Thursday, March 27, 2008

The Education of a Misguided Trainer

Cosgrove's Five Ah-Ha! Moments:The Education of a Misguided Trainer


by Alwyn Cosgrove



In my career I've had several moments of clarity when I learned something new, or when something I had believed was either verified, brought into question, or flat out disproved.
These mini-epiphanies are what I call my "ah-ha!" moments. In every case, these "ah-ha!" moments allowed my thought processes to take a significant step forward, which in turn brought me to a new level in my training education.


Here's a study that I came across about ten years ago (about 4 or 5 years after it was published, I'm embarrassed to admit):


Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.
Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.
Metabolism. 1994 Jul; 43(7):814-8.


The premise of the study was to compare twenty (20) weeks of steady state endurance training and fifteen (15) weeks of interval training.


When comparing total calories burned from exercise, the researchers found the endurance training burned 28,661 calories, while the interval training group burned 13,614 calories. In other words, the interval-training group burned less than half the calories of the endurance-training group.



However, when the researchers adjusted the results to correct for the difference in energy cost, the interval-training group showed a 900% greater loss in subcutaneous fat than the endurance group. In other words, calorie for calorie, interval training was nine times more effective than steady state exercise.
Interval training is nine times more effective than steady-state cardio for burning fat.


Additionally, the researchers noted the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the interval training program appear to favor the process of fat oxidation.
This piqued my interest because until this point we'd been told that it's all about "calories in versus calories out." So we assumed (or at least I assumed) that burning more calories in training would result in greater fat loss. This study (and several others since) have shown that to be completely incorrect.


So the "ah-ha!" moment showed me that we can't ignore the post workout period. That's where the adaptations happen. That's where the results are.
Why did this occur? I've hypothesized that it's related to EPOC, a post exercise elevation of metabolism, but some studies have shown that EPOC isn't as big of a contributor to caloric burn as we originally thought: calories burned during the exercise period is the biggest factor.
And it still doesn't explain the very significant difference in real world fat loss.
Simply put, the subjects doing interval training lost more fat by burning fewer calories than the steady state group. So maybe, as the study showed, total body fat oxidation seems to increase as a result of the adaptations to interval training.
But that still doesn't explain it. An increase in fat oxidation doesn't necessarily mean an increase in total caloric burn or fat lost (as other studies have shown that fuel source during exercise appears to be irrelevant, so fuel source at rest shouldn't matter either unless there is a total caloric deficit).


The bottom line is that perhaps we don't know why. But we do know that it's more effective because of something that happens post workout. And that something is beneficial.
Looking at aerobics for fat loss and ignoring the post workout period is short-sighted. If we studied weight training the same way, looking only at what happens during the workout and ignoring the post-workout adaptations, we'd have to conclude that weight training destroys muscle tissue, making you smaller and weaker. And we know that's not true.


Conclusion: the workout is the stimulus. The adaptation is the goal.


Ah-ha! #3: Cardiovascular programming is an ass-backward concept.


I don't know when I first thought this, but it was confirmed to me when viewing Lance Armstrong's performance in the New York Marathon.
Throughout my college education, countless training certification programs and seminars, I'd been taught the same thing: that cardiovascular exercise was necessary to improve the cardiovascular system and subsequently aerobic performance. But there seemed to be an inherent flaw in that argument.
Let's say I tested your aerobic fitness through a treadmill test.
Then let's say that for the next sixteen weeks, we developed a five-day per week aerobic training program that involved you running at various heart rates and for various lengths of times. The program would progressively increase in difficulty and duration, and the end result was a very significant improvement in your aerobic fitness.
At the end of this sixteen-week period, how much do you expect your swimming times to have improved? Marginally, if at all, right? It seems almost stupid to ask. But wait a second. If you have one cardiovascular system, why doesn't your cardiovascular system improve across the board regardless of the activity?


More to the point, why didn't Lance Armstrong, with perhaps the highest recorded VO2 max in history, win the New York Marathon? Or beat people with lesser aerobic levels than himself?
The seven-time winner of the Tour de France, the greatest endurance cyclist, quite possibly the greatest endurance athlete in the world, finished the Marathon in 868th place, and described the event as the "hardest physical thing" he'd ever done.





The flaw in this thinking was looking solely at VO2 max: the "engine," as it were. It's fair to say that Lance had a "Formula One" engine, but his wheels and chassis were built for a different kind of race. In other words, he just didn't have the structural development for running.
Lance was a cyclist: his body had adapted to the demands of cycling, but not to the specific demands of running. In fact, the longest distance he'd ever run prior to the Marathon was 16 miles. Lance had developed strength, postural endurance, and flexibility in the correct "cycling muscles," but it didn't transfer to running the way his VO2 max did.
The muscles don't move because of cardiovascular demand. It's the reverse. The cardio system is elevated because of muscular demand. We need to program the body based on the movements it's going to perform, not based on the cardiovascular system.
Basically, if that muscular system can't handle the stress of performing thousands of repetitions (which is what you're doing, after all, when running or cycling), then we have to condition that muscular system first. And by doing so, we automatically improve cardiovascular conditioning.
The only reason there's any demand on the cardiovascular system is because the muscular system places that demand: the muscles require oxygen in order to continue to work. In fact, cardiovascular exercise is impossible without moving the muscle first.
I've seen this across various sports. The cardio conditioning required to run a 10K won't transfer to motocross or jujitsu.


Conclusion: If cardio training doesn't transfer well from one activity to another, and it only 'kicks' in because of muscular demand, we should program muscular activity first in order to create a
cardiovascular response.

Originally published by Testosterone Nation 2008

Friday, March 21, 2008

Eat food. Not Much. Mostly Plants....

Eat Food. Not Much. Mostly Plants.by TC

Upton Sinclair was a visionary.
In his book the Jungle, he wrote about how dead rats were shoveled into sausage grinding machines. He explained, in nauseating detail, how diseased cows were slaughtered for beef; how guts and garbage were swept off the floor and sold as "potted ham."

Upton Sinclair even described how the occasional worker would fall into a meat-processing tank and be ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard."
The Chicago meat-packing industry was in deep trouble after Sinclair's landmark book, The Jungle, was published in 1906. It caused outrage in America and abroad and meat sales fell by half. The book forced the government to pass the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, which established the Food and Drug Administration.

Thanks largely to Sinclair, you can be relatively certain that your food is comparatively free of a variety of disgusting things.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of different ways to foul up our food supply and circumstances require that incarnations of Sinclair surface every generation or so to investigate our food supply.
Our modern-day Upton Sinclair is a journalism professor named Michael Pollan whose book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, explored the American food manufacturing system. The book's most significant contribution was the assertion that a combination of political and biological factors had done almost indescribable damage to the overall health of Americans.
Specifically, he traced how a single political decision made in the 70's having to do with farm subsidies led to a single grain — corn — being mass grown without the limitations normally imposed by supply and demand.

Corn became so abundant and consequently so cheap that manufacturers began looking for novel ways to use it. This led to the inclusion of high-fructose corn syrup in hundreds of products and the invention of a dazzling array of corn-based cereals and snack foods.
With all those cheap, salted, and sugared calories to be had, Americans grew increasingly fat and increasingly diabetic. Perhaps worse, though, was the wide-spread use of corn as cattle feed.
Cattle don't do well on grains. It makes them sick and they then require antibiotics. Furthermore, it changed the fatty acid content of their meat. Whereas normally the grass-fed creatures had omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratios more consistent with wild game or wild salmon, the corn-feeding turned them into hoofed heart attacks in waiting, the ingestion of which slowly clogged the nation's arteries.

Despite the billion-lumen light Pollan shined on the food industry, he didn't really pontificate too much on what humans should eat. He attempts to rectify that with his latest book, In Defense of Food.
His overall message?
Eat food.
Not much.
Mostly plants.


Okay, on the surface that advice seems almost Forest Gumpian in its simplicity.
But you have to go deeper. Once you do, once you get into Michael Pollan's head and his gut, you realize that "eat food, not much, mostly plants," is a distillation of an entire dietary thought process; a Zen koan (minus a few syllables) that opens your mind up to a higher level of dietary thinking.
His thinking stems largely from the widely accepted notion that people eating a Western diet are prone to a complex of chronic diseases. If these diseased individuals stop eating a typical Western diet, they get better.



He cites the "civilized" Aborigines who developed diabetes and went back to the bush so they could eat more naturally and in doing so, heal themselves. Likewise, Americans need to escape the worst elements of the Western diet — heal themselves — by going back to the "bush."
Pollan laments the errors and inconsistencies in food science and, more importantly, the failure to rescind or even take responsibility for these errors. He wishes that the government or public health community would come out with something like the following:
Um, you know everything we've been telling you for the last thirty years about the links between dietary fat and heart diseases? And fat and cancer? And fat and fat? Well, this just in: It now appears that none of it was true. We sincerely regret the error.
But rather than just rail against what constitutes modern food science, he gives a dietary to-do list, most of which, maybe surprisingly, doesn't conflict at all with the bodybuilder or weight-trainer mindset. The following paragraphs detail some of the more significant suggestions on his list.



1. Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.
We've had our own version of this at Testosterone for some time, which is, "Don't eat anything that comes in a box." Our version was based mostly on the notion that things that come in a box are generally highly processed, i.e., they get digested very, very quickly and cause a huge insulin surge resulting in, over the long run, decreased insulin sensitivity and undesirable body composition.


But it goes beyond that for Pollan. He decries the lack of nutrition in these foods; how they aren't even food anymore and that many of these so-called improvements — replacing one "bad" macronutrient for a "good" one — have made the food far less desirable, nutritionally speaking.
One of the examples he cites is dairy food. When dairies make their products low-fat, they have to go to great lengths to preserve the body or creamy texture; they have to put in food additives.


In the case of low-fat or skim milk, that means adding in powdered milk, which contains oxidized cholesterol that's much worse for your arteries than ordinary cholesterol.
Furthermore, removing all the fat makes it hard or even impossible for your body to absorb the fat-soluble vitamins that are the very reason some people drink milk in the first place!
Of course, the "grandmother rule" doesn't work very well in the aforementioned case as milk still looks like milk.


Neither would it necessarily work with bread. Traditional bread is of course made with flour, yeast, water, and a pinch of salt. Compare that with the list of two-dozen or so chemical ingredients in Sara Lee's Soft and Smooth Whole Grain White Bread.
"If not for the indulgence of the FDA, you couldn't even call it bread," writes Pollan.
Because the small percentage of whole grains in the bread would render it that much less sweet than, say, all-White Wonder Bread — which scarcely waits to be chewed before transforming itself into glucose — the food scientists have added high-fructose corn syrup and honey to make up for the difference; to overcome the problematic heft and toothsomeness of a real whole grain bread, they've deployed "dough conditioners," including guar gum and the aforementioned azodicarbonamide, to simulate the texture of supermarket white bread. By incorporating certain varieties of albino wheat, they've managed to maintain that deathly but apparently appealing Wonder Bread pallor.



Again, this "bread" might fool your grandmother, but she definitely wouldn't recognize Go-Gurt Portable Yogurt as food as it comes in what looks like a toothpaste tube. Oh it has some yogurt in it, but it also has about a dozen other ingredients in it, none of which your grandmother could discern as real food.





She might look at the "Berry Bubblegum Bash" flavor of Go-Gurt, scratch her graying head and wonder aloud how it could be that it has neither berries or bubblegum in it.
Other Frankenfood examples include breakfast cereal bars that have bright white veins representing, but having nothing to do with, milk; nondairy creamers, Twinkies that don't go stale, cheese-like food stuff that has no bovine contribution at all and, unlike European market cheese, is literally dead, kept in its refrigerator morgue until some fool deems to eat it.
He offers that perhaps a better rule would be, "Don't eat anything incapable of rotting."

2. Avoid food products that make a health claim.
The FDA actually approved the following health claim for Mazola Corn Oil, a product very high in the omega-6 fatty acids that most Americans get way too much of:
Very limited and preliminary scientific evidence suggests that eating about a tablespoon of corn oil daily may reduce the risk of heart disease due to the unsaturated fat content in corn oil.
Of course, if you continue reading, you see the "qualification" of this health claim:
[The] FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim.
And then, to make it more head-smacking confusing:
To achieve this possible benefit, corn oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day.
I don't know if the aforementioned example proves the FDA is corrupt or just stupid. It appears to be clear, though, that the American Heart Association is corrupt.
Consider that they've bestowed (for a fee) their heart-healthy seal on Lucky Charms, Trix, and Cocoa Puff cereals, in addition to Yoo-hoo Chocolate Drink, and Healthy Choice's Caramel Swirl Ice Cream.
Similar degrees of chutzpah are evident in the countless food manufacturers who claim their product to be chock full of antioxidants. Keep this in mind: all plants contain antioxidants of some kind, so don't think for a minute that the people who make Snickers Bars (which contain cacao from plants) haven't considered slapping a "Rich With Antioxidants!" label on their product.
Meanwhile, the products that truly contain rich amounts of antioxidants — the fresh fruits and vegetables in the produce aisle — have no label to trumpet their nutritional value.

3. Shop the peripheries of the supermarket and stay out of the middle.
We all know this one. The periphery of the grocery store is lined with fresh food, food that rots, food that's alive. Those are the most nutritious foods. Of course, the suggestions isn't fool-proof as Go-Gurt Portable Yogurt is in the dairy case.

4. Get out of the supermarket whenever possible.
Pollan recommends you go to a farmer's market whenever possible. When you go to a farmer's market, you eat food that's in season, food at its most nutritious. Eating in season helps you diversify your diet. If concerned with chemicals, ask the farmer how he or she deals with pests and fertility.

5. Eat mostly plants, especially leaves.
Pollan isn't against eating meat; he just recommends people eat less of it. Eating too much industrial meat exposes us to more saturated fats, more omega-6 fatty acids, more growth hormones, and more carcinogens.
He contends, though, that the benefits of a diet rich in plant-based foods are probably the only point almost universally agreed on with nutritionists.
The explanation is pretty simple. We need to ingest antioxidants. They not only stabilize the oft-mentioned free radicals, they also stimulate the liver to produce enzymes that break down the antioxidants themselves. These enzymes go on to break down other chemicals as well, including whatever toxins happen to resemble the antioxidants.
In this way, they can neutralize carcinogens.
The more antioxidants in your diet, the more toxins you disarm.

6. You are what you eat eats too.
As discussed earlier in this article, cows and sheep are meant to eat grass, not seeds. If they eat too many seeds, they get sick and require constant antibiotics.
A grass-based diet for farm animals means the meat, butter, or eggs you eat, along with the milk you drink, contains fewer omega-6 and saturated fats, as well as higher levels of vitamins and antioxidants.
Unfortunately, food manufacturers and food retailers have found another way to lie to us. While the meats they sell may be advertised as "grass fed," it doesn't mean anything. Allcows are grass fed until they get to the feedlot. That's where they're fattened up with corn.
Similarly, "free range" doesn't mean chickens were allowed to roam the countryside pecking at grasses and unsuspecting insects. It likely means they had a square foot or two of dirt to "range."
As far as cows, look for the words "grass finished" or "100% grass-fed." Only then can you be reasonably certain of getting healthy meat. As far as chickens, look for the word "pastured."
(To find a source of grass-fed beef or pastured chicken near you, go to eatwild.com.)

7. Eat like an omnivore.
Pollan recommends you add new species to your diet whenever you can. Diversity in diet means diversity in nutrients and antioxidants.
And keep in mind that while the grocery store offers a dazzling diversity of foods or food-like susbstances, most are made from the same four plants, three of which are seeds (corn, soy, and wheat).

8. Eat well-grown food from healthy soils.
Pollan points out that the designation "organic" isn't the last word in food quality. Yes, organic means the food was well-grown in relatively healthy soil and was nourished by organic matter rather than synthetic fertilizer, but that doesn't mean organic Oreos are healthy. It makes little difference to your body whether the high-fructose corn syrup its been fed is organic or not.

9. Eat wild foods when you can.
Wild plants are richer in antioxidants than their domestic cousins. Since they have to defend themselves against pests and disease without the help of man, they had to get tough — develop a bevy of interesting and potentially healthful (to man) phytochemicals — to survive.
Likewise, they tend to have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.
While they might be hard to find, consider purchasing and using purslane and lamb's quarters, two of the most nutritious plants (weeds, really) in the world.
Likewise, consider eating wild game when you can, too. They eat wild plants, so their meat is higher in omega-3 fatty acids, too.
10. Don't look for a magic bullet in the traditional diet.
Every year, it seems a new "magic bullet" food hits the mainstream. A couple of years ago, it was algae. Then it was wheat grass. Now it's the acai berry from the jungles of Brazil.
While they might be nutritious, no single food contains the answers to human health. Foods are more than the sum of their nutrient parts and dietary patterns seem to be more than the sum of the foods that comprise them.


11. Have a glass of wine with dinner.
Despite not having great faith in individual ingredients, Pollan does seem to tout the benefits of the polyphenols in red wine, particularly resveratrol (which you might better recognize as Biotest's REZ-V), which study after study has suggested might be beneficial in cardiovascular health, fighting cancer, blocking negative effects of estrogen, and protecting the prostate.
After reading In Defense of Food, I can't help but think how bodybuilders, in their effort to have perpetual abs, have largely ignored nutrition, or at the very least gotten it horribly wrong.
We've jettisoned real milk for some nutritionally void and paradoxically more "harmful" type of milk; ignored entire categories of foods — carbs — when leaving them out might in the long run deprive us of valuable nutrients; been so afraid of fat or carbs that most of us find 15 or 20 "safe" foods and eat them day-in and day-out, thereby depriving us of countless, possibly essential nutrients; allowed ourselves to be hood-winked by labels that advertise "organic" or "grass-fed" or "low-fat" without realizing the potential loopholes; fallen prey to nearly every single wonder food or ingredient like blue-green algae or wheat grass without thinking that it's a combination of foods that constitutes health; and of choosing animal protein over plant-based products again and again in the puzzling belief that all our body needs to grow muscle is a single macronutrient.


I'm not asking you to necessarily change your dietary habits. I'm just asking you to think a little more about what you eat. It's a subject that deserves a little consideration.
Eat food, not too much, mostly plants? It might not work entirely for strength athletes and bodybuilders, but we'd do well to consider taking a step or two in that direction.


© 1998 — 2008 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Friday, March 14, 2008

Keep Young Athletes Healthy and Fit

In today’s age of health and fitness, more and more kids are involved in sporting activities. Although being part of a football, soccer or Little League team is an important rite of passage for many children, parents and their children could be overlooking the importance of proper nutrition and body-conditioning needed for preventing injuries on and off the playing field.

The majority, if not all, sports are good, provided that the child prepares appropriately. Without proper preparation, playing any sport can turn into a bad experience. (Click HERE to read more on how preparation for sports) There are structural and physical developmental issues that need to be taken into consideration before children undertake certain sports.

Highly competitive sports such as football, gymnastics, wrestling and tennis follow rigorous training schedules that can be potentially dangerous to an adolescent or teenager. The best advice for parents who have young athletes in the family is to help them prepare their bodies and to learn to protect themselves from sports related injuries before they happen.

Proper warm up, mobility (notice I did not mention flexibility) and strength-training exercises are essential for kids involved in sports, but many kids learn improper stretching or weight-lifting techniques, making them more susceptible to injury. Parents need to educate themselves first then work with their kids to make sure they receive the proper performance coaching.

Proper nutrition and hydration are also extremely vital. (To learn about the nutrition program designed for peak performance CLICK HERE ). While an ordinary person may need to drink eight to 10 8-ounce glasses of water each day, athletes need to drink even more than that for proper absorption. Breakfast should be the most important meal of the day and our athletes are required to pay a great deal of attention to this meal. Also, observing healthy post workout nutrition has allowed our athletes to train harder and reach higher levels of performance this practice; alongside several other habits allows for proper nutrient replenishment and refuels the body.

Young athletes today often think they are invincible, therefore neglecting the basics. The following tips can help ensure your child does not miss a step when it comes to proper fitness, recovery and rest that the body needs to engage in sporting activities.

Encourage your child to:

  • Wear the proper equipment. Certain contact sports, such as football and hockey, can be dangerous if the equipment is not properly fitted. Make sure all equipment, including helmets, pads and shoes fit your child or adolescent. Talk to your child’s coach or trainer if the equipment is damaged.

  • Learn how to eat for performance. Make sure your young athlete is eating a well-balanced diet and does not skip meals. Avoid high-fat foods, such as candy bars and fast food. At home, provide fruit rather than cookies, and vegetables rather than potato chips.

  • Maintain a healthy weight. Certain sports, such as gymnastics, wrestling and figure skating, may require your young athlete to follow strict dietary rules. Be sure your child does not feel pressured into being too thin and that he/she understands that proper nutrition and caloric intake is needed for optimal performance endurance and health.

  • Drink water. Hydration is a key element to optimal fitness. Teenage athletes should drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day. Younger athletes should drink five to eight 8-ounce glasses of water. A good rule of thumb is to monitor urine color to measure hydration.

  • Avoid sugar-loaded, caffeinated and carbonated drinks. Sports drinks are a good source of replenishment for those kids engaged in long duration sports, such as track and field.

  • Follow a warm-up routine. Be sure your child or his/her coach includes a warm-up and mobility session before every practice, game or meet. A slow jog, jumping rope and/or lifting small weights reduces the risk of torn or ripped muscles. mobility is key when pushing to score that extra goal or make that critical play.

  • Take vitamins daily. A multi-vitamin and Vitamin C are good choices for the young athlete. Vitamin B and amino acids may help reduce the pain from contact sports. Thiamine can help promote healing. Also consider Vitamin A to lessen scar tissue.

  • Avoid trendy supplements. Kids under the age of 18 should avoid the use of performance-enhancing supplements, such as creatine. Instead, they should ask their coach or trainer to include weekly weight training and body-conditioning sessions in their workout.

  • Get plenty of rest. Eight hours of sleep is ideal for the young athlete. Lack of sleep and rest can decrease performance. Sluggishness, irritability and loss of interest could indicate that your child is fatigued.

The Paradigm Performance Lab In-Balance system Can Help

Doctors of chiropractic are trained and licensed to treat the entire neuro-musculoskeletal system and can provide advice on sports training, nutrition and injury prevention to young athletes.


For more information visit us at www.paradigmperformancelab.com or to contact

Dr. Joe directly drjoekrz@paradigmperformancelab.com


Paradigm's Director John Williams recently met with Joan Wolff

owner of Deerfield Spa and resort in East Stroudsburg Pennsylvania,

to discuss the possibilities of both organizations working together.

Williams said we had been communicating over the last month or so.

Deerfield prides itself on bringing the best services and highest quality

professionals to all of its customers. They share a similar mission,

so when Joan expressed interest in our system, I was eager to meet with her.

We are currently looking at a training consultation some of our specialized equipment,

and integration of our nutraceutical product line in the spa.