ingredients make the food taste better but they also cause us to eat more. By making these foods staples in our diets, you can easily see how we can bypass Mother Nature's built-in "stop eating" mechanism.
This is why I generally recommend natural, unprocessed food to eat. If you buy these types of foods, they are going to be relatively low in calories and also provide a high amount of bulk and nutrients. The bulk (water and fiber) is going to fill you up and cause your hunger mechanism to get switched-off.
How often should you eat? How many meals shoud you have? These are all questions that only you can answer yourself. Just remember, what is most important are the total amount of calories that you eat throughout the course of the day; not how many meals you have.
I have found that I function best by having three large meals a day with three small snacks in between. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner are my large meals and take the longest too eat. Whereas my snacks are usually small portions of nuts, a piece of fruit, or a slice of toast.
The current trend nowadays is to eat every two hours. While I don't do that, some people do and have success at it. Just don't believe that you NEED to do this. The human body is a very adaptive organism and we certainly do not have to adhere to regimented eating times. Do what is convenient for you and stick with it. I will say that eating at very frequent intervals requires packing food with you everwhere you go and also having an atmosphere that will allow you to do such things. Some people may not have jobs that allow this type of schedule. If that is the case, simply eat when it is convenient for you. You have to make your dietary habits convenient for you, otherwise you'll never be able to stick with them. Remember: make it work for you.
Make a commitment to watch your diet for just two weeks. Track your food and calorie intake for just 14 days. Set a goal every day and stick to it. After two weeks you should see a noticeable improvement in how you look. Instead of telling yourself you want to lose thirty pounds, instead say that you wanto to lose four pounds in two week. Set small, achievable goals like that and as Clarence Bass (http://www.cbass.com/) says, "success breeds success." You'll feel a true sense of accomplishment and mastery over your body if you proceed like this.
Just as you can't gain much fat in one day, you can't lose much either. If you're trying to lose bodyfat, you have to accept that you're in this for the long haul and that this has to be a lifestyle that you follow. Don't be one of the countless victims that diet down in one or two months only to regain all of the weight, and then some, months later. Go slow. Go Steady. Set small, reasonable goals...and then achieve them!
While it may be tempting to go home at night and sit on the couch and eat, think about the reality of the situation: does eating really make you happy or do you feel depressed and guilty afterwards? At your current rate, what will your health and appearance be like in five years from now? Will you suffer from a shorter life-span and poorer quality-of-life because of your eating habits? Will you be around to see your grandchildren?
I'm not sure who said it but I believe in the old adage of, "Nothing tastes as good as looking good feels." If that saying doesn't make sense to you, hopefully it will soon.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
What Does the Arnold Expo Really Exemplify?
I live in Columbus and recently made the yearly journey to the Arnold Expo. It is something that I do, without fail, almost each and every year. After leaving the Expo this year, I found myself asking just what does the Arnold Expo exemplify; what does it portray?
After doing a thorough sweep of the expo area, one can't help but notice that the vast majority of the booths are supplement companies. What are these companies selling you ask? Well, it's typically the same stuff just in different packaging - protein powders, thermogenics, various combinations of amino acids, and meal-replacement drinks and bars. As a science-based person who values objectivity, I couldn't help but feel like I was in the midst of the biggest group of scammers known to man.
Research has proven - over and over - that the majority of supplements, whether it's vitamins/minerals, protein powders, amino acids, etc., do absolutely nothing to improve performance or muscle size in humans. Just because you have a friend who said that he feels different or has gotten better "pumps" while taking something, does not automatically equate to something that is effective.
There is something known as the placebo effect and many, many people fall prey to this. If you're an individual and you've just spent $100 of your hard-earned money on some supplement, you're already making the assumption that it is going to work. One hundred dollars is a lot of money to spend on something, therefore you've already made the assumption that the supplement is going to be worthwhile - otherwise you would never have purchased it. So now you're taking a supplement that you're convinced is going to work and, more than likely, you're going to train a little harder and get a little more sleep. Do all of the extra steps that you may not normally due to ensure that you see the gains that this supplement is going to give you. Sound familiar?
Many times the trainee trains harder (which is the stimulus for muscle growth and adaptations) and this explains the results that he/she gets.
Think about it: if there was some special supplement that one could take that could noticeably increase muscle growth, strength, or lower body fat, don't you think the scientific community would stand up and take notice?
The one supplement that has stood the test of time and been thoroughly scrutinized is creatine monohydrate. While effective, it's not a wonder supplement. For anyone seeking additional size and strength, I recommend sensible doses of creatine monohydrate.
There are a handful of other supplements out there that are always on the fringe of legality. Pro hormones fall into this category. Do they work? Perhaps, but do you really want to be playing around with your hormonal system? The hormonal system is very, very complicated and your body has safeguards in place so that if the levels of one hormone become elevated, then other hormones will become altered as well. Ask yourself if you really want to screw up your own perfectly functioning body in an effort to add another two or three pounds of muscle. Additionally, ask yourself what happens when you stop taking that supplement. If the increase in muscle is because or hormonal manipulation, then once you stop taking that supplement/pro-hormone, then your gains will disappear as well. Lastly, many of these pro-hormones have been banned from being sold.
The research that is out there has clearly shown that the average American gets an excess amount of protein in their diet every day, yet the average trainee thinks that they need to overdose on expensive protein powders. There are several studies out there but they all show that between 60 to 90 grams A DAY for the average male trainee is adequate.
Muscle is largely water (in upwards of 70%) and the rest being fat and protein. Using the supplement company's logic, one should be gulping down gallons and gallons of water, right? Taking in additional protein does nothing for you and it simply gets stored as body fat. Poorly designed studies funded by supplement companies don't count as valid research. It counts as junk science that is designed to deceive you.
How much muscle are you adding on a weekly basis? If you're like most trainees, I would venture to say that you're gaining negligible to zero muscle on a weekly basis. Does it really make sense that one would need to ingest mega-doses of protein to merely maintain or to build very small amounts of muscle? Question what you read in the magazines for they will deceive you. They've been doing it for forty years. They won't be changing anytime soon.
If you doubt much of what I say, then just try to find research showing that ingesting protein levels above the RDA has any benefit. Like I said before, poorly conducted, flawed research conducted by TwinLab or Weider does not count. There is science and then there is pseudoscience. One must be aware of the distinction.
One more thing: look at the pictures of the weight lifters and bodybuilders back in the 1940's and 1950's. This was an era where supplements were non-existant. Don't forget that muscle-buidling drugs were not yet around either. The muscularity that these men displayed has to be seen to be believed. Great genetics, yes; protein supplements and drugs; no. As a matter of fact, anyone who trained in those days hardly ever read an article about nutrition. They simply ate three square meals a day and then trained. Simple as that.
The main issue that one misses in the supplement picture is this: it is not the supplement that is going to cause growth; an item added to one's diet is not going to cause an adaptive response like this. It is only high-intensity training that will stimulate growth sufficiently. Instead of wasting another $100 dollars on the latest supplement put out by some company, you should re-evaluate your training. Are you training hard enough so that you're stimulating muscle growth?
If you think that you are indeed training hard enough then are you getting enough rest in between workouts? Going in and blitzing a muscle with 5 or 10 sets and then doing it again in two or three days is overkill. Your muscles have to be stimulated and then given rest for the adaptations to occur.
Instead of looking to expensive supplements that have no scientific basis, instead look to your training and see what can be done to improve it. Are you doing 5 sets? If so, why? If you're doing 5, then why not 6? If 6, then why not 8? I will tell you, without any hesitation, that if you're doing multiple sets then you're not training as hard as you think you are. Don't deceive yourself: if you do a single set to failure then you will not be capable of doing another set. The research is out there - a single set taken to failure is just as beneficial as doing multiple sets. I would argue that it's superior because a single set takes less time and produces less wear-and-tear than multiple sets. I'll address that at a later time.
Don't forget how prevalent drug use is in the world of health and fitness. Just because a top athlete promotes something does not mean that it works (drug use and genetics are the primary reason that they are where they're at). Many athletes are paid for their endorsements. Don't assume that something works just because Mr. Olympia or some guy in a MuscleTech add says it does. Honesty and integrity are sorely missing in the world of health and fitness. Remember that.
After making the rounds at the Arnold Expo I couldn't help but feel that the industry as whole is completely rotten. When looking for training advice you're told that more is better and that if your current routine doesn't work...well, wait for the newest Muscular Development article and that will surely give you amazing results. When asking for nutritional advice you're barraged with tons of ads trying to sell you the latest whey protein and thermogenics. Common sense and decency has all but left the world of health and fitness.
People always ask why I don't sample the many supplements that the vendors are handing out. This answer is very simple: the amount of contaminants, carcinogens, and illegal drugs that are found in these supplements is shocking (http://www.supplementgenius.com/2009/09/15/top-25-worst-supplement-scams-2009/). Of course not all supplements companies have impurities but you would be shocked to find that many do. Lead, thyroid medication, anabolic steroids, anti-depressants are just a few that are routinely found in supplements. Wonder why the DEA has been raiding supplement company after supplement company lately? I certainly don't trust any of the fly-by-night companies that inhabit the Arnold Classic to watch out for my safety.
Aside from the unscrupulous vendors at the Arnold Expo (primarily talking about the supplement vendors) you're left with people walking around half-naked in 30 degree weather. One is left wondering what kind of self-esteem issue some of these people have where they force themselves to walk around uncomfortably for the sake of being able to show off body parts. I won't even begin to talk about the women who walk around looking like strippers. How proud their parents must be.
What could be something that epitomizes health and fitness has degenerated into a freak-show populated with she-males and men with so much muscle that they appear to be ready to drop dead at any moment - and they sometimes do. Thank God for the normal people that walk around the Expo, for if it wasn't for them it would truly look like a carnival side-show in there.
What does the Arnold Expo epitomize? Illegal Drug use. Cosmetic surgery. Pseudo-science. Charlatans. Unhealthy activities. Did I leave anything off?
After doing a thorough sweep of the expo area, one can't help but notice that the vast majority of the booths are supplement companies. What are these companies selling you ask? Well, it's typically the same stuff just in different packaging - protein powders, thermogenics, various combinations of amino acids, and meal-replacement drinks and bars. As a science-based person who values objectivity, I couldn't help but feel like I was in the midst of the biggest group of scammers known to man.
Research has proven - over and over - that the majority of supplements, whether it's vitamins/minerals, protein powders, amino acids, etc., do absolutely nothing to improve performance or muscle size in humans. Just because you have a friend who said that he feels different or has gotten better "pumps" while taking something, does not automatically equate to something that is effective.
There is something known as the placebo effect and many, many people fall prey to this. If you're an individual and you've just spent $100 of your hard-earned money on some supplement, you're already making the assumption that it is going to work. One hundred dollars is a lot of money to spend on something, therefore you've already made the assumption that the supplement is going to be worthwhile - otherwise you would never have purchased it. So now you're taking a supplement that you're convinced is going to work and, more than likely, you're going to train a little harder and get a little more sleep. Do all of the extra steps that you may not normally due to ensure that you see the gains that this supplement is going to give you. Sound familiar?
Many times the trainee trains harder (which is the stimulus for muscle growth and adaptations) and this explains the results that he/she gets.
Think about it: if there was some special supplement that one could take that could noticeably increase muscle growth, strength, or lower body fat, don't you think the scientific community would stand up and take notice?
The one supplement that has stood the test of time and been thoroughly scrutinized is creatine monohydrate. While effective, it's not a wonder supplement. For anyone seeking additional size and strength, I recommend sensible doses of creatine monohydrate.
There are a handful of other supplements out there that are always on the fringe of legality. Pro hormones fall into this category. Do they work? Perhaps, but do you really want to be playing around with your hormonal system? The hormonal system is very, very complicated and your body has safeguards in place so that if the levels of one hormone become elevated, then other hormones will become altered as well. Ask yourself if you really want to screw up your own perfectly functioning body in an effort to add another two or three pounds of muscle. Additionally, ask yourself what happens when you stop taking that supplement. If the increase in muscle is because or hormonal manipulation, then once you stop taking that supplement/pro-hormone, then your gains will disappear as well. Lastly, many of these pro-hormones have been banned from being sold.
The research that is out there has clearly shown that the average American gets an excess amount of protein in their diet every day, yet the average trainee thinks that they need to overdose on expensive protein powders. There are several studies out there but they all show that between 60 to 90 grams A DAY for the average male trainee is adequate.
Muscle is largely water (in upwards of 70%) and the rest being fat and protein. Using the supplement company's logic, one should be gulping down gallons and gallons of water, right? Taking in additional protein does nothing for you and it simply gets stored as body fat. Poorly designed studies funded by supplement companies don't count as valid research. It counts as junk science that is designed to deceive you.
How much muscle are you adding on a weekly basis? If you're like most trainees, I would venture to say that you're gaining negligible to zero muscle on a weekly basis. Does it really make sense that one would need to ingest mega-doses of protein to merely maintain or to build very small amounts of muscle? Question what you read in the magazines for they will deceive you. They've been doing it for forty years. They won't be changing anytime soon.
If you doubt much of what I say, then just try to find research showing that ingesting protein levels above the RDA has any benefit. Like I said before, poorly conducted, flawed research conducted by TwinLab or Weider does not count. There is science and then there is pseudoscience. One must be aware of the distinction.
One more thing: look at the pictures of the weight lifters and bodybuilders back in the 1940's and 1950's. This was an era where supplements were non-existant. Don't forget that muscle-buidling drugs were not yet around either. The muscularity that these men displayed has to be seen to be believed. Great genetics, yes; protein supplements and drugs; no. As a matter of fact, anyone who trained in those days hardly ever read an article about nutrition. They simply ate three square meals a day and then trained. Simple as that.
The main issue that one misses in the supplement picture is this: it is not the supplement that is going to cause growth; an item added to one's diet is not going to cause an adaptive response like this. It is only high-intensity training that will stimulate growth sufficiently. Instead of wasting another $100 dollars on the latest supplement put out by some company, you should re-evaluate your training. Are you training hard enough so that you're stimulating muscle growth?
If you think that you are indeed training hard enough then are you getting enough rest in between workouts? Going in and blitzing a muscle with 5 or 10 sets and then doing it again in two or three days is overkill. Your muscles have to be stimulated and then given rest for the adaptations to occur.
Instead of looking to expensive supplements that have no scientific basis, instead look to your training and see what can be done to improve it. Are you doing 5 sets? If so, why? If you're doing 5, then why not 6? If 6, then why not 8? I will tell you, without any hesitation, that if you're doing multiple sets then you're not training as hard as you think you are. Don't deceive yourself: if you do a single set to failure then you will not be capable of doing another set. The research is out there - a single set taken to failure is just as beneficial as doing multiple sets. I would argue that it's superior because a single set takes less time and produces less wear-and-tear than multiple sets. I'll address that at a later time.
Don't forget how prevalent drug use is in the world of health and fitness. Just because a top athlete promotes something does not mean that it works (drug use and genetics are the primary reason that they are where they're at). Many athletes are paid for their endorsements. Don't assume that something works just because Mr. Olympia or some guy in a MuscleTech add says it does. Honesty and integrity are sorely missing in the world of health and fitness. Remember that.
After making the rounds at the Arnold Expo I couldn't help but feel that the industry as whole is completely rotten. When looking for training advice you're told that more is better and that if your current routine doesn't work...well, wait for the newest Muscular Development article and that will surely give you amazing results. When asking for nutritional advice you're barraged with tons of ads trying to sell you the latest whey protein and thermogenics. Common sense and decency has all but left the world of health and fitness.
People always ask why I don't sample the many supplements that the vendors are handing out. This answer is very simple: the amount of contaminants, carcinogens, and illegal drugs that are found in these supplements is shocking (http://www.supplementgenius.com/2009/09/15/top-25-worst-supplement-scams-2009/). Of course not all supplements companies have impurities but you would be shocked to find that many do. Lead, thyroid medication, anabolic steroids, anti-depressants are just a few that are routinely found in supplements. Wonder why the DEA has been raiding supplement company after supplement company lately? I certainly don't trust any of the fly-by-night companies that inhabit the Arnold Classic to watch out for my safety.
Aside from the unscrupulous vendors at the Arnold Expo (primarily talking about the supplement vendors) you're left with people walking around half-naked in 30 degree weather. One is left wondering what kind of self-esteem issue some of these people have where they force themselves to walk around uncomfortably for the sake of being able to show off body parts. I won't even begin to talk about the women who walk around looking like strippers. How proud their parents must be.
What could be something that epitomizes health and fitness has degenerated into a freak-show populated with she-males and men with so much muscle that they appear to be ready to drop dead at any moment - and they sometimes do. Thank God for the normal people that walk around the Expo, for if it wasn't for them it would truly look like a carnival side-show in there.
What does the Arnold Expo epitomize? Illegal Drug use. Cosmetic surgery. Pseudo-science. Charlatans. Unhealthy activities. Did I leave anything off?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Think Critically - Your Health May Depend On It
The next time your friends, personal trainer, or favorite magazine offer advice, ask yourself where it's coming from and is it scientifically sound.
If you've read any health or fitness magazine for more than a few months, you'll quickly notice the large amount of contradictory information being published. You'll also notice opinions being published as fact. But just because someone has an opinion does not make it true. Let's take training, as an example. One month, the best way to train your chest is with various exercises done for 8 sets. The next month, it's a variation of those same exercises but for 12 sets. The month after, it's a another variation of those same exercises but done for 6 sets, three times a week. Has anyone else noticed the utter random and abstractness of this type of training?
If someone prescribes 8 sets of bench presses to you, the first question that should come out of your mouth is, "Why 8? Why not 7? Why not 9? " You'll never get an answer to a question like that. And if you have, then please enlighten me because I've not heard anything even close to a satisfactory answer in all the time that I've been involved in the industry.
Simply put: it's complete randomness. Can you imagine any other discipline using similar techinques like this?
Can you imagine a doctor prescribing medication to you and then giving you random dosages? Dosages not based off of any scientific evidence?
The entire fitness industry (yes, that includes the aerobic enthusiasts as well) operates on the notion that more is better. A corollary to that is the idea that the more exercise that you perform, the more results that you see; that it's cumulative. As an example, using weight training, if one set is good, then a second set will produce more results. If two sets are good, then three sets are more productive. If it's running, then 1 mile is good but two miles is better. If 7 miles is good, then 10 miles are better.
Just as in medicine, taking more of something than what is needed often times will end up hurting the patient.
If someone suggests that you have to spend countless hours in the gym, ask them what evidence they have that one needs to do that in order to get the results that they want. Recent evidence regarding weight training has shown that a single set of an exercise is just as effective as multiple sets. Here is the link to the meta-analysis: http://www.asep.org/files/Smith.pdf
Additionally, a study was done in 1975 at West Point academy showing similar results. Not only that, but they showed that when trained three times a week, for no more than 30 minutes per session, the research participants had superior cardiovascular conditioning compared to the control group. The military conducted the study, it was overseen by Nautilus employees and also employees of Kennth Cooper, who at the time, were opposed to weight training. If you're interested in the study, go to any search engine and type in the phrase Project Total Conditioning, and you'll likely find information about it.
If you've read any health or fitness magazine for more than a few months, you'll quickly notice the large amount of contradictory information being published. You'll also notice opinions being published as fact. But just because someone has an opinion does not make it true. Let's take training, as an example. One month, the best way to train your chest is with various exercises done for 8 sets. The next month, it's a variation of those same exercises but for 12 sets. The month after, it's a another variation of those same exercises but done for 6 sets, three times a week. Has anyone else noticed the utter random and abstractness of this type of training?
If someone prescribes 8 sets of bench presses to you, the first question that should come out of your mouth is, "Why 8? Why not 7? Why not 9? " You'll never get an answer to a question like that. And if you have, then please enlighten me because I've not heard anything even close to a satisfactory answer in all the time that I've been involved in the industry.
Simply put: it's complete randomness. Can you imagine any other discipline using similar techinques like this?
Can you imagine a doctor prescribing medication to you and then giving you random dosages? Dosages not based off of any scientific evidence?
The entire fitness industry (yes, that includes the aerobic enthusiasts as well) operates on the notion that more is better. A corollary to that is the idea that the more exercise that you perform, the more results that you see; that it's cumulative. As an example, using weight training, if one set is good, then a second set will produce more results. If two sets are good, then three sets are more productive. If it's running, then 1 mile is good but two miles is better. If 7 miles is good, then 10 miles are better.
Just as in medicine, taking more of something than what is needed often times will end up hurting the patient.
If someone suggests that you have to spend countless hours in the gym, ask them what evidence they have that one needs to do that in order to get the results that they want. Recent evidence regarding weight training has shown that a single set of an exercise is just as effective as multiple sets. Here is the link to the meta-analysis: http://www.asep.org/files/Smith.pdf
Additionally, a study was done in 1975 at West Point academy showing similar results. Not only that, but they showed that when trained three times a week, for no more than 30 minutes per session, the research participants had superior cardiovascular conditioning compared to the control group. The military conducted the study, it was overseen by Nautilus employees and also employees of Kennth Cooper, who at the time, were opposed to weight training. If you're interested in the study, go to any search engine and type in the phrase Project Total Conditioning, and you'll likely find information about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
