Dr Irv's Fitness Fax

are trans fats gone?

2012-02-12T18:30:00.000-08:00

welcome to the unbelievable world of "the government did it right". yes, a world in which the local governments imposed their will on the food industry until, lo and behold, results favorable to health actually occurred: trans fats in our blood are actually declining!!! the report also says LDL and HDL, the two cholesterols, are improving, too, but i take that with a grain of salt. more americans are on statin drugs, so maybe those positive changes are not related at all to the drop in trans fats in our food supplies. now if only the federal government would get some cohones and confront the food industry. someday, maybe, someday. when our politicians don't depend on big bucks to run and stay in office.

oooops, then again, never will we see the feds acting on behalf of the public welfare. sorry.

the end of exercise?

2012-01-22T10:10:00.001-08:00

so i'm in the airport in colorado springs where i'd spent the weekend on a committee that's designing a new certification for the NSCA: CSPS - certified special populations specialist. this is a cert that will test trainers' knowledge of a vast array of special pops needs. if properly marketed, this should be good for one's biz. it was definitely good to hobnob with fellow exercise pros adn learn the process - very detailed and organized - of creating a credible certification test.

anyway, i don't write many blogs of late because i've been pretty busy at work, trying to make things happen. suffice it to say, between the economy and some turmoil in the local fitness business environment, it's been challenging but not anything we haven't managed before. so just do it, as Nike might say.

i just came across this article, hints of which i'd read in other venues on line: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9008953/New-pill-that-helps...

this is the magic bullet - a pill to get fit. what a shame! is it really something we want to create, a pill that will allow folks to remain sedentary, eat what they want, smoke what they want, and still live as if they were healthier by not doing anything to be responsible for thmeselves? most of us would say no, but then the public health aspect of the concept of keeping people healthy with just a pill, reducing overall healthcare costs as a result, is tempting. i leave it to you to consider and determine. for me, tho, i can't help but think that many of our world's problems result from most of us, individually and collectively, behaving irresponsibly.

but what about fitness, and a pill? can it really happen?

the short answer is yes. someday, hormones that impact weight gain and loss will be harnessed; that turn bad body fat into good body fat will be created; that preserve muscle mass and ward off disease-based inflammatory processes that cause other diseases such as cancers will be discovered or created in a lab. there will be side effects that are negative, of course; all drugs have them. only exercise doesn't. but it's how mankind thinks of managing the world around him. until then, if you are exercising you should continue; if you aren't you should start up. there are reasons beyond longevity to exercise. and the basic prescription remains intact after 30 plus years of being in the field: daily cardio of 15-60 mins (more for wt loss, less if intense enough relative to your personal abilities), a touch of strength work for the legs first, mid section second (for low back pain prevention), and something for the upper body just so you can help yourself in daily living activities, and don't smoke. there are a million ways to eat 'right', supplements that may or may not help in the event you don't eat right. but ultimately our bodies are pretty adept at converting what we eat to what we need so long as it gets enough calories. but when it gets too many our bodies have mechanisms that are very efficient at storage. so eating right is really about eating just enough to keep wt up if it's normal, or lose some slowly if it's too much. not hard math. just use the scale. except for those with eating disorders or body image issues, this formula is pretty simple and safe.

so wait for the pill or start enjoying life as you know it now. who knows? this magic bullet may keep you lean and fit but make it impossible to enjoy sex or something we know not what til it comes on the market. isn't it easier to just get off the couch? no.

well, i'm sorry. for you.

whole body vibration and your whole body

2012-01-03T18:49:00.000-08:00

linda melone, a fitness reporter, often calls me for guidance and ideas for articles she's writing. this one, in the link above, on whole body vibration (wbv), featured some of my comments on the science and my experiences with wbv. let me add some thoughts, tho.

the science is not quite prescriptive enough to warrant jumping on the bandwagon for certain physiological outcomes. that is, many studies show value for bone building, muscle strengthening, flexibility improving, and power development. few, however, have nailed down the precise number of minutes or the kinds of intensities that physicians or even exercise professionals would like to know to implement a prescription. thus, you may get contradictory studies and counter arguments against the use of wbv for any one or more of the above benefits.

but note this: as far as bones are concerned, since the general prescription is for fairly heavy loads imposed on the spine or hips in closed chain exercises such as squats and lunges, wbv offers the following value: by its very actions, it increases the value of any exercises done on it in closed chain and does not require heavy loading. therefore, simple and light squats with curls or overhead presses, lunges with tubing rows or dumbbell curls, or mini-jumps are enhanced while standing on a wbv machine. to what degree or for how long or how many days/wk - we just do not know. but at STEPS, we have seen nominal benefits at even twice/wk. by nominal i mean reduced rates of bone loss, or for some, some gain, if taking meds, too. in other words, while studies suggest 3/wk x 10-15 mins of vibration, even twice/wk seems to confer some benefits. and you get stronger and more coordinated while doing the exercises - without having to lift heavy.

therefore, the primary benefit is - older, esp more feeble or injured, women can get some benefits from wbv that they can't get from doing the same exercises with the same light wts on the floor.

well worth docs considering that.

happy new year!!!!

2012-01-02T12:26:00.001-08:00

happy new year!!!!

here's hoping 2012 is a better year for all - healthier, happier, and more prosperous.....though there are many outside influences that may alter the year's flow. hang onto your hats.....

at this time of year, in the fitness industry, the focus is on weight loss for many prospective clients and trainers and facilities that to neglect to discuss it in a blog would be sinful. on the other hand, to latch onto the basic theme that gets bandied about on how you need to get your butt into the gym to drop those extra pounds you gained these past 6 weeks - or past 52 - or past 20 years!!! - is not my cup of tea. perhaps i've been lax in this regard as so many personal training clients express the desire to lose weight when we meet or even after years of training that maybe i'm missing a market by being so lax. but it's a philosophical decision i made back when i started as a trainer in 1986. i sealed that position at the defense of my dissertation in 1988. after the bullshit discussion with the committee, upon 'approval', we deviated into a conversation on what was next in my life as a doctor of exercise science. i told them i was opening a personal training center - nashville's first. they asked how i was going to 'bring in' a new client, to which, since i was speaking to fellow professionals, i responded with the party line: assess, test, prescribe and implement. that is, i'd test cardiovascular capacity, body composition, muscle strength and joint flexibility, and then create a program for the individual. sounded good at the time...until someone asked "why?"

hmmmmm

why test? because i was taught that that's necessary before implementing an exercise program. but what if someone didn't want to know their body fat? hmmmm

and, other than a few individuals over the past 22 years, most DO NOT WANT TO KNOW. furthermore, many who need to lose wt cannot be measured accurately due to skinfold calipers' deficiency as the extremes. so, i never test any more. i offer but few accept. they know that if they lose weight, their clothes will fit differently and the scale will most likely show it. i say most likely because, yes, a few - esp males - may gain enough muscle mass to counter the few fat pounds lost, but this is rare in females, esp post menopausal ones. just basic science - i didn't make this up. inches may be lost but the layer of fat and the total weight may stay the same. why? because as muscle gets more toned, there is some loss of intramuscular fat that decreases its size; and around the middle, as the abdominals tone, they act like a girdle to pull the visceral contents into a tighter package. but the dimples and folds remain so long as the body fat stays high. and that's the rub.

two articles lately have addressed the many issues that confront those who need to lose serious weight. here's one on brain function and obesity that shows that there is more to wt loss than meets the eye: http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/itrsquos-all-in-the-brain-unlocki...

the other, from this sunday's NY Times magazine, is enlightening because of the simplified description of the role hormones play in keeping fat on the body, esp if you've accumulated lots of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.htm...

bottom line - it's really hard to lose weight. yes, it requires eating less and moving more but it requires a seriouis act of willpower and commitment to get it done. so, if you're trying to lose, start out easy - and aim low for now. i'd call it baby steps. hence the business name: STEPS Fitness.

we're here to help.

running against the age

2011-12-22T16:53:00.000-08:00

first of all, let me say that this will be the last posting of a blog on this site. not because it's an ineffective or inefficient site on which to blog. no, it's because i have finally gotten my new site up - www.stepsfitness.com - with its own blog-ability. so if you really want to follow my rants, please check me out there.

so, as i wrap up the year and this blog site, let me just say it's been a doozy in many ways. first of all, i'm proud to say i had some great opportunities this past fall to contribute to the profession. in late september i presented on the topic of wt management/wt loss in las vegas at a new organization's first meeting, lifestyle intervention. the topic was titled 'the weighting game (see, vegas? get it?): why it's so hard to beat the house (the house in this case is our bodies.) much to the chagrin of those who were there representing wt loss companies, and much to the glee of those who actually do medically supervised research or wt loss programs, i was honest and detailed on why wt loss is so damned hard to accomplish. dieting is essential and exercise is hardly enough to do it alone, but at the end of a long period of time, very few keep the wt off. hormones, habits, and circumstances seem to intervene on behalf of wt gain. helps to pick the right gene pool.

also, i was nominated but did not win the "personal trainer to watch" from IDEA/ACE in october. while a self-nominating process, it was still good to be recognized for my 25 years of contributions, and the others listed were equally qualified for theirs so no hard feelings on my part. glad there are some serious professionals out there representing the field.

additionally, i have been working on a task force with the NSCA for a new certification that's being rolled out. what an opportunity to make a difference in the field, with some very enlightened and enthusiastic fellow professionals!!!

but not all has been roses and glory. for one thing, i had to endure a 10 day layoff due to an out-of-the-blue retinal detachment. still can't see perfect but at least not blind. i also have had to endure a very difficult personal event that will take more time to recover from but at least i can work out, eat, and write again. finally, biz is tough here but at least i have a job i love with people i love and fellow professionals i admire. can it be better than that?

yes, but then, no - i have like all of us gotten another birthday under my belt. and just as this article reveals, there are effects we cannot alter other than by slowing down the descent. not to sound gloomy and all but aging does have its effects, and most are not favorable to physical prowess. BUT - as the article attests - lifting wts and stretching really do help to keep one's athleticism viable. so while i'm not going to dispute or support this article, let it be known that the gym can be your friend - in fact, is your friend, for life, and possibly longevity.

hope to see you on my website blog.
happy holidays, and happy new year.
irv

MRI's and athletic injuries

2011-10-29T10:17:00.000-07:00

who am i to question a medical provider's advice and guidance?

i'll tell you who i am: a concerned citizen and health care patron. i use my docs and their skills and i pay my own insurance and deductibles, so i know the costs i incur. and if, as a reasonably intelligent and informed adjunct health care provider, i see the issues on my bills, i know there are way more out there who don't see them. and that leads to rising health care costs.

this news piece talks about the highly sensitive technology of non-invasive scanning - magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. this allows, without radioactivity, for looking inside the body and seeing soft tissue, not just bone. hence, muscles, ligaments, tendons, organs - all are easy to see before going in to repair damage. at one time, these were so expensive, docs referred to the few hospitals that had them and only in cases where uncertainty about a diagnosis - and i'm going to keep this to orthopedic/sports med concerns - existed. in the old days, docs asked questions, palpated, manipulated and if need be, x-rayed to diagnose. today, they are quick to get an MRI, too. for one thing, many groups own their own unit. if you got it, use it, is the mantra. often times they are used instead of the traditional methods, whereupon things get 'seen' that may or may not be related to the problem at hand. several studies show that, while sensitive, MRI's are not that specific. that means, it shows a lot but not necessarily that what you see is what the problem is. in this piece, it talks about all the bad shoulders in pro pitchers who actually do NOT have pain or problems. hence, just because it's visible does not mean it needs repair. this has been found in spinal disks, too: about 33% of us without back pain have damaged disks. that means that not all back pain is caused by disk damage even if the disk is bad. it takes a good doc or therapist to ascertain the difference and the subsequent value of further treatment options.

when i went to get my hyaluronidase shots last summer for an obviously arthritic knee, my doc pulled out his cool new ultrasound machine. he could show me the joint and found exactly where to inject. as he did so, he noted that this is where he'd have injected anyway. by the third treatment, i had gotten a bill. that less than a minute ultrasound cost over $600!!! i was stunned and brought this to his attention. he subsequently stopped using it on me saving me, my insurer, and the health care system the next $2000. but how many other patients caught this; how many objected to its use; how many more dollars did this doc make doing a procedure he never had to use before to do the procedure he was tasked with?

now, i don't fault him; he's a friend and a conscientious doctor. but his group's business manager saw a cash cow here and suggested he use this new toy. and of course, as this becomes 'standard of care' the insurance industry is bound to reimburse, to the tune of 20-35% of charges, and lawsuits will evolve as some docs resist its use.

perhaps its the nature of the system - each group trying to make dollars while each group's nemesis trying to keep dollars. whatever it is, please be aware of the game, esp if you can do so before you get nailed for the procedure. ask if, indeed, an MRI is going to actually help with the diagnosis or the subsequent procedure. save your money....and mine.

why it's so hard to lose weight

2011-10-27T19:35:00.000-07:00

much has been written about dieting, exercising, or combining the two for effective weight loss. many a book, and many an author, have pretended to know the answer for the vast majority of those carrying excess weight. while some of these sources have gained wt in the process - made tons of moolah - few have offered the magic bullet that keeps people on task for the duration...of their entire lives. that's because nearly anything that reduces calories in or increases calories out will cause some wt loss. how much depends on many factors not the least of which is genetics. but ultimately, how much and for how long depends on how consistent, regular, and diligent one is with the program that helped you lose it in the first place. that said, here's another piece of the puzzle that is just now starting to enter the mainstream of discourse by pros and by the lay public.

a month ago, i presented a 90 minute lecture to a cadre of wt loss professionals from all around the country. the event was the Lifestyle Intervention conference, in las vegas, at the lovely Four Seasons Hotel. and while it sounds glamorous, due to circumstances, not the least of which is that i earn my living training clients one on one, i did a quick turn-around trip - got in wednesday nite, lectured at 330, got on a plane home and in at 2 a.m. so i saw nothing other than my room, the lobby, the restaurant, and the gym - yes, i made sure to get in a workout after i arrived that nite; it always helps me sleep better in strange places. the rest of the time, in the plane out and in my room, i was prepping for my talk: The Weighting Game: Why it's So Hard to Beat the "House". the house, of course, is our body, our physiology. and anyone who's ever tried to lose substantial amounts of wt understands from whence i come.

my challenge, in speaking to diet, exercise, and treatment-center professionals was to convey just how difficult - based on science and data - it is to lose substantial amounts of wt. now, you should understand by now that 'substantial' is the key word. it's easy to lose 3, 4, maybe even 10 lbs if you are carrying lots of excess fat. but that is not, in the minds of the overwt/obese, substantial. losing 10% of your body wt, tho, would be for some an ecstatic accomplishment...despite the odds stacked clearly against you maintaining it off. doing so was not difficult; there's tons of support for the almost miserable stats of long-term wt loss: many studies show that after 1-2 yrs, avg wt loss among participants in diet-based studies is about 3 kg, or 6.6 lbs. of course, most have lost more early on only to regain it back. and longer term studies show that by 5 yrs out, they've gained back their original losses PLUS added more wt. also, studies show that those who complied with the programs - be they wt watchers, zone, atkins, or whatnot - lose the most and keep it off the longest despite gaining some of it back from those first few months. but, medically speaking, substantial wt loss is different than clinically-useful wt loss; and while the latter may not achieve statistical significance, the long term stats rarely do. nonetheless, 3 kg is medically useful wt loss, esp if kept off.

where my talk deviated from the basic diet/exercise loop was in the discussion of hormones. this article hits it on the head. but, while it confirms my speech, it does have a major flaw that needs to be addressed here. that is, all the subjects were put on a very low calorie diet (VLCD) of 500-550 cals/day for the first 10 wks. they lost an average of 14% of their body wt. and subsequently added wt over the ensuing year.

for anyone who's been in this field long enough, or anyone who's dieted their whole lives, this is a DUH! conclusion. i refer to a 'duh' conclusion as one that we all know just by reading the results; of course, the way the study is designed, it almost never comes out saying anything other than what you'd expect. it's kind of like that famous 'golden goose' (a political title for wasted money by the fed gov) award for a study that showed cow manure in a dairy farm is slippery. DUH!

why this study lacks utility is that hormonal drivers to eat more are exacerbated by the extremes of the diet itself. these subjects were frickin' starved for 2.5 months! hell yes, they wanted to eat, and eat a lot. furthermore, as i learned in my prepping for the talk, not only does leptin decrease which stimulates appetite when you lose wt by dieting; your body's sensitivity to it - much like it's sensitivity to insulin when you've become type 2 diabetic - is diminished with obesity. that means that, as it goes down and stimulates greater appetites,and wt increases such that leptin increases to suppress appetite, the brain can't sense it. yes, you read right: the brain, on which the leptin acts, is less able to sense rises in leptin that tell you to stop eating as you regain wt. hence, you keep eating. and gaining.

can you guess what works to keep leptin resistance at bay? if you guessed the same thing that keeps insulin resistance at bay - EXERCISE - you are a genius. because those who lose wt with a substantial exercise program also see leptin drop, that drop that decrease is sensed at higher levels by the brain to minimize appetite surges. or, in easier to understand terms - which by the way was a real challenge in presenting to this audience - exercise-induced wt loss does not get as sabotaged by hormones as diet-induced wt loss. you can more readily resist appetite surges and more readily control or maintain wt loss. the why's have yet to be elucidated. but that exercise is absolutely so much more effective and essential in maintaining wt loss is indubitable.

so, diet - but not to extremes - to lose wt; diet plus exercise to lose a little more wt; but continue or increase your exercise to keep the wt off even if you stop being overly diligent with your dieting. it's the only way. and, it's the healthiest way.

set point theory - not for weight but for activity

2011-10-22T11:59:00.000-07:00

i'm sorry it's been so long since i've posted a blog. besides being busy at work and moving out of one house and into another, i also got slammed by a retinal detachment two weeks ago that required emergency repair. fortunately, despite being forced to lie on my right side for 10 days under threat of a failed surgery and potential blindness, i survived this sentence and now can type sitting upright.

there is lots to be written but it does not have to be done today. i did read a lot and found some very interesting fitness-related material i could share, but that'd be ex post facto now, so let's move on to today.

in the above link, the hypothesis is that we have an 'activitystat' much like a thermostat that keeps our bodies at a set level - of activity, in this case. studies have shown that kids in varying amounts of school-based p.e. are not stimulated to be more active as a result of their school behavior. that is, if you are in p.e. class x-hrs/wk, you are not apt to be more active outside of school than kids who are not given similar opportunities to be moving around. in fact, they find that most kids move about the same numbers of hours/wk regardless of how many hours of p.e. they have in school. as such, the hypothesis is we have a set point of hours of activity and, if we move a lot today, tomorrow we'll move less; and if we don't move in school, we'll be more inclined to move after school.

i don't buy it. and there is other literature that supports this counter-belief. i say belief because (1) i've not done nor read much research in this arena and (2) i think our activitystats are all screwed up by our environments. and my proof? ME! audacious, yes, but let me explain.

my life is pretty active. i train clients moving about the gym anywhere's from 5-13 sessions/day, or 5-12 hrs. (the days i do 13 i also have some half hr sessions.) when i get home, i don't sit around more or less depending on my sessions that day. in fact, as i've written before, i often get on the exercise bike or ski machine later in the evening before bedtime in order to get some activity that i'd call exercise. now, sure, i'm an exercise professional for whom it's a lifestyle. but if set point theory was right, i'd be more apt to chill on long days and more apt to exercise longer on short ones. again, a study of one is insufficient to argue one way or the other but i have more to tell you that may be more scientifically valid.

while laid low, i had no appetite. despite shopping with my girlfriend - cherrie - and staying at her house under her watchful eyes for those 10 days, i could not find any foods or junky foods that appealed to my tastes. not unusual here; illness and injury often disrupt normal taste for food. but i proceeded to lose 5# lying still allllll day long. most would gain wt. i lost - mostly muscle mass. this past monday, when the doc released me to resume work, even tho i didn't actually go work, i went to the office, i came home hungry. and the next day, even tho i only worked 50%, as per orders, i came home and ate big. in 4 days, i've nearly regained the wt i lost, tho surely not in the form of muscle since i've been restricted til next wk from any lifting - a..n...y! and i've been a good boy about it.

so what happened? why didn't i gain? and how is it i've regained? it's really quite simple.

as a lean, muscular person who's been this way my entire pre-adult and adult life, my body is 'set' to such a degree that it eats what it expends and vice versa. when i trained in martial arts 3-5 hrs/d, and did construction work, and a few miles of running, i ate like a horse. when i gave up the construction work and scaled the tae kwon do to teaching, i ate less. when i could not exercise as hard due to bad joints and had even stopped teaching, i ate even less. and when i was laid up and not able to do any activity, i hardly ate at all. the hormonal stimuli that otherwise told me to eat had scaled itself down to where it was telling me i hardly had to eat any more.

now this differs from the homeostatic mechanisms of most, esp the obese and sedentary. most folks, sentenced to supine-ness, would have eaten as normal and gained weight, mostly fat. we know, interestingly, that leptin, a brain hormone that's linked to appetite via fat stores and intake, is less effective in the obese than in normal wt people. in other words, they have leptin insensitivity. interestingly, when they diet and lose wt, leptin continues to stimulate appetite to a greater degree than when they exercise to lose wt. in both cases, leptin decreases but with exercise, due to the increased sensitivity to it, it actually requires less in order to be more effective at modulating appetite according to the new wt.

the message here is, as a lean, active person, i'm regulated toward leanness, even when inactive. it's a pretty tight setting under which i operate. the overwt/obese may not have such tight settings - we don't know which comes first tho genomics is looking hard at this - and so are apt to eat even when not burning calories, or even after eating. and i suspect the same is true for activity: lean, active people are active, more than their overwt/obese peers, even if they've been encouraged or forced to be active by outside or internal mechanisms, and it has little to do with how active they had been earlier. in other words, without assigning guilt - as it could be genetics for some - those who are carrying too much wt have set their thermostats to lower settings such that they may indeed reduce later activity if they had some earlier. but it may be that our culture and environment simply does not mandate enough activity to re-set their activitystats because, in days of yore, before electricity and other modern conveniences, if they didn't move, they didn't eat. it's the lifestyle, not the genetics, that determines movability!

athletes are the most gullible people.....

2011-09-10T18:59:00.000-07:00

athletes will try anything it seems. follow the link above and learn about the next crazy thing on their ever-lasting pursuit for greatness. hard work aside, that magic bullet just seems to be at the end of that rainbow, like the pot of gold....

anyway, cryotherapy at 166 degrees BELOW zero sounds absolutely crazy. but someone's pitching it to some athletes who seem willing to buy into anything.

now, there are some supplements and steroids and drugs that work...but all will have some detrimental if not dangerous side effects that do not seem to deter jocks. i've given this some thought over the years - is it ok for jocks in pursuit of big bucks and fame to put their bodies at risk by taking substances that are potentially dangerous? can society blame them?

back when i first opened my gym, STEPS, in late 1989, a phenomenal athlete at u of georgia = herschel walker - was all the rage. a specimen beyond belief, and a great athlete, too, and all natural. the story has it that he never lifted weights til college - but he did a 1000 push ups (not all at once) with his siblings on his back (not all at the same time.) when his coach found out about this, he didn't bother making walker lift like the rest of the team. now, i don't know if this is true or legend, but it speaks to the possibility that there are athletes born, and athletes made, and those who work hard and put in the energy and focus will take 'made' only so far; being born to be an athlete is not a ticket to success but it is the first big step towards it.

anyway, over the years we read about jocks, pros and college athletes, who did substances that are illegal or just delusional. society faults these kids - and they are kids, now that i'm almost 60 - for abusing their bodies this way in pursuit of fame, money, and sex - yes, that comes with it, so don't discount the driving power of all the hot chicks you could ever ask for. but these are public images that don't speak to the same driving forces that impel some to become great researchers, doctors, lawyers, or investment bankers and such. whatever their drugs - even if not exogenous, such as speed or alcohol - that they use to get to where they get, there are untold numerous stories of failed marriages, dislocated families, etc that result from these same drives. sure they wield power and fame and money but have they really touched anyone in a way as to have a positive impact? or did they leave burnt fields behind them in their wake as they slashed and burned anything to get to the top of their field? well, who am i to say, but that drug - the one that drives us, men and women alike, to succeed is probably nothing worse than the ones the kids take to go to the next level of success along the athlete's ladder.

i know that when i trained heavy in tae kwon do - 7 d/wk, 3-5 hrs/d - i was leaving a set of bad joints in my future and disrupted families as i single-mindedly went about justifying everything i was doing to become a better tkd-ist. not being an athlete by birth, i had to work hard just to be decent. others could get by on less effort and therefore succeed but i wanted to succeed at a higher level. today, with one new hip and a new knee in my near future i don't regret a thing. but i do feel bad about having put my first family on hold as i dawdled in grad school so as to be able to train hard. and while it's not all my fault, it is 100% my responsibility for how i handled my pursuit of success. had there been some good cheap - i was poor during that phase - drugs that would have helped me along my desired path, maybe i would have taken them.

but, even before herschel walker, i believed you should go naturally.

still do....

sports med, voodoo, and you

2011-09-05T20:07:00.000-07:00

i love reading about sports medicine - from lay to professional literature i find this stuff amazingly interesting. why? because today's news is tomorrow's old news.

when i was in graduate school, i did a project - and independent study - where i reviewed many articles on hips and knees and summarized each in abstract form so that i could learn way more than my department profs could teach me. needless to say, i forgot nearly everything but some i remember because it keeps cropping up again and again.

for example, when jerry rice of the 49ers tore his acl years ago, in september, it was expected that he would not be back for the rest of the season. surprisingly he played again in early december, caught a touchdown pass, landed on his surgical knee, and ended his career. why? because the very procedure - patella bone - patella tendon - patella bone, or b-t-b - that sped his recovery left his patella a little weaker so that when he landed on his knee, it fractured. and that's a bad injury. nonetheless, orthopods started doing that procedure and prevented their patients from going out into contact situations a bit later than rice's couple months plus.

at the time it was believed that this procedure would not interfere with the hamstrings' ability to control the knee after a graft. furthermore, what with infectious diseases like AIDS, it was a great technique that used the patient's own tissue to reconstruct the acl. furthermore, tho the quads would be weakened by this technique, they would recover quickly, as rice's did, with the p.t. techniques that were available at that time. so, here was a great new procedure...until too many issues came up. you see, the more these are done, the more data is collected. unlike drugs, you can't provide placebo surgeries on otherwise healthy people to test the short and long term effects of a surgical technique. also, it's not til folks go and test these procedures in real life, not the clinic or lab, that you find out if they work better than previous or other procedures. so, when improved hamstring techniques - the ones i read about in college - came along, and the improved p.t. that had evolved since my college days that would reinstate proper hams function (proprioceptive strategies that were hardly in use in the mid 80s)the b-t-b procedure fell out of favor.

for your understanding as to why i feel so confident in this assessment, i have had many opportunities to observe one of nashville's best orthopedic surgeons do the b-t-b procedure a few years back. based on my daughter's observations last summer, he's not doing as many of them; he's doing more hamstring reconfigurations.)

my point is, this article addresses these issues and how it is that procedures and techniques hit the mainstream only to fail under scrutiny over a longer time frame than most of us injured athletes are willing to wait on. does this make these voodoo, or experimental? well, if it's your joint, it's experimental til it becomes voodoo. but don't fault the doc - he's simply following his muse. and if he didn't, we would not know for sure, in the future, whether or not we missed an opportunity to perform a different, better procedure. unfortunately, you may have been the guinea pig. fortunately, rarely is sports orthopedics a life-death issue. however, other sport med treatments are potentially dangerous, not just expensive or painful, so beware a doc's advice just because he has this new certification or machine. also, i know from experience with a very trusted and competent sports med doc who gave me hyaluronidase (sp?) injections for my arthritic knee that costs are added in when you don't know about them. so, he used a new ultrasound machine he'd just gotten to better see where to put the needle. upon doing so, he said it showed him exactly where he'd have put it anyway. when i got the bill, and saw it cost an extra $500 plus, i confronted him on it. he quickly stopped using it, explaining that the main office told him to use this - and obviously for making extra money on an otherwise relatively inexpensive treatment - like double!!!

so, before you volunteer to be a lab rat, be sure to ask the doc if there are other more proven methods; and how one stacks up against the other in cost, convenience (how many times do you need to see the doc- because each visit costs a lot of money), and consequences, incl pain, time off, etc. then make an informed decision, not based on jerry rice's enormously aggressive work ethic and his unreasonable hours in the gym that allowed an elite athlete already biologically unique to rapidly heal and perform.

on gary taubes, author of "why we get fat"

2011-08-28T08:42:00.000-07:00

normally i take a more conservative stance on dieting for wt loss. that is, while i know it's important to lose wt for the two-thirds of americans who are overwt or obese, i am sensitive to the wt loss mantra that pervades our society and has been over-used in the minds of some afflicted with body image issues and eating disorders. confusing? well, it is for me too. that is, i am sensitive to the needs and issues of those with ED (eating disorders) but i'm also sensitive to the needs and issues of those with excess wt....and pissed off, if you've read some of my previous blogs. pissed off because excess wt is in many cases avoidable or at least manageable and when i see the millions of unconcerned parents of little kids, and other adults or near adults, who seem not to be taking any actions to avoid wt gain, i know the drain on our medical systems and dollars that seem so selfishly being left open. that said, i keep reading.....

when a formerly obese but currently lean client - a surgeon - came in to consult about his exercise program, he informed me of gary taubes, author of "why we get fat" which was s sequel to "good calories, bad calories". both are catchy titles and both pitch the low carb diet. however, different from other books of this type, he goes thru the world history, literally, of how excess fat consumption may NOT be the source of excess fat DEPOSITION let alone metabolic consequences of obesity. historically speaking, there is a substantial body of accepted evidence from all kinds of trials and meta-analyses that demonstrates that hi insulin resultant from hi carb diets is the source of both obesity and heart disease/diabetes/metabolic syndrome...and maybe many cancers. his review of literature is comprehensive tho he does avoid alternative explanations for some of the supportive studies he uses when debunking the diet- or exercise-only methods of wt loss. more on that later. additionally, his review of biochemistry that anyone can almost make sense of - i write this pen in cheek because, while he does soften it up and masticate it for the common reader, never delude yourself to think you can understand the complexities of our hormonal and metabolic systems by his or anyone else's descriptions - is also compelling. let me summarize and synopsize this for you: simple carbs - anything refined, starchy, white - elevate insulin which causes all kinds of bad things in your body if you persistently run high in your blood stream. his diet advice, however, is more sane sounding than one might otherwise expect from this warning.

now, to his exercise critique, something about which i do know and am sensitive.

taubes contends that studies show exercise is not an effective way to lose wt. he uses two types of studies: clinical, where control groups and supervision/guidance are offered, and epidemiological, where you survey people in large numbers. of the first, often times wt loss, on AVERAGE, does not occur from either cardio or strength training. taken on the face of it, this would make it appear that exercise is only useful for health, not wt loss; and while this is clearly true, don't discount its ability to help with the latter. in fact, many lose wt by exercising for the following reasons: calorie use while exercising, calorie use to restore homeostasis (post exercise oxygen consumption, or what is referred to in the fitness lit as EPOC, exercise post oxygen consumption which to me puts the cart before the horse but never mind....), and body composition changes, esp from resistance training. now, can you lose as much as you might wish via exercise, and is it easy? NO, but it's not ineffective. and it does confer great health benefits even beyond those that are medical - such as increased vigor, function, and emotional stability. taubes acknowledges as much but does not equate these benefits to the ones he touts when he reviews the studies that support his preferred diet, low carbs. so, in one study where subjects lost almost 10# after 6 mos, which is not that impressive really, one could find exercise routines that do the same. but he argues that exercise actually stimulates eating, and he's wrong here, from two angles. first, exercise actually increases leptin sensitivity such that the hormonal signaling that shuts off appetite if fat cells are satisfied does not need the enormity of output necessary to effect eating restraint. much as with increased insulin sensitivity, another benefit of exercise, if the body is better adapted to using hormones, the decreased hormone output not only conserves organic function (think pancreas when you think of insulin) but it also reduces negative effects of too much hormonal output overall (think hyperinsulinemia). furthermore, tho the exercise is hard to induce and maintain in many subjects, it does not stimulate so much as modulate hunger; minimally, it's another hour of the day you DON'T EAT. in fact, studies have shown that athletes, in hard training, lose wt often because they UNDEREAT. granted, the overwt/obese may compensate, and taubes does point that out, but with new studies recommending shorter bursts of higher intensities, i would think this type of compensatory eating - and even compensatory sedentariness, which taubes does not address - would be diminished, too.

now, as for large pop studies, self-reported exercise (over estimated) and diet (underestimated), esp if recalled over large tracts of time - like how many days/wk did you exercise at X% over the past year? - are inherently of nominal value. they may show why some succeed in accomplishing a study's goal - whether of wt loss or blood cholesterol reduction - but do not allow us to categorically state why some fail. we'd have to accuse them of lying, to the researchers and to themselves. no one wants to do that, right? taubes does not really address it when he accuses studies of exercise or low fat diets of failing.

that all said, let me pat him on the back for writing what i believe has not been writ large enough by authors promoting any sort of diet of the sort he promotes: he goes thru the various negatives of the higher protein/fat diets and explains them in ways that make the reader not pause but consider with some forethought the reality of taking on this kind of LIFESTYLE change. i emphasize lifestyle seriously because this is NOT a two week diet - if you have diabetes or have been overwt/obese for a long period of time, it may take months if not years to reverse your metabolism...and still some may not succeed to the degree to which they or their doc may like. and finally he presents the medico-legal problem inherent in his recommendation to docs: it's still outside the mainstream of government-supported recommendations so docs may be reluctant to put folks on this kind of diet. my advice: give patients the book, highlight certain features, and let the patient decide; then refer to a dietitian for specifics. and taubes i think could live with this, too.

so, my recommendation to readers who are interested in wt loss either from a personal or professional perspective: read this book, why we get fat, esp the last two chapters. if you want more of the history and science behind it, read the first 172 pages and/or read his other book, "good calories, bad calories", and decide for yourself.

my one caveat, and my daughter personifies this, is that vegetarians or vegans, or people like myself who don't eat red meat/pork, will have a harder time adapting to this kind of meal plan. hi pro/hi fat diets need to be creatively prepared to avoid mundanity; if you only know so many ways to prepare fish and chicken, good luck. otherwise, learn to cook better or learn to eat meat.

on core exercises - what works, what doesn't, and whether you should at all

2011-08-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

there are some things in the fitness world that are accepted entirely on faith. to argue against them is to walk right into the path of someone's whole way of seeing the world. flexibility - whether it helps performance (not necessarily, and may hurt it), reduces risk of injury (maybe increases it), or helps you be stronger (maybe, maybe not) - is one of these on faith principles that has achieved near-idyllic status. only the studies over the past 15 yrs has altered its stature yet to hear all the new found love of pilates and yoga that is touted in the media and among fitness people, you'd think it's the answer to everything. (disclaimer: i stretch, a lot, and always have, esp when i did martial arts 7 d/wk. but stretching is useful for some sports, tae kwon do being one of them; but at the same time, overstretching, which is what i did, likely contributed to my bad knee and hips, and maybe even interfered with my ability to actually be more effective as a fighter. looked great in forms, tho:))

another is the paramount role the core has come to play in fitness circles. the classic 6-pack, those cuts in the anterior abdominal wall that signify leanness and well toned abdominal (not stomach) muscles, has come to suggest that an individual, esp an athlete is somehow more effective, efficient, powerful, capable, and less prone to injuries, esp of the back. but the thinking here may be, and i believe as this article suggests is, way off base. for one thing, the 6 pk is just one set of the musculature of the core which we now understand to be all the muscles around the waist plus the hips, and even the upper thighs. furthermore, despite all the talk about having a strong core, few have distinctively identified any one or even battery of tests that measure it.

in this article, there are references to stuart mcgill, of canada, whose work in this arena is profoundly influential. he argues against sit ups and crunches as valid tests of or exercises for good core strength or function. he even suggests that these may be more dangerous than helpful, but he does suggest a safer way to do them - by placing one hand palm down in the small of your back and only raising up just enough to feel the abs contract. but for core, he recommends planks, front and side ones.

mentioned too is an article in this month's NSCA journal of strength and conditioning by schoenfeld which reads really well. he suggests, in opposition to mcgill, that the crunch may be perfectly safe and may have value for some athletes and body "builders" - those seeking, if lean enough, to have a toned midsection. his review of the literature is well taken. and his guidance at the end of the article is suitable for all levels of fitness participants.

however, as i've written before, all these are isolational exercises: they work one section or one side of the core without reference to how the core works. let's review this functionality.

the core transmits power/force from the lower body to the upper body. studies show tennis serves and baseball throws come primarily from the navel down - anywhere from 55-60% of the power comes from the legs and hips. the waist is a conduit to the upper body. if not strong, and functional, it will dissipate force coming from below. now, how does this force come up?

first, you rotate from the feet, twist thru the legs, and then into the hips. before the spine actually rotates, usually the rear leg hip externally rotates to turn the trunk toward the target be it the opponent or batter or what not. in this manner the spine is put into a twisted position - javelin throwers show this quite well - and then, like a spring, untwists to propel the upper trunk and shoulders into action. thus, the core is really a twister, not a squarer. that is, it does not operate in one plane; it operates in all three, as twisting is a multiplanar movement. so, training it in twist is really more appropos. and what exercise does that? the torso rotation with tube or cable resistance. done properly, whether statically to develop core stability, or on an unstable surface such as on a stability ball or less-than-optimal stance, or in a firm and solid stance or position, such as sitting on a bench, straddling or normally (why? because polo players straddle a horse; race car drivers sit in chairs; and so do you....), the torso rotation exercise most approximates the way the spine has works. let's imagine.....

if you stand with feet shoulder or hips width apart, knees soft, and hands directly out in front of the sternum, you have effectively created a spoke (hands) and wheel (spine/core) system. now, if you have some force - manual from a partner or tubing or cable - that tries to twist your arms over to one side, and you resist, you are isometrically rotating to the opposite side. for example, if a partner pushes the hands to your right, you rotate to the left using your right gluteals, left inner thigh/hip rotators, left erector spinae, left latissimus dorsi, right external oblique and left internal oblique - all the same muscles that actually turn you to the left to throw a ball or punch or serve. in other words, it makes your core work like your core works - in synchrony with all the muscles of the hips, thighs, and midsection. wow!!!

the problem is how to test core strength. and i believe ohio state is testing with a self-designed mechanism at least function if not strength. so maybe someone will come up with a way to standardize the tests for core strength. in the meantime, i use a tubing pull - where i pull the tube while the client faces the mirror and watch for when the core starts to give out. not truly accurate - more qualitative than quantitative - but it allows me to see if someone needs to be trained more to one side than the other. it also allows me to test the muscles of the hips and low back because the client can often identify where the weakness lies.

to conclude, this article is provocative because it touches the sensitivities of many in the fitness world. but read it closely and think about it. and think about what i've said here. i believe you'll find what i've found - sit ups and crunches are just for fun and tone but not function or strength of the core.

on barefoot running

2011-08-19T14:30:00.000-07:00

barefoot running, and barefoot shoes, are the newest things in fitness and in fitness gear. i've commented and written before on this topic and more studies keep popping up about it. most are positive - so far as actual running barefoot is concerned; some are negative so far as injury rates while running barefoot are concerned. but some are neutral - discussing the science behind barefoot running while also discussing the spate of injuries that have been reported by those attempting to run barefoot. this then leaves the researcher -not scientific ones, but potential buyers and users of barefoot technology shoes - in a quandary: should i or shouldn't i?

here is an article in the american council on exercise's on line mag for professionals. it does not shed a pleasant light on the subject but i want to point out a few problems with it.

first, recreational runners were subjects, meaning they were less likely to be "soft" or skilled runners, ones most likely to benefit from these shoes for performance sake. two, they were young females. in other words, we don't know if men - generally heavier but also stronger - would be better 'landers' while running in these kinds of shoes. three, the researchers told the subjects to run no more than 20 mins three times a week for the two weeks prior to testing. and four, they were tested after running 20 meters on ground reaction forces.
why these may be problematic i'll discuss below.

first, recreational runners come in all types, but many if not most are heel runners. two weeks is not enough time for a heel runner to adapt her style. second, being female runners, as i said above , they are not likely to be strong enough in the lower extremity to absorb impact via mid foot landings quite so well as a male might be. the fact that we know nothing about their body weight, body composition, or other measures or indicators of fitness suggests that these subjects may not have be representative of more elite, male runners trying out barefoot shoes. third, to make the adjustment to these kinds of shoes, one should probably not go right out and start running, perhaps at all but definitely not for 20 mins. that we do not know about their fitness levels, it's feasible that 20 mins was half of their capacity, in which case they would definitely not be fit runners, tho they would be fit individuals. furthermore, most sales and fitness pros would suggest starting a run/walk program with substantially less run time total than would otherwise be done in the early weeks of adaptation. so, 3 x 20 mins x 2 wks is not enough time to adapt or learn to adapt. finally, the technique of testing is a good one for most running biomechanics studies. but we don't know anything about trials - numbers, cues, etc - and actual forces - vertical, horizontal or shear. so while it's an interesting set of data, i would not bet my shoes on this study.

nonetheless, take from the study my comments - slow and easy introductory period - and the advice of others - learn to land on the forefoot - and then maybe you will be one of the lucky many who've learned that running barefoot is now possible in these funny looking but very comfortable shoes.

coconut water and other concoctions

2011-08-14T07:49:00.000-07:00

the latest, today, because who knows what it will be tomorrow, is coconut water. yes, this natural product from the islands and tropics is capable of damn near anything you athletes would want, from hydration to energy to curing all kinds of aches and pains. but as this article, and many others i've researched, shows, it does not hydrate better than sports drinks. however, if you follow the link to the pubmed article, you will note that the one - i emphasize, ONE - article says it's better tolerated than sports drinks. now, there are three things i want to bring to your attention.

first, the study was done in singapore. not that good research isn't done there, but being a land of milk and coconut, and the abstract does not tell us anything about this, it was possibly funded by the coconut industry itself. in fact, google coconut and you'll see bunches of 'research' all of which is funded by the coconut industry. possibly biased, you think?

second, we don't know, from this abstract, to what extent the study was done in the format we in the west would do it. that is, how much and at what rate were the drinks administered? what sports drink was it - gatorade, a well ressearched product, or some local/national brand? and there are many other questions one could, and should ask.

finally, the results show that coconut with added sodium - that's extra salt, for those who forgot chemistry 101 - works as well as the sports drink at hydration but was better tolerated. that's the question mark, but leave that aside. it works as well as artificially flavored and colored water with sugar and sodium added. more natural? no...because the coconut was also modified, with salt. and who knows what else. it was a coconut drink, not pure coconut. in other words, read the labels, and question the marketing. as you would for a computer, a car, or anything someone's hawking that somehow miraculously without notice from the Nobel Prize distributors have ever noticed, think twice. it may not be bad for you but it also may not be good for you. and if it's only as good, or marginally as good, consider cost, at the checkout and to your body. for the one thing we don't have evidence on is the accumulated cost of consuming products about which we know little other than what the sellers tell us.

HAES it going?

2011-08-05T16:24:00.000-07:00

it's intentional: HAES = health at every size, a program to help overwt women come to grips with the lifestyle patterns that have contributed to their heaviness, but NOT by enforcing wt loss. rather, it encourages finding - no, creating -new patterns of thinking, feeling, responding, and acting to stimuli - both external as well as internal - that previously was counter-productive to their well-being. that is, food, eating, and dietary habits, as well as activity habits, which contributed to excessive weight gain are redirected with a loving message that participants can reconfigure into new habits and patterns that lend themselves to improved mental and medical health....even if participants never lose the weight they'd like to lose.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43591507/ns/today-today_health/t/end-dieting-new-movement-focuses-health-any-size/from/toolbar#

this concept came from the research of Steven Blair when he was at the Cooper Clinic in TX years ago; his writings and lectures on 'fit and fat' changed the way exercise and nutrition professionals started to approach the problem of overweight/obesity: small changes in lifestyle choices reaped large, very large benefits in health, even if the wt never got to the 'healthy' range.

as a trainer, i've been hit up since early in my career for the answer to wt loss. having provided the party lines - dietary and exercise - even as they've changed over time, i've come up with a simple dietary dictum: eat whatever you want, but take ONE THIRD off the plate even before you taste it, and put it in a to-go or tupperware container. i've also come to grips with the exercise rx of so many minutes a day times so many days per wk: do 15 minutes daily, where daily is nearly every day of the week. as for strength training and all that malarkey about building muscle mass to boost metabolic rate, well, old folks and women don't build so easily and really won't build enough to substantially reduce total calories; and the exercises themeselves won't do it, either. so, the exercise advice is more directed toward health, mental, cv, and musculoskeletal, than toward wt loss. why? because you really can't exercise it off. a combination of eating less and moving more may, that is, MAY help some lose wt, but will always, read: ALWAYS, improve wellbeing.

some get frustrated with these guidelines, but i prefer honesty to false and impermanent promises. it's really easy for trainers to brag on successful wt loss with their clients. but let's look down the long corridor to see where these clients end up years later. some will have kept it off; most will have regained it; and many if not most will have gained beyond where they had started from. what's really more important, other than how they feel about themselves, which is a far cry from anything i can offer, what is important and what i can influence is their well-being, their physical fitness, and to some degree their health, even in the long run.

so when i get a client who intransigently struggles in vain to lose wt - and won't because of lifestyle choices that suggest lack of discipline, laziness, or whatever other excuses all of us make to not do what we know needs to be done to accomplish whatever our goals may be, i fall back on my basic mantra of small changes for large results: if they will exercise twice a week with me, and modulate their diets as a function of our relationship, then i'm helping them....until such time as they are ready to help themselves.

why?

because ultimately, that's all the power anyone has to help another: loving support. from there, it's their choice how to use the knowledge, power, strength, endurance, functional capacity, etc. like HAES.......

on food and self-regulating industry

2011-08-03T21:17:00.000-07:00

this op-ed in the Times - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/when-big-food-makes-its-own-rules/?ref=opinion - highlights perhaps one of the strangest elements of american politics that has long gone unencumbered by both parties: the revolving door and closed feedback loop of those who should be regulated by those who were once or will someday soon be working for the very industries that are to be regulated. that is, the classic fox guarding the hen house model of government oversight.

this article takes our government to task over its weak rules and mild constraints against the food, primarily the fast food and kids' oriented food, industry and how they are allowed to both be represented at the table as well as be in control of the writing of the very rules that are supposed to provide guidance to their production and marketing. what if the oil industry were allowed to establish the rules for exploration, environmental management, and supply and demand of our nation's fossil fuel reserves? you think there'd be more holes in the ground any and every where with little regard for the environment during and after they were tapped? you think prices would be higher and their drilling fees lower? you think your cars would be getting any fuel efficiency? heck no. they'd be padding their wallets....oh, wait a minute; they are padding their wallets, and have very little regard and take very little responsibility to the larger issues faced by our people, our nation, and the global environment. fat chance they'd be so kind if there were teeth and guts behind the regs and the regulators themselves. but many if not most of them have worked for or will someday hope to work for the very industry they presumably regulate. furthermore, so long as our politicians are dependent on the largesse of such industrial giants, they will be sure to write the weakest of laws and finance the minimalist of regulators as to ensure the continued profits of these corporations.

the downside of this is highlighted in the food industry. what with crappy and unhealthy foods being produced and sold cheaper than healthy foods esp to kids and the underprivileged, our country is awash in obesity-related disease and lifestyle accommodations. while any one industry is not totally at fault for these circumstances, the depth and width of which are actually, not figuratively, killing people by the millions, without some government regulation, the food industry is getting off pretty light. when you can redefine obviously-unhealthy foods - damn near anything processed - as healthy, and the gov and regs look away, we are destined to stumble down the highway of heart disease, diabetes, and cancers for all.

but what to do about it? therein lies the conundrum. for if we really believe people are in their rights to choose how to live and eat, then putting out there for them foods that feel and taste good even if they offer nothing nutritionally is fulfilling a basic human right. and who'd deny an individual such a right, right?

but if we believe that each individual is entitled to this right, but then must take responsibility for the consequences of that right, then a public health policy is impossible to sustain; and a private-based health initiative should more precisely 'punish' those who have taken advantage of that right at the expense of those of us who have tried to live healthfully. it just does not seem fair to either let folks suffer and die needlessly so others can profit; nor does it seem fair to make those of us who watch what and how much we eat pay for the sins of gluttony and uncontrolled eating and sedentariness. but alas we do.

it's not easy but i do know this: the industry in this case should know the mission - public welfare- and be supported in supporting this mission, or financially penalized for seeking profits over well-being. i know - idealist if not socialist thinking. but isn't that better than just giving up?

on fast food, national health, and taxes

2011-07-24T19:42:00.000-07:00

for over 20 yrs, i've been struggling with my bleeding heart side and my self-responsibility side when it comes to wellness and fitness. knowing what i know and how difficult it is for some, for whatever multitude of reasons, to better manage their own health, i still find myself disgusted by those who allow themselves to retreat so far from a state of wellness by engaging in behaviors that are clearly counter productive. when i see young people smoke cigarettes - when i heard my own 28 y/o son smoked - i get angry, dismayed, and disgusted. when i see grossly overweight parents buying junk food for their kids, let alone themselves, i get angry, dismayed, and disgusted. when i hear and read of people spending hours - even my own teenage girls do this - in front of a tv or computer - oops, i'm in front of one now! - i get angry, dismayed, and disgusted. too many behaviors that too many americans - i can't worry about other nationalities right now - engage in are self destructive; worse, they are community and nationally destructive. they increase everyone's cost basis, increase the general discomfort - ever sit next to an obese person on an airplane? believe me, they don't feel real comfortable, either - and increase the level of medical insecurity we all have to face when, should it ever be required, as in war or even natural disaster, we must act with vigor and speed. if you live on an island, feel free to consume junk food and watch tons of tv; if you live in the real world, even if you can afford your own insurance and services and a personal trainer, you should not feel so comfortable in your right as an individual.

but this ny times op ed piece puts my arguments in economic terms that may actually be feasible politically. not yet; too contentious out there. but someday, maybe: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24bittman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion

whether it is appropriate or not for the government - esp the fed - to tax certain foods is not, philosophically, a hard issue to confront. in fact, the fed is already, and has for years been, telling us what and how to eat, specifically by subsidizing certain food types such as beef, dairy, wheat, soy, sugar, and corn. by keeping costs either high or low or even just buttressed against the swings of the markets, its tax policies have enabled food choices to reach us that do not justify government intervention because they actually hurt us. there are millions of arguments for or against certain policies and food products but some, such as those highlighted in this piece, make common as well as economic sense.

as for free choice - ok, fine, but not on my or our dime(s): if you receive any sort of state-funded welfare, esp for food, then you are limited to food, not junk; if you receive state-supported health care - even medicare - you should be whipped into shape, at least better shape, by being excoriated to get moving. even 10 minutes a day is better than nothing. if you are in line for bariatric surgery, you should be forced to engage in a one yr fitness regimen and lose X% of your weight first before being 'entitled' to a procedure that effectively costs the system over $50Gs. and if you can't do so because you're already so morbidly obese as to be unable to move at all, then - well, you don't want to hear my opinion on this, now do you?

thoughts on Los Angeles sun

2011-07-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

i'm in l.a. visiting colleges, brother, and friends, with my youngest daughter. we looked at 3.25 colleges - hard to count USC as a full look as she summarily discounted its prospects upon departing the parking garage. otherwise, the three small colleges got a good look-see and the pleasant sunny weather here is clearly a draw.

as i sit outside by the hotel pool, catching some early morning rays, escaping the cool of the building-induced shadows, i feel compelled to reflect on sunshine, its benefits and its dangers.

first, its benefits: tans (done safely, sure look healthy), warmth (done safely, or out of necessity as during the cold winter months, is comforting), light (esp for aging eyes, it helps you read better; but even for non-aging eyes, a welcome introduction to the day unless one's been partying far too hard and long), and finally, vitamin D, on which i've written before and will write again, i'm sure.

now, it's dangers: sunburn and potential severe burns, excessive exposure and increased skin cancer risk, and heat (too much of which can lead to heat related injuries).

for the most part, tho, sun is to be appreciated and respected, like almost anything else in life. feared - now that's taking caution a bit too far.

i do not intend to play statistician or medical historian. however, i cannot but help question the real risks we humans have determined when it comes to such things as cancer and neuro-degenerative diseases; even heart disease is questionable in the following light: we humans are living longer than our predecessors under much more coddled childhoods, making us weaker and, over time, more susceptible to diseases that may or may not be solely due to our exposures to various risks. let's start at birth.

many modern humans get inoculated against a variety of diseases that dramatically increase our prospects for survival. i just read that 10% of kids born in sudan die before the age of 5 - my guess is that that's closer to the historical norm of mankind in the wild, or even pre-20th century. furthermore many of us had exposure to health care beyond the dreams and fantasies of our forefathers whereby medicines and procedures further expanded our opportunities for survival success. finally, our mothers - many of whom died in childbirth pre-1850s - used to give birth to several children knowing full well some would die young, as would they themselves. as such, with more mothers successfully birthing more kids who will live, we have in effect 'weakened' the stock of humanity to where people who otherwise would not be alive are birthing others who otherwise would not have been able to survive. we have essentially produced a flood of humanity incapable of withstanding the rigors of nature without the crutch of modern medicine. hence, natural assaults upon our bodies - air, sun, water, pathogens of all sorts - now get blamed for making us sick or even killing us.

i'm a fan of america's founding fathers. to think that ben franklin and john adams, two who were sedentary by comparison to the george washingtons in the crowd, and who were portly by comparison to their peers, lived into their late 70s, early 80s, suggests that, by themselves, excess wt and sedentary lifestyles alone are not dangerous. rather, some are hardy despite the savage medical practices of their times and the various exigencies of lifestyle - both crossed the atlantic several times as well as traveled the rough 'roads' of the colonies through all kinds of weather conditions - no heat or air conditioning!!! - and thrived. granted, they were way more active than we of modernity, even in their feebleness and sedentariness. but cardiovascular fitness is relative and i'm sure they would not be categorized as fit by modern metrics; just fitter than our norms when you factor in the 67% who are obese and sedentary.

my guess is that those strong enough constitutionally to make it to adulthood and to procreate to the extent that some of their offspring survived to do likewise were constitutionally 'blessed' to pass on strong genes. these genes were either resistant to many of the diseases we currently consider rampant or epidemic or endemic; or the effects of sunshine, dirty water, and the many air- and water-borne pathogens simply were not as dangerous as they once were. somehow i don't buy the latter. i suspect, and maintain, that the human gene pool is weaker and getting weaker the more we expose it to such protective measures as modern medicine and some health nuts propose. of course, to allow nature to take its course is a crude and inhumane response to my thesis. in fact, i or my loved ones very likely would be non-survivors if not for modern medicine and lifestyles. nonetheless, let me state right here and now that we should not be throwing caution to the wind, esp when it comes to known risk factors like diet, activity, cleanliness, and sunshine, but we also should not be so paranoiac as to hide from the pleasures of nature nor modernity.

i suppose it all comes down to moderation. aristotle wins again.

on stretching, time, and reward

2011-06-23T20:09:00.000-07:00

in this piece in the Times, the issue of whether or not to stretch, and if so, how, is addressed, yet again: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/to-stretch-or-not-to-stretch/?ref=health

the quick and dirty is that studies have demonstrated that power and strength are lost after extended durations of static stretching; that newer studies have shown that stretches under 30 seconds do not impair strength or power; and that there are some sports and athletes where stretching is warranted, and others where it is not. but let me share some of the science behind this topic as i believe it is critical in helping you decide whether or not to stretch.

most studies that show stretching impairs performance have subjects do very long periods of stretches, sometimes multiple sets of 10-60 second stretches, or simply 15 minute - yes MINUTE - static holds, and then test those muscles that were stretched for strength or power output. clearly, the declines would be expected and now it was a matter of explaining what had happened within the muscles. generally, the 'creep' of tendon makes it hard for the contractile elements of muscles to shorten the tendon quickly or vigorously enough to produce sufficient pull on the respective bones such as to generate force or power. in other words, the compliance of the tendon, and muscle, has to be overcome before it can apply tension and create movement. long static stretches increase compliance - which is why people stretch IF you (1) need to be more flexible for your sport or daily activities, (2) lost flexibility due to chronic postures, movements (from doing the same activities such as jogging), or injury/disuse, or (3) it 'feels' good to be stretched out, as in yoga, pilates, or simply general comfort. (i am a stretch fiend myself, coming from being a very supple martial artist who in retrospect over stretched all the time. on injury, momentarily....)

but if you stretch to avoid injury or minimize risk thereof, perhaps you need to reconsider. studies do not show that it reduces the risk of injuries nor that it enhances recovery from certain injuries such as hamstring tears, for example. in fact, strength training yields more stretch-resistance and injury-resistance than does stretching per se. in my case, what with a hip replacement and an impending knee replacement on the same side, i suspect that hypermobility most likely factored into the etiology. by being too flexible and playing a high speed sport - kicking and punching - my joints may have been compromised in terms of stability, wearing out cartilage in areas of lesser thickness. a more recent study actually split runners into two groups - stretchers and non-stretchers. injuries were similar at the end of the study period, but the interesting part was why: those who never stretched but had been placed in the stretching group were more likely to be injured than those who never stretched and were in the no-stretching group. similarly, those who stretched and were in the no-stretch group got injured more than their fellow stretchers who were allowed to stretch. the conclusion: if you stretch and have no injuries, continue; if you don't stretch and have no injuries, continue. but maybe you should not start or stop stretching just because some research shows value or not.

going back to the static stretch duration issue. more recent studies tested the way real athletes might stretch, such as 10-15 seconds per body part, before activity. no adverse effects were found. furthermore, as another study smartly pointed out, most athletes don't go from the stretch to the performance line; that is, you don't stretch and immediately swing a golf club or try to dunk the ball or sprint a 100 yds. rather, you stretch, then warm up, then sit while the event/game is initiated, and by then all the benefits of stretching have dissipated. the warm up persists a bit longer. and no negative effects from the prior stretching are demonstrable.

furthermore, this kind of data supports the latest concept of stretching - dynamic stretching. this entails gradually increasing the range and intensity of the movements you will be making until you are fully up to speed and range. for a jogger, this means walk slowly, gradually add speed, then stride longer, and 4-10 minutes later, you start running/jogging your usual pace. this is functional and practical. and research supports it. (anecdote: as a new green belt still not on friendly terms with my korean instructor, i approached him about what to do if i needed to kick on the street. i'd been coming to class 60 mins early and stretching for over 45 of those minutes before ever throwing a kick. and i could kick higher than anyone in class, except the instructor. but wow, what if i needed it in a fighting situation? could i kick high enough? so next class, as i walked down from the changing area, into the workout area, he called me over to spar the senior black belt. i balked but not with any authority over my body; i was his student, his lackey. within the first two minutes of jumping around, kicking gradually higher, etc, i was able to kick as high as after 45 minutes of intense stretching. being thick skulled, i had to experience this kind of intro to kicking the next class, getting similar results. needless to say, the lesson learned was that stretching was unnecessary; just kick. and this was in 1973, way before there was any science to stretching.)

so, what are the lessons of this article?

well, another personal note: a 70 y/o male client of mine, lying supine, could not raise his straight leg over 50 degrees of flexion. he never had low back issues. and he was very athletic and active being a gentleman farmer and avid horseman, plus polo player even today. years ago, i consulted with a ballerina in the local ballet. she had bad back problems. and could stand with her leg touching the back of her head. plenty flexible, and pained.

in other words, it works for some people some of the time for some of their issues; for others it may be a massive waste of time; and there are no rules of thumb that apply to everyone of any age or activity level. that is, except for this one rule: warm up, somehow, before you do anything too vigorous.

the 10% rule of running

2011-06-20T20:26:00.000-07:00

there's a standard exercise prescription in the cardio world, coming from the running community, that you should only increase your weekly mileage by 10%. this is stated so as to minimize risk of injury. it translates like so:

if you start running, or even walking, one mile a day, seven days/wk, a 10% increase could be done by either adding 0.10 miles to each walk or 0.70 miles to one of your walks. clearly, the former is less abrupt than the latter. however, numerically speaking, they are both 10% increases.

the article - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/nutrition/21best.html?ref=health - discusses the source of this rule and some studies that have taken it to task. but short of controlled studies, what else should we consider?

for one thing, real life people are not apt to simply increase a 1 mile walk by 0.1 miles. furthermore, if that walk takes 20 minutes, they would be unlikely to progress to a 22 minute walk the following week. finally, once a few progression weeks had occurred, few would be likely to make a similarly 10% progression by jogging and cutting back on mileage.

but those are how you should progress. in the early stages of a cardio program, i advise that you make small mileage progressions based on either distance or time. i prefer time. recognizing that the fitter you get the faster you move, you will also cover more distance per unit time those early weeks. granted these are the weeks you will most likely hurt yourself IF you make more than one progression at a time: that is, if you increase distance and/or time and/or speed jointly, you will run into problems later if not sooner.

so i advise people start with 15 mins walks nearly daily, for the first couple weeks. no progression other than behavior change. i advise 'nearly daily' so as to generate habit formation. by week three, they can add 2 mins to their walks- more than 10% but still way doable. in fact, most look at me like i'm crazy, claiming they can walk more than that. my response: then why haven't you been doing so? that puts things back into perspective and we move on from there.

now, once they achieve a 30 min walk, daily, i advise they increase speed...but cut back to 15 mins. even if they have no intention nor need to jog, slow walking is slow and calories are based on distance, not time. so the more distance covered the better. (btw, this is true for cardio benefits too, tho age and disability factor in.) once they get a faster pace going at 15 mins, i recommend weekly progressions similar to that of the first several weeks.

let's do some math here. the rule of 72 says it will take as many months to double for financial growth or payments at a specific percentage of the principle as that percentage divides into 72. i know this is putting it very rough and raw but here's a simple way to look at it. if something increases by 10%, then it will double- that is, the principle will double - in 7.2 periods of time. thus, if it's weekly mileage, and you increase by 10% per wk, in 7 wks you'll be walking, running, swimming, or biking twice as far as you did on week one. so, in two months or so, using my system of making virtually no progression those first two weeks, you'll double your walks to 30 mins. in fact, using my 2 min/wk increases, starting the third week, you'll now be at 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, then 31 mins 8 wks after that second week. thus, your progression will have been slower overall, and your habit will have been deeply ingrained with less risk of injury.

now, i know few can move this slowly, and most will quit much sooner than i, or they, would like. for many, they will claim a time issue despite the fact we all have 15, 17, etc minutes in our day to do some kind of movement. for others, it will be haste then burnout - a repetitive habit they've had with exercise for years. amazingly, it's so simple it almost breaks their will. they need a reason to fail and this model does not allow it. so they make one up.

10% or not, some folks simply don't want to make the kinds of lifestyle changes that will make them feel better, be healthier, and maybe even look better. why?

maybe science can't answer that.

on knees, shoulders and backs

2011-06-14T15:20:00.000-07:00

i just returned from an exercise etc fitness conference in phoenix this past sunday (6/12). as a presenter for ex etc for over 15 yrs, i've had the opportunity to observe and even participate in the evolution of the profession of personal fitness training.

during the lecture on shoulders, i asked if anyone in the class was a thrower as i needed someone with coordination to demo my 'dynamic cam' technique using elastic tubing. only one person - out of 25 or so - admitted to being able to throw. i've had this happen before - trainers who were uncoordinated in the ways of sport movement. this alone concerns me as so many of our clientele - country club athletes, or even real athletes - play sports and need to learn how to exercise in ways that will enhance their activity of choice. if all a trainer knows is how to strengthen or stretch a muscle, but not the mechanisms of movements themselves, then training is half-assed, if you know what i mean. after all, what is functional training if not training that improves function and resists injury?

so, here's a few simple pointers on the major joints - knees, shoulders, and backs - and how you - trainer or worker-outer - can think about how you train those joints.

first, all joints have 4 major components: bones (which meet and may be joined - the scapula is not technically joined to the thoracic rib cage; it floats on it - to form a specifically-limited range of movements), ligaments (which hold most -but not the scapula- joints in place but do not move them), tendons (the attachments, usually close to the joint, of muscles that move them), and muscles, the only real source of movement of the joints.

now, muscles come in various sizes and strengths, but the rule there is the larger the muscle the stronger it is; and vice versa. the muscles closest to the joint itself tend to be the smallest; as such, they are the weakest and often are implicated in the injury patterns of many joints. learning how these muscles are supposed to work will help you train them, but here's my rule: if you use excessive loads early in training or rehabbing, the small muscles won't be able to do the work they're supposed to do, and the larger ones will compensate accordingly. therefore, the small muscles, the ones most integrated in stabilizing a joint, are undertrained at the expense of the larger ones, most likely doing movements TO the joint itself that are not good for it.

therefore, when training these important joints, remember to pre-train the smaller muscles around them by not over-burdening the systems. for the shoulder, do some cuff work; for the knees, do some basic conditioning for the hip abductors and vastus medialis with low resistance close chain exercises like leg press or squats; and for the spine, don't do crunches - start with simple core training exercises like bridges, abdominal contractions, and/or partial dead bugs. a couple weeks of these early in a novice's training, or even in the training of an athlete coming off the post-season, will prevent many of the types of injuries we trainers often contribute to, and may even allow steeper progressions once the early phase is over.

hi pro/hi fat/low carb diets and health

2011-06-08T20:30:00.000-07:00

another study reported in the media - http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/eating-fat-staying-lean/?ref=health --- shows there may be benefits to eating hi fat/hi protein diets compared to the hi carb diets that have been promoted for the past 35 yrs. and studies, mostly short time, bear this out: reduced wt, reduced fat, even better blood fat and blood sugar stats. the biggest problem lies in sustainability as the diets get pretty bland after a while without fruits, veggies, and grains. but, for those able to sustain them, they do work in many cases. obviously some people are not going to get the good blood values but many will see these improve as wt slips off.

the points i like to make to clients and students in classes (when i teach for Exercise ETC, as i'm going to be doing this weekend in phoenix) are these: first, all these diets help folks lose wt because they are providing fewer calories, with protein and fat being more satiating than hi carb diets ( hence you're hungry an hr after eating chinese food, right?); and two, hi carb diets are holdovers from the 70s because that's when the aerobics fad started and athletes in that arena eat enormous amounts of carbs to optimize performance and recovery. and this performance based dietary system prevailed until evidence started to appear that protein was useful for cardio athletes both during long events (as in cycling) and for recovery, tho it does not contribute much to actual performance, esp in terms of speed.

let me use me for an example, as i've done in a previous blog. when in my late 20s, early 30s, i was a very competitive and driven tae kwon do athlete. i trained 4+ hrs a day, some in the gym some at home, plus jogged a couple miles/day or did wind sprints after class, all after doing 8 hrs of construction work in all kinds of weather. being a vegetarian at home - i'd eat fish or chicken at restaurants or others' homes, but not red meat - i was constantly eating. once i grad school for exercise science, i did a project where i had to calculate my caloric intake for 3 day. now, mind you, i was all of 68" tall and 141-144#, with a skinfold measurement of 3.3% body fat. i was eating 3500-4000 cals/day. to give you an idea, i had two pb&j sandwiches on homemade whole wheat bread for lunch, in addition to a quart of yogurt and usually a piece of fruit. dinner was often rice and beans or rice and stir fried veggies, and often a full 12" skillet full of the topping over 2 cups of rice. breakfast was a large bowl of cereals - bran, wheat germ, raisins, oats, with OJ on it, not milk, to sweeten it up. a friend taught me about this and i'd still eat it if my gut could handle raisins and oats. but this did not include my snacks which were prolific. there were times i'd eat a whole baguette at lunch, with a couple yogurts. it was nothing for me to consume 1000 cals at a sitting. and i had to eat all day.

that's what hi carb diets do. in fact my diet was also 35% fat, some days 40#, so you may be wondering where i got my proteins. well, out of 3500 cals, to achieve the minimum protein calories that the ADA recommended at the time, and even today - 0.8 g/kg - weighing, as i did, 65 kg, i needed only 52 grams/day. of course, i was eating way more than that but had i done just that, it would have constituted only 200+ cals of the 3500/day, or about 6% of my intake. i can't recall the numbers but i was likely consuming at least 100 grams/d since the protein from peanut butter - about 3 tbsp, was over 20 g, and the bread - homemade and large slices - was likely 4 g/slice or 16 total; plus a quart of yogurt - another, say, 25 g; and then the grains and tofu and beans, etc - i'm sure amounted to 40-50 more per day. all this to say that if you eat enough calories short of just eating junk, you're going to get you protein needs met. but i could only do this because i worked out and worked so physically all day long. feed your face that way and sit at a desk all day and guess what? you'll be obese, diabetic, and sickly if not dead in a a decade.

so, to conclude, i guess what i want folks to appreciate is that the hi carb diets of yesteryear still apply for athletes and people who work out several hrs a day. for the rest of us, fewer calories are needed, and hi fat/hi pro diets meet that standard. of course, so does a well balanced diet of fewer calories, but clearly modern mankind has no interest in restriction. so these new diets and studies are designed to make dieting feasible. nonetheless, if they worked so well, we would not need more studies or books, would we? no, we don't need to diet more on special concoctions or foods. we need to simply eat less, and move more. or keep buying diet books.....

ooh ooh ooh ooh, staying alive.....

2011-06-07T20:07:00.000-07:00

a norwegian study reports that a single measure of fitness - your aerobic capacity, as measured by ml/kg/min of O2 your body can use during hi intensity exercise (max VO2) - can provide you and your doc a measure of heart risk. they tested 5000 norwegians of all adult ages and determined that, if your maxVO2 goes down 5% relative to your age group, your risk profile goes up. this, of course, reflects on your overall risk for morbidity and even mortality due to cardiovascular decline. they also determined that maxVO2 declines, on avg, 5% per decade. but training slows this decline substantially, at least til age 60 or so.

the bummer to all these numbers is that norwegians are some of the fittest people on the face of the earth. thus, by their standards, many teenagers and twentysomethings are unfit and at risk in comparison to norwegians even in their thirties and forties. so, while the standard is high, it could mean it won't be used by other nations to guide health care or insurance considerations: too many will fall into the hi risk categories and this would lead to increased medications, procedures, and insurance premiums.

the good news, and there's always good news, is that for out of shape people willing and able to participate in hi intensity exercise even once a week, a 4 minute bout at 90% of your maximal ability is sufficient to provide some protection against aerobic decline. alternatively, a 15 minute bout of moderately intense exercise will also suffice for those who are out of shape.

maybe your doc can start prescribing this for you....or maybe you'll read this article and do it yourself:
http://www.healthcanal.com/blood-heart-circulation/17589-magic-number-for-heart-health.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+healthnewshc%2FOxfp+%28Health+News+from+HealthCanal.com%29

on a separate and personal note, just so you know, i have stage four OA of my right knee. it's been operated on twice over the past 25 yrs and simply won't get better but i'm not in horrible pain doing what i do best - fitness training. however, as i've written before, i did convert my desk to an upright so that i don't have to sit for long periods of time and try to get up; and i do take naproxen sodium and fish oil caps to mitigate the pain; and i do rub on voltaren cream/drops to get me going when i wake up; and i don't do things that blatantly hurt, unless you count sitting while typing, eating, or socializing. this past weekend i went to denver to the ACSM annual meeting - fitness geeks: GO - you will learn more than you could expect and even change the way you train your clients!!!! i stayed with friends in denver, visited an old tae kwon do buddy whom i had not seen in 29 yrs, and after the meetings on saturday, drove out to tabernash to see my oldest non-philadelphia buddy, whitney and his wife kathleen, for a day. on sunday we hiked gently around a lake near grand lake, which was at altitude (but that wasn't the issue) but never got too far bc of hard rushing snow melt streams. nonetheless, two things i want to share: one, i wore merrill barefoot shoes and not only my knee but my feet felt GREAT - the foot adapts to the surface, not the ankle, and so the shoe did not lever the tibia which torques the knee - hence, no knee problems. the second is, we got in the truck to get lunch in grand lake and getting out of the car killed me.

so, i called my sports med doc, jim johnson, and got my first cortisone shot as required to initiate hyaluronadase shots. within moments, as i walked out of the office, i noticed NO PAIN, despite the limp i've been using for years. so now i have to relearn walking. but i can also squat, step up, etc. not that i will, but i could. why? because i have to keep this leg strong. keeping quads strong is mandatory if you want to defer surgery on the knee, esp knee replacement. kaatsu, or blood flow restricted exercise, is what i've been doing but even that hurt a little the next day. we'll see - it did not hurt today after the shot and if good tomorrow, then i think i can defer the inevitable.

so there, i'm going to hit the bike, read, and do a sprint or two, then shower, and work tomorrow with joy and bounce in my step.

what are you doing to take care of yourself today?

bikini bodies - few and far between

2011-05-29T20:16:00.000-07:00

i've been real busy lately, so i have not taken time to blog. today my oldest daughter, lydia, graduated h.s. after many grueling years of late nights and drama. off to college next fall - bates, in maine - and independence, a phase i hope she finds every bit as enjoyable as the one i'm in now that she is leaving to find adulthood. not that i won't miss her; rather, i'm so proud of her and so respectful of the work she has done that her departure is a source of joy - because i know she can do what she sets out to do. a parent's fantasy....

but this blog is about what you set out to do - to be independent of society's imposition on your self concept. you see, bikinis are, by their design, esp nowadays, exposing, not just revealing, and they show way more than most women feel comfortable showing. and for those of us who are body watchers, they also show way more than we want to see. but they are really cover-ups that enable women to share in sun and fun, and to that extent should not be frightening - except for those involved heavily with dermatologists or dermatological issues. you see, very few women have 'perfect' bodies, with 'perfect' skin that does not wrinkle or sag, and that is disturbing to them, so much so that they even resist wearing any bathing suits - they wear loose fitting garb with shawls or cover-ups that look comfy but can't be swum in. i have seen this with lydia, who has a nice figure but excess fat. hence, she has spent the past 2-3 summers nearly refusing but definitely fearing to wear even a bathing suit let alone a bikini.

now, i am a body watcher. i am a critic of what the female, and male, body looks like. but i attest that my repulsion of some bodies results not from their appearance alone but from their lack of fitness. many a young female wear a bikini or even just a pair of tight pants with bare midriff, and don't look good despite youthful skin. like my daughter, they are out of shape with no obvious intent to alter it. what with a better diet and some exercise, they could proudly expose as much as they are comfortable exposing without exposing/revealing their inner fears. perfect - no; but happy with their bodies' abilities to do what they do to be healthy and fit; happy that they're treating their bodies with respect by feeding them healthy diets; and happy that, despite being less than perfect, they are not even striving toward it - they are enjoying themselves at the beach or by the poolside. it is how this article concludes and why i propose that women get out their bathing suits and maybe even their bikinis and show off what they've been doing to take care of themselves, rather than try to please the mass-media image of beauty or even their own self concepts.

but first, do take care of your bodies: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/fashion/the-bikini-as-a-badge-of-fitness.html?ref=health

the pain and pleasure of exercise

2011-05-20T09:44:00.000-07:00

an interesting article in the Times debated, or better still explicated, the contention many athletic and competitive people make when they say they love exercising through the pain. it concludes that pain, as some describe it, is not really pain as our nervous system might describe it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/health/nutrition/17best.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=health

having trained and competed in a sport - tae kwon do - inspired by causing pain in others (but unmistakeably causes pain in the athlete trying to cause it to the other - ask any boxer) i know a little about the pain and pleasure of training. to be honest, i never incurred serious pain - unless you want to include getting kicked in the groin, having serious tendon and bone injuries, etc as serious pain - but i do know that euphoria that takes place AFTER it's all over. man, it's great when class is over and you and your colleagues limp out of there like limp noodles all wet and droopy. what pleasure!

honestly, tho, all athletes know of someone who actually did compete in serious if not life threatening pain, and what kind of reward must have been offered to make it possible for them to continue?

i would argue on a third definition as from the two in the article above: the pleasure of communal experience.

much like laughter or the thrill of a last-second, game-winning goal, the joint sharing of that experience is often enough to drive athletes to work through the pain, and i do mean real pain. we see this in sport, we see it in the military (read "lone survivor" about the Navy SEALS team that fought its way to nearly-complete destruction in afghanistan), and we even see it in business. yes, in business, esp in fast-paced, hi-caliber team-decision making businesses, like marketing and advertising, where groups work together on projects often into the wee hours of the morning for days or weeks on end, suffering each others attitudes, ideas, idiosyncrasies, and personalities, if not eating behaviors and body odors, all for the common goal, the one they are all striving to accomplish in competition with inside or outside competitors. all enduring pain for the common pleasure of victory.

now, is this truly pain? this is like asking if people with depression are really depressed. mental pain, accompanied by physical discomfort, is pain, too. is it equal to the pain of extreme hunger - see http://www.healthcanal.com/mental-health-behavior/17301-Does-Eating-Give-You-Pleasure-Make-You-Anxious.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+healthnewshc%2FOxfp+%28Health+News+from+HealthCanal.com%29 - to get a new perspective on that. anorexics, for example, don't feel pleasure from food; they feel anxiety. and brain scans show it. is it equal to the pain of having your leg blown off by a mine? how many acts of bravery and grit in battle are noted because of the extremity of physical damage to the perpetrator, all to be overcome, or discounted, for the pleasure, if you can call it that, of standing alongside one's buddies and comrades during difficult times?

no, i would argue that pain is pain, and that sometimes, in certain circumstances, with certain people by your side, the pain you are willing to endure is not only real, it's even enjoyable in a certain kind of way. it's what makes us, as individuals and as a group of whatever sort, better.

2011-05-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

mind vs body, or mind & body...or mind BECAUSE of body? those are the questions. whether tis nobler to develop the brain whilst allowing the body to rot from the inside out; or to develop the body and let the brain evolve into a way station fro hedonistic and/or athletic purposes; or to enable the brain to develop to its maximum if not optimal potential by both engaging it and the body in which it grows - these are the issues that keep coming up in the literature of fitness/activity and mental well-being.

thus, this piece: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/does-exercise-really-boost-your-mood/?ref=health

a lot has been published lately probably in response to the increasing numbers of baby boomers and the general aging of the population that assert exercise's value in maintaining mental function. some even allude to the anti-depressant value of exercises - done regularly, mostly aerobically, and consistently. but general moods? well, this article brings up the idea that maybe exercise in the extreme is mood altering in ways we don't want it to be. of course, extrapolating from mice to men is questionable in this case as in others.

to be fair, the authors of the study, along with the author of this article, asserted other reasons for the mice's reactions to stressors (hiding in the corner), including better survival instincts. their reactions appeared to be those of enhanced anxiety attributed to neurogenesis in the hippocampus. (other studies showed that mice with less neurogenesis in that part of the brain did not get as anxious as those with normal or more.) furthermore, other studies show that neurogenesis from running differs from other forms of neurogenesis: it actually calms you down, reduces anxiety.

so, the take home message is, don't worry, or be anxious, about growing new nerves while you run. in fact, if you run, and presumably do other forms of aerobic exercise, you actually won't worry as much as others under the same stress loads. we've known this for years, and if you are an avid exerciser, you know how much more stress you can handle than when you didn't or can't exercise. it's just that scientists are trying to figure out why.

let them worry about it.....

i came across this blog article on nutrition and thought i'd share it with you. i posted it on my facebook page, too. (STEPS Personal Fitness Training) anyway, i thought it was a valuable piece of the puzzle as most athletes and non-athletes are stymied by the many mis- and myth-conceptions of carbs and protein consumption. simply put, there is this idea that if you train empty (of blood sugar or muscle glycogen) you will get more efficient at burning fats. and there is some truth to this. however, two facts mitigate against this concept of training, esp for athletes: first, that training itself makes your body more capable of using fats for fuel in order to spare glycogen for later in the run/race; and two, burning fats is a less efficient means of producing energy and is best done at LOW intensities. thus, if you are an athlete, you are already burning fats efficiently when you perform below, say, 70% max; and since you rarely compete at that low an intensity, and need to train at higher intensities in order to raise your lactate threshold and your neurological movement patterns, why spend too much time below 70% hungry. in fact, this type of training, except for ultramarathoners who probably do compete at below 70% max, is probably counterproductive.

now, for those trying to lose weight, esp body fat, training at this or lower intensity is appropriate both for its ability to be sustainable during exercise and repeatable on a near-daily basis. however, one would have to train for longer periods of time to get the same caloric value of the exercise session that could be achieved if done at higher intensities. since the latter is not an option for those who are out of shape and overwt, go slow, burn fats, but mainly burn calories. that's because the ONLY way to lose wt is by creating caloric deficits, and while dieting is more efficient, as i've written before, only with exercise added into the program is wt loss truly sustainable.

so, go fast, go slow - don't matter. just GO! http://www.active.com/nutrition/Articles/The-Truth-About-Carbs-Protein-and-Performance.htm?cmp=17-4-560&page=2

cardio intensity, calorie burning, and you

2011-04-26T12:47:00.000-07:00

there is enough data and now enough publicity out there to make you think you should don your old cleats and hit the track hard to get in shape, burn calories, and reduce belly fat. yes, those daunted wind sprints, today called intervals, are back chasing the aging process and all its co-morbidities. however, like time itself, you can run but you can't quite hide; it will catch up to you. it all depends on how you want to live during that phase bw birth, maturity, and death. as a friend of mine, a long distance runner and hiker and skier, said shortly after his heart event (not an attack, per se): i'd rather bust than rust. hence he takes no meds, but has simply reduced his intensity while maintaining all the quality of his active lifestyle.

based on the results of an unpublished abstract posted in the ACSM's Med Sci Sports and Exercise on line journal, 45 mins of pretty hi intensity cycling resulted in over 35% EXTRA calories burned throughout the next 14 hrs. while the article in the Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/health/nutrition/19best.html?_r=2&ref=science - did not delve too deeply into other studies of this topic, there are many studies that have otherwise supported this position and it is becoming so commonplace in the fitness field literature that it's almost passe to say it: work harder, smarter, and shorter and get more and better results.

but what is "harder"?

if you walk, on average, 2 miles/hr, or 30 mins/mile, then going 2.5 mph would be a sprint. now, of course, this is the kind of pace you'd see in the elderly, the advanced arthritic, or the out of shape obese. (notice i prefaced obese with 'out of shape'? that's because not all overwt folks are deconditioned; furthermore, not all overwt folks are destined to cardiovascular disease; but nearly ALLLLL deconditioned folks will get cardiovascular disease at some level assuming they live long enough.) so take your average pace/mile, speed it up, in increments until you find that pace that will stress you but not cause you distress, and consider that your harder pace. you should be able to talk but with some breath-catching bw words or phrases.

now, the issue is, what's "smarter"?

same deal as harder, except that you should be aware of your limits, orthopedically and cardiovascularly. in other words, if it hurts, that's not smart; if it aches after or esp the next day, that's almost dumb. (mind you, nearly all athletes work dumb at different cycles of their training. but they already work hard, have specific goals, and are healthier, in some ways, than non-athletes. so this rule is for those who are simply novices or casual exercisers, those for whom no high aspirations in terms of performance are driving them. in other words, for those seeking improved HEALTH!!!! so, smarter interval training should consider your health needs first. once you find your limits there, go hard enough to push toward or up to the envelope, then stay there. if even just for a few seconds, this kind of training will condition the heart muscle, the leg muscles, the fat-burning enzymes, the sugar burning capabilities, and even the brain-developing abilities.

yes, if you train smarter and harder, you will get not just harder muscles, but smarter minds. it all works.........

Core exercise and Athletic injury

2011-04-12T18:02:00.000-07:00

i've been real busy of late so while i've kept up my readings, i have not kept up my blogging. fortunately, tho, i came across this piece in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/sports/baseball/12injury.html?ref=health

i say fortunately because we in the fitness world, as this article alludes to, believe that stronger muscles prevent injury. but maybe it's possible that stronger muscles may predispose to injury. maybe, when muscles are so strong they pull on their bony attachments too hard and pull away a chunk of the bone - an avulsion fracture this is called - or simply tear themselves off the bone. maybe, with the heavy emphasis on core strength, athletes are over-developing their abdominal muscles - esp the obliques - to the extent that the ribs, to which they attach, or the pelves, to which they anchor, can't support their internal forces during hi powered exertions.

whatever the cause, and not knowing the actual source of the injuries discussed in this article, let me propose the following, based on what i know is being passed off as core work.

most core work is called such because it (1) engages more than one set of muscles in the midsection; (2) involves muscles of the abdomen, low back, and pelvis; (3)are isometric or of short-range contractions (not full range); and (4)simulate but rarely replicate the way we move in the real world. it is this latter point that i want to emphasize.

a basic crunch uses five, maybe six, muscles: the recti, both external and internal obliques, and maybe the iliopsoas if you come up too high. if you do a twisting, or oblique crunch, you engage the external on the side opposite the way you turn, and the internal on the side to which you turn. so, multiple muscles are always used, but ultimately, it's only one part of the body that's being trained - the front.

if you do low back extensions, on machines, swiss balls, or the floor, you engage many small and large muscles of the lumbar spine plus the gluteals, and maybe the hamstrings. but you don't engage the front.

if you do front planks, you get the same muscles of the crunch, minus the arc of movement, plus the iliopsoas and quadriceps aplenty. if you do side planks, you get some of the low back, front, and even lateral hip - glute med and glute min - muscles. thus, these may more rightfully be called core exercises, but still in isometric or short arc patterns.

now, if you do play with swiss ball core exercises like pikes, planks, or russian twists, you are getting some superficial and deeper muscles involved, and that's great.

but, how many sports are played lying on your back, side, or even front? swimming, wrestling, diving, gymnastics - sure, but ultimately, even those involve larger arcs of movement than most exercises demand.

so, here's my take on core exercises: those that use all segments of the middle of the body - abs, low back, hips, and thighs - in positions most like those we use daily - sit, stand - and in sport - sit (think polo, horseback riding, race car driving), stand - are more useful and more injury-preventive than all the ones we are currently using. for my choice, the tubing or cable standing or sitting torso rotation is best. when you stand with feet hip-width apart, and rotate from left to right, you are using your left glute med and max, your right hip adductors/internal rotators, your right lumbar extensors, quadratus lumborum, and rotators, and your right internal and left external obliques, plus your rectus abdominus to impose a stabilizing air pocket on the spine as it rotates. furthermore, your lower leg and even knee stabilizers get involved if the resistance is strong enough. this replicates the actual way we move in such swinging sports as golf and baseball hitting, plus the foot-hip-spine patterns of throwing. this is a more pragmatic, more functional pattern of muscle engagement and body stabilization PLUS force production that no other exercises simulate...except med ball throwing. the issue there, of course, is that med ball throwing is brief, ballistic contractions that build muscle strength through a short arc of motion, not through the entire range. tubing, however, does.

will this prevent injuries like what baseball is seeing? i don't know. but i do know that the one pro pitcher that i have trained in the off season for 7 yrs has only gotten stronger and faster via this type of training. and injury free. a study of one is meaningless but the principles hold true even if there's no proof, until someone can dispute them better than i argue herein.

so twist again, like you did last summer....

genetics, exercise...and you

2011-03-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

all men, and women, are NOT created equal other than in their humanity. you heard it here, first.

by this i mean, we are equally human but do not have equal traits: smarts, looks, strengths, weaknesses, etc. as such, some of us will be "blessed" as measured by our cultural biases, socioeconomic needs, and other aspects that may be particular to our respective circumstances. thus, if you have to pick a coconut off the top of a tree, and you are a lousy climber, or are scared of heights, you may just have to get along without coconut in your diet. if it means some beautiful woman will not accept your amorous entreaties, so be it.

by the same token, one man's blessings are another's curses. so, the ability to climb a tree is cool if you live on a remote tropical island; but get transported to NYC and you're kind of screwed when it comes to high paying job opportunities.

so it is with fitness. some of us, when we train with various forms of exercise, get bigger, stronger, faster, leaner, looser, or more durable. but, some, doing the same exercises, will not see the same or comparable results. this is not a bad thing....unless you're in competition. as this article points out -http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/is-fitness-all-in-the-genes/?ref=health -
exercise has its own merits even if you are genetically inclined to NOT increase aerobic capacity. granted, you may not see as dramatic a result in terms of blood pressure or blood sugar levels; you may not get fast enough to win the race; you may not even get lean enough to get on the cover of a magazine. but you will get faster than you'd be had you not exercised; leaner than you'd be had you just read the mag; and your blood values will surely not improve blaming your family history for your condition.

in other words, academically this is a very interesting line of inquiry. psychologically it may even work to mollify one's distress at lack of results. but physically/medically, genetics are always a ceiling and floor. you have the capacity to reach higher or stay lower. exercise is one way you can reach high, and stay off the floor, even if you're not able to reach the same heights as your co-exercisers.

jump.....

on health and health care

2011-03-16T17:24:00.000-07:00

the mckinsey quarterly report, an on line economics think-tank-like publication, comes from an economics/business perspective and articles deal with everything from banking to investing to market dynamics....to health care. why not? that's the fastest growing expense in our and the world's economies. in the US, we spend about 16+% of our GDP on health care, via government-provided and insurance-provided and employee-provided and personal, out of pocket provided health payments. uniquely, this report deals with one of the cost drivers -like that economics-y talk? from a fitness pro, no less? - that is within my scope of understanding: obesity, and other lifestyle-related diseases.

i'm not going to try to summarize all it said in too much detail. let it suffice to say that a public-private effort must be made to bring down obesity rates to that of 1980 - about 15% of the population, starting with kids. clearly mrs. obama's efforts are well-taken but without the cooperation of other government entities - being gutted by the GOP's slash and burn policy of defunding anything that speaks to the masses, i.e. those who don't have the means to pay the outrageous costs of their own health care or education - her calls to action are likely for naught. at the same time without government interference on behalf of wellness - against the economic interests of providers of health services, the payers for health services (read: insurers), and the purveyors of anti-health (read: food industry), depending on the mass consciousness change toward improving diet and engaging exercise is fraught with pipe dreams.

so what to do?

well the report does not give specifics; it's more a call to action itself. if you're reading this, you are likely concerned enough about health care, your own and maybe our nation's, to already be taking action to ensure against those diseases you have some power over. the formula is the same whether for overwt-ness or for diabetes or for heart disease as it is for athletics at any level: eat right, exercise appropriately. obviously, if you are afflicted with diseases which can be affected by this formula, your mandate runs higher than if you are disease free. but if you are even AT RISK for disease because of lifestyle choices made 10, 20, even 50 yrs ago, then now's the time to act. after all, don't count on the government acting rationally or the food industry acting patriotically to reduce your, or our health care costs:

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Health_Care/Hospitals/Three_imperatives_for_improving_US_health_care_2274

on barefoot running mechanics

2011-03-04T12:09:00.000-08:00

barefoot running - i've been here before. the science is coming on stronger and stronger, tho not necessarily suggesting that we all toss our nikes in the trash. however, clearly there are biomechanical adjustments we make when we put our feet in thickened soled shoes. for one thing, we land harder on that part of the shoe that offers the greatest protection. that's good. asphalt is hard material. our barefoot ancestors didn't have to worry about miles and miles of rock-solid footing. of course, rocks and sticks still hurt but callous is pretty effective....if you start out walking barefoot and don't ever put on shoes. for those of us here in the States and most modern urban areas, that's not an option. but if you do get these barefoot shoes, you'll find yourself walking differently and running more naturally on the mid-foot. which is why you should progress slowly. other injuries will result from sudden changes in mechanics and foot wear, so beware.

http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/02/feb-28-new-study-says-barefoot-running-is-different-from-minimalist-shoe-running-what-does-this-mean-we-still-dont-know.html

on a personal note, having bought a pair of vibrams early this year, i have found greater comfort around the gym in them than in my new balance sneakers with orthotics. old feet and tired legs are fresher in vibrams. that said, i used to spend 4-6 hrs/day barefoot in tae kwon do class, but i was also way younger (same weight, tho.) so i have a predisposition toward this feel. you may not. do what works for you, but don't be too resistant to change when it no longer works well.

news to you's guys

2011-02-27T09:58:00.000-08:00

being from philly, i had to adapt some of my dialect once i settled in nashville 41 yrs ago. for one thing, i stopped referring to the fuel you put in cars as 'gaz' since someone pointed out that it's spelled 'gas'. for another, ya'll is a better way to pluralize you compared to you's guys. that said, below are comments on news you might want to investigate:

bone building drugs for osteoporosis prevention and management have been around a long time. some people, tho, cannot take these bisphosphanates due to digestive issues; some, however, have had unusual breaks, usually after 5 yrs of usage. the latter has raised concerns among many women in particular. but, read the meat, not the headline, and you'll see: you're better off taking than not taking these drugs, esp if you are unwilling or unable to do the 'natural' things to build bone, preferably before the age of 30: consume more dairy (not pills, milk products), get vitamin D (some sunlight, and some supplements), and lift weights (mostly lower body, heavier than you might want on the front end; jumping drills work too). since most folks don't or won't or can't, don't be afraid of the drugs.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/22/133972189/osteoporosis-drugs-linked-to-unusual-fractures-in-women?sc=nl&cc=es-20110227

getting older means losing some bone, some muscle and some mental function. staying in shape means doing some cardio, some wt training, and some stretching. getting in shape to get older healthfully means preventing bone and muscle loss because, statistically, those who do maintain more mental function. what to do? well, here again is another article on why and how to strength train in older age: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/21/133776800/seniors-can-still-bulk-up-on-muscle-by-pressing-iron&sc=nl&cc=es-20110227

the gist of it is, you can start at any time in life. the benefits are the same tho the results are less dramatic than if you had started young. can't do much about the saggy skin or hair loss, but there's no reason you can't move, feel, and be stronger. lift!

however the mind can build 'muscle', too, in particular, in the hippocampus. that's where memory resides, sort of. and it seems that cardio is more beneficial for that part of the brain than is strength training. so, add cardio:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/21/133777018/aerobic-exercise-may-improve-memory-in-seniors&sc=nl&cc=es-20110227

bottom line, as yous guys might expect, is do a well balanced cardio-strength workout at least 3 maybe even 6 days per week and live life to its fullest. as you've heard me say before, even if it does not help you lose all those extra pounds, tho you should lose some, it will help you live more per unit time than just living longer, which it may do, as well.

vitamin d....again???

2011-02-23T09:33:00.000-08:00

it seems that science is a very inexact...science.
not too long ago, i posted some of the latest info, from newspaper review, of vitamin d requirements based on a large body of studies reviewed by experts. seems the numbers just keep getting more confusing - not too much, just this amount, no more than that amount, etc etc. now, here's a study that shows you need waaaaaaaaaaaaay more than what's been recommended to fight off cancer: http://www.healthcanal.com/cancers/14736-Higher-Vitamin-Intake-Needed-Reduce-Cancer-Risk.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+healthnewshc%2FOxfp+%28Health+News+from+HealthCanal.com%29

so what should we make of this? first of all, i'm not a biochemist, a dietitian, nor even a nutritionist - i'm just a personal trainer who's very well educated in the exercise and wellness field. an expert - i hesitate to claim that for myself, esp when it refers to nutrition. but i am smart enough, and well read enough, and maybe even intelligent enough to know this: just wait long enough and whatever else i think i know will probably be wrong. until then, however, you gotta keep on truckin'.

so, here's my spin on this controversy. while most of the data suggests a multivitamin is probably unnecessary, for some nutrients most of us require supplementation. if you don't spend a lot of time outside in the sun year 'round, and if you don't do vitamin d-reinforced dairy products in large amounts, and if you are older than, say, 55 and at risk of osteopenia/osteoporosis, then you need to supplement with vitamin d, and most likely calcium. how much to take? well, you can ask a doc, a dietitian, or read this article - which calls for way more than the newer recommendation of 800 IU - or at least get that minimum of 800. in the end, you will die either way, and who knows if it's from lack of d or other aspects of your life and lifestyle. but if you read this while young enough, let's just hope these docs are not too aggressive and you die from vitamin d overload. that'd be a real bummer.

real costs of obesity

2011-02-08T20:05:00.000-08:00

this chart, from the McKinsey Quarterly, a free, on-line business resource, demonstrates the real and devastating costs of obesity in america. as the article points out, these costs are rising world-wide: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/newsletters/chartfocus/2011_01.htm

i have written much on obesity, some to the dismay of my colleagues with the EDCT. nonetheless, since each person's weight issue is a private matter with public consequences, the message must get out somehow and with some solutions that people can, pardon the pun, digest. i am at a loss as to how to do this but as last week's post re the government's admonition to 'eat less' revealed, this is a crude but necessary start. and how will it affect those apt to read too much into the message and start on the path toward a real eating disorder? i suspect few will go that route simply because they hear it in the media or from the government. i suspect that, like people who become sex-addicts or drug/alcohol addicts, where both are in ample supply and receive ample media attention, some will but most won't. food is simply too satisfying....even if you eat less of it.

obesity, kids, and school lunches

2011-02-04T19:57:00.000-08:00

should the State dictate what you eat? nope. but if it's paying for it, it has the right to lay out a menu that it believes is better for you than menus we know are unhealthy and promote obesity. hence, when i read this in the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/health/research/08childhood.html?ref=health - i felt like laying out my public health philosophy. it goes like this:

private health impacts public health. private health issues that cost lots of money to the health care system is not something you alone pay for, either in insurance premiums, cash, or otherwise. hence, we all pay for the actions, or as the dispute over the Obama-care plan would label, the inactions of others, and ourselves. thus, we are all liable, and responsible for the rising cost of health care and therefore all have a right to demand from others to alter behavior.

now, what is 'demand from others'?

basically, if you wish to live a lifestyle that clearly increases your risk profile for disease, and injury, too, then you should pay higher premiums. if you have the means to do so, then your premiums should be waaaaaay higher since your actions, or inactions, increase my costs, too. but since most of those who have lifestyle-created chronic diseases that tap the system hard tend to be lesser educated, lower-incomed potential, or unemployed (statistically, not racially, ethnically, or other -ally), and we the people (who do pay taxes and generate our and others' incomes via commercial activities) end up paying for these behaviors, then we have a right to demand changes in behavior. since we cannot impose physical activity, esp on the youngest, oldest, or sickest of these unhealthy folks, if you ask for food from us, we have the right to monitor that food in quality and in caloric quantity. hence, given the choice between providing french fries at 300 cals/serving or a turkey over lettuce salad with a piece of whole grain bread and an apple for the same number of calories, i vote to feed you the latter. if you have the money to cover the fries, and it's not from any financial assistance i offer you, such as welfare or food stamps, then by golly eat fries. but if i give you financial assistance, it's for shelter and decent food, not junk.

i know that sounds like a sean hannity/rush limbaugh prescription of harsh platitudes, but it's the one area where we might actually concur; all others are out of the question. i do have a heart, and i'm very forgiving and accommodating for the most part. however, when i survey the landscape, i believe the most patriotic among us are not those who vote one way or another, but those who vote with their minds and bodies in support of what our nation needs: healthy, informed citizens. and i simply don't countenance to those who choose otherwise. (excepting small kids raised by parents who don't teach their kids right. that's where i'm more liberal than my conservative friends.)

so the question arises, how about if i am rich enough to afford to eat like shit, not exercise, pollute the earth and destroy the health care system? are you going to impose your dictatorial mandates on me, too?

well, yes. for if you think you have the right to take liberty with your body, your mind, and your earth, and think it won't impact my world, too, including the system by which i stay healthy, then you're an arrogant SOB. just because you can pay does not give you the right to abuse. man's history is full of upper class abuses that invariably are suffered by the masses. then, in some cases, rebellion occurs but only after many years of suffering said abuses. and when that occurs, guess who suffers most, during the rebellion? right - the masses. sometimes the greedy bastards who abused the economic, political, ecological, and medical resources suffer the backlash, but, for the most part, after years of passing such attitudes on to others, these folks get the axe. historically, while tragic to any one individual, i take the more global view: that there are tens of thousands if not millions of others who have suffered the abuse of the few and the balance of justice is on their side, not that of the few.

going back to my thesis, then, so long as the u.s. or state governments are providing food for the masses, which is an obligation with which i am in full concurrence, that food should be the most healthy and properly-distributed we can afford. and for those - the conservatives -who argue that the masses should eat cake, well, we know the result of that line of thinking, and i'm not supportive.

whole body vibration, bones....and FAT!!!!

2011-02-02T18:10:00.000-08:00

wow, this changes the discussion: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/phys-ed-more-bone-and-less-fat-through-exercise/?ref=health

yes, whole body vibration (WBV) has been in the states now for over a decade, a technology popularized by Powerplate but not proven by US standards as having utility until the research community started checking it out. (if you'd like a compilation of research abstracts and some articles on it, email me - i have plenty: irvrube@gmail.com. most research has shown it valuable for bone density issues; some have shown value for strength and power; few have shown benefits for balance; and none have demonstrated body composition/fat loss benefits. until this one. it's complicated - and not directly implicating fat loss via WBV. but it does suggest that biochemically via bone marrow and stem cells, that maybe multiple bouts of impact exercise, whether jogging or vibrating...or lifting wts, may be better for bone building than a single session of either. regardless, it's strong new data and well worth considering for those of you who have or work with people who have osteopenia or osteoporosis.

on another note, the US gov has come out with the simplified message - eat less - as a way of battling obesity. some of my EDCT (eating disorders coalition of TN) colleagues got in a wad when i posted the NY Times article about this and threw my hat in support of an organizational shout out for the effort to help americans shed extra pounds. mind you, one of the reasons i'm involved with the EDCT is for that reason: as an organization that suggests it is offering help, hope, and support to those with eating disorders, it has primarily aimed at anorexia and bulimia, the two most dangerous mental health diseases and the hardest to deal with. but i have brought some sensitivity to the issue of overweight-ness/obesity (OO) despite it not being always a case of mental health, or eating disorder. despite the DSM-IV not categorizing it as such, one would be hard pressed to say it's not a health issue and that it does not carry with it some very severe mental health concerns not the least of which is body image issues. why else are so many trying to lose weight?

granted, we should be aware that some will take the message too far, but most won't even hear it. after all, TV and other marketing venues try to make you eat more, and more crap. just by watching it, you are helping to make yourself less fit and more fat. but it is in my opinion a public health concern of the utmost importance. and, as an organization dedicated to helping people deal with body image issues, food issues, and mental health issues, i feel we need to get out in front of the message and buffer its negative effects while supporting its positive ones. my colleagues seem too sensitive to the the latter while overly driven by the former to act.

where do you stand?

Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy (PRP)

2011-01-26T19:06:00.000-08:00

maybe you've read about some famous athlete who touts the benefits of this newfangled medical technique - PRP. before this, you may have heard of athletes touting the benefits of prolotherapy. maybe you've even tried one or both of these out for you chronic, nagging, overuse tendinopathy or what not. if so, let me know how it worked. because research into these methodologies is scant and equivocal, tho at least not so negative as to warrant a health warning. the real question is, do either of these work? and when should you consider trying these needling techniques - before a solid period of rest and rehab, or right before surgery? anyway, read this and think about it. especially if you're a personal trainer, like me, you might want to research it a bit more vigorously than your clients might do so that you can give them the best advice possible. don't look on line for testimonials or other 'articles' about these; look at pubmed.com or webmd.com.

at least, read this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/phys-ed-does-platelet-rich-plasma-therapy-really-work/?ref=health

Sprint to faster and maybe better health

2011-01-25T12:17:00.000-08:00

sprinting has been shown to improve all kinds of health and fitness parameters. here's a recent commentary re a study that, again, supports the value of high intensity training: http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/acsm/active1-25.htm

now, before i go on and explain the pros and cons, let me provide a personal disclaimer: i don't train like i used to but i do intervals (on a stationary bike) at least 3/wk, plus a couple days of long, slow - 30 mins, RPE of 7/10 - rides. while i do not like the sprints, i do like completing the workouts faster, breathing harder, sweating more, and feeling accomplished....even tho i have absolutely no competitive goals. it just works when time doesn't.

so, the pros: more effort, less time, more anaerobic benefits, more strength benefits, similar cardio fitness benefits but no benefits to Q, or cardiac output, which is a measure of HR x stroke volume, or blood pumped per beat. uh oh, you say! well, don't fret it. when your heart beats fast, it does not have as much time to fill up, and therefore cannot pump out as much blood per beat. plus, this study was brief - 6 wks - and not all that intense. so over time, maybe you will get higher Q's. but think of this: the other component of maximal aerobic capacity is arterio-venous difference, or a-vO2, which is that peripheral component mentioned in the study. basically, your body gets better at extracting O2 from the blood to supply the muscles' screaming needs when it starts running short of O2 and long on lactic acid. in other words, the heart gets stronger, and the muscles get more efficient = improved aerobic capacity too.

and don't forget the anthropometric benefits - loss of body fat and waist circumference. in 6 weeks!!!!

now the cons: potentially dangerous if you have a bad heart. but sprints are relative - to your fitness level. so anything higher and harder than what you are accustomed to is a sprint. dangerous, potentially, but like any exercise program, start off slowly, allow about 6-8 wks to acclimate overall with slow, easy efforts, then gradually introduce sprints in short efforts with longer recoveries, as in this study: 30 sec/4 mins.

another con: more muscle soreness, esp if you run or stairmaster. but cycling will leave your muscles tired but not too sore, and the risk of joint injury is slim. (spinning classes, however, differ. the rides are hard and long, and these can make it more dangerous overall, and increase the risk of joint issues.)

another con, the biggest of all as far as i'm concerned, is that you have to psyche up to do them. it may be hard enough to gear up to go to the gym after a hard day at work, then harder still to gear up to do over-85% efforts, but if you do, if you can, the benefits keep rolling in. so, my advice: buck up, start with two days of 5 sprints for 30 seconds with a couple mins rest between, and see if, after a few weeks, they are not as threatening....and maybe even somewhat inviting. why?

because you'll now have more time to lift weights, silly:)

wt loss via newtonian and einsteinian physics

2011-01-14T15:00:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends and Family,

I may not have told you in this venue, but I will be teaching a one-evening class called Newton’s Laws of Weight Loss through the University School of Nashville Evening Class program. I'll be taking a look at new science and old in the quest for weight loss to give you a fresh perspective.

My class is coming up on Thursday, January 20 and I've just gotten word that there are still available spots left. The purpose of donating my time is to raise money for needs-based scholarships at USN, so I'd really like to have a sell-out class.

If you can, please try to grab one of the available spots at www.usneveningclasses.org or forward this email to someone you think would benefit. Come see me do "my thing," have a fun night out, AND support the scholarship program.

Thanks!

Irv

running shoe type to fit your foot type

2011-01-11T11:57:00.000-08:00

i've reported before on whether or not you should buy a running shoe to fit your foot type. the most recent studies simply do not support this idea.

for one thing, analyzing a foot type, or how it performs when you run, is not as easy as looking at the sole of your shoe. too many variables are at play.

furthermore, just because your shoe wears a certain way, and just because your foot looks a certain way does not mean that the store-bought shoe will alter either the foot's mechanics or the shoe's wear patterns. at least, not without the possibility of creating a new movement pattern that may create new injury risks.

so, in keeping this discussion brief, runners should change shoes frequently based on mileage and running surface; should address the two most common causes of running related injury - doing too much too soon, and the third - on a different surface; and should address any injuries with professionals, either physical therapists or orthopedists AS LONG AS SAID PROS ACTUALLY WORK WITH ATHLETES!!! this is maybe the most important thing to know: not all professionals understand all sportsmen. seek an expert in your area and don't forget - take your old shoes in with you.

http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/acsm/active1-11.htm

barefoot and pregnant...with questions

2011-01-08T08:53:00.000-08:00

so the debate continues: is running barefoot better for you than running in shoes? here's an easy to read scientific review of the many facets of this issue: http://www.lowerextremityreview.com/cover_story/the-truth-about-barefoot-running-its-complicated#more-4752

in sum, it says that the sudden switch to barefoot running will most likely create a new, different set of orthopedic issues. by the same token, it suggests what i've written before: those who were raised running barefoot are more likely capable of running barefoot without the numerous issues we face running shod in $100 shoes. it also suggests that only some will be able to transition to barefoot running. and it leaves open the million dollar question: should YOU run barefoot?

scientifically speaking, my take is this: if you are having running related problems and have treated them properly with appropriate training, equipment, muscle conditioning, and REST, then, by all means, try running barefoot for brief periods of time on well-groomed golf courses but continue training shod to retain some of your aerobic ability. gradually add distance, time, and then intensity. if you intend to race barefoot, get appropriate foot covering - there are a number of brands available - and try them out on the golf course for a period of time, adding distance, time, and intensity BEFORE venturing out onto the asphalt. if, after what should be several months of training thusly, without negative consequences, go for it. if at any point you experience symptoms similar or other than those you had while running shod, then step back and again, alter your training - perhaps scaling back one of the three variables, or simply change the ratio of shod to unshod training. by whatever method you progress, be willing to chuck it all down the drain and call it quits on behalf of a one-person experiment. you may become one of the few out there running barefoot, or may simply be one of the many running shod, but by all means, keep running.

alcohol and exercise consumption???

2011-01-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

here's an article that stimulates absolutely no thought in my mind: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/does-exercising-make-you-drink-more-alcohol/?ref=health

the essence is that exercise seems to stimulate rather than blunt alcohol consumption. humans present one layer of evidence; mice, which we assume do not have social circumstances centered on alcohol consumption, also seem to thrill on alcohol intake if they are exercisers.

scientists are baffled and quickly resort to hypotheses based on brain chemistry. some suggest social aspects - we play then we drink; or we drank so let's go to the gym and work it off. ha ha ha.

why do i not give it any consideration? because of all the things i've seen, experienced, and actually done as a vigorous and regular exerciser from teen years to today, the only link i see to alcohol intake among exercisers is the same i see among non-exercisers: some do, some don't, and most slow down as they age regardless of their exercise habits.

i did tae kwon do for almost 20 years 6 days/wk for 3-5 hrs a day. i was not a drinker but some of my peers were. i have been a cardio athlete - not fast but consistent - and some fellow runners drank and others didn't, and running or not running did not affect their habits or their quantities. i have been a trainer for over 24 years and none of my clients go drinking because they exercise, nor have they stopped because they exercise; and none that i know of come in to exercise after they've been out drinking any more or less than their usual appointments to exercise would suggest. in fact those who do party more tend to NOT come to their appointments as regularly.

so, while my anecdotal evidence does not quite match that of the studies mentioned in the article, i have a hard time buying into the idea that there's any causal relationship between alcohol consumption and exercise consumption. but if i were a public policy advisor, i'd be promoting the idea that more of us should go have a beer so long as we were going to the gym or track shortly thereafter. not only might it de-stress us but it would also decrease all the other co-morbidities associated with sedentary lifestyles.

drink up!

obesity, brain chemistry, and choice

2011-01-05T19:32:00.000-08:00

the search for clues as to why we americans are getting so fat over the past few decades stops at nothing. the other day i read about mice that were genetically altered to not be able to process certain fats and their brains told them to eat more. they got fat. duh! but the scientists conjecture that maybe some humans have the inability to sense fat availability or something like that and therefore eat too much, and behave slovenly. maybe, but there are many culprits we can look at and point finger at, and still not find a solution. this article posits a correlation bw alcoholism and food addiction, and it's not hard to imagine its validity: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/can-you-be-addicted-to-foods/?ref=health

palatability - the ability of a food to taste or feel or even make you feel good. fifty years ago, foods either tasted or felt good on their own. other than a few items - margarine, processed cheese, frozen meals, processed meats like salami and bologna - most foods came in the container from which they were derived - beans came as beans (with some salt added), hamburger came ground up from raw cuts of meat, fruit and veggies came from gardens somewhere nearby. but the food industry, for better and for worse, came up with ways to package and market foods to make them more palatable so that popeye's spinach - once canned - now came....fresh, but already cleaned. well, maybe that's not a good example. but spinach filled cheese burritos sure made a good food more palatable, and saltier and fattier. but mama could brag how her kids now loved spinach. now, that's a good example!

so, this palatability thing - somewhere between the mouth and the esophagus, something must happen to make you want to eat more. taste, smell, texture, etc combine to make foods more desirable. and so begins the quest to make foods more...addictive. and does this addiction stimulate parts of the brain that are stimulated by other known drugs such as alcohol? and if so, does this occur more in people who have some genetic relationship to alcohol and therefore evolve into a greater tendency toward obesity? well, there's now some research to show this may be the case.

but please note, it's also possible that you can, much as with alcohol, break the addiction by making different choices. too may clients complain about their addiction to such foods as chocolates, sweets, fat-laden foods, and then write themselves off as perennially fat. and it's somewhat true - they may always remain fatter than they may wish to be as a result of years of living with these 'addictions'. i'd be reluctant, however, to excuse them their eating behaviors on this account. not all are truly addicted. foods satisfy other parts of our being - comfort foods come to mind - that do not require they be addictive in their make up. as such, once we come to some measure of grips with our emotional attachment to certain foods, we have a better chance of breaking some of the cycle. but only a better chance.

my take is this: eat some of what you like, but not too much. even junkies, tho they keep coming back for more, limit their intake to just what's needed to get the buzz they desire. too much and you die...tho many do take the shorter route to suicide by addiction. most, however, do it slowly, like overeaters. it will take time to die of obesity behaviors. so you have time to alter them. eat some, but not much, but do not deprive yourself. cold turkey takes a very strong incentive and food, unlike drugs and alcohol, cannot be stopped cold turkey; you gotta eat something.

two lady friends follow this mantra: the first bite tastes every bit as good as the 10th bite. have a bite of your favorite food, and treat it like a special event. sit down, savor it, feel it roll inside your mouth, on your tongue, slither down your throat - it's all over. yes, you'd like to do it again, but tomorrow's another day. get your fix, but don't o.d.

obesity, potentially, is a very painful way to die....

why should you stay in shape?

2010-12-30T09:16:00.000-08:00

we all know why you should get in shape, why you should be healthy, fit, etc. we all make our best efforts to do so with the least amount of negative impact on our lives. that is, take the least amount of time away from the other things in our lives - work, play, family, friends, etc - and the least amount of financial and to some extent bodily impact. for many, we even do our investing in fitness at one phase of life- youth, middle age, whatever - and hope it pays dividends later in life...like now. in other words, we often refer to what we used to/could have done and pretend to live off those glory years - or months, in some cases - as if somehow those hard-earned capabilities would persist beyond that phase of training.

wrong!!!!

the truth is, we de-condition much faster than we get in condition, and while we often retain some extended benefits from a training period - for ex, strength declines slowly largely because the nervous system, which is the first and most persistent adapter to a strength training routine, has "memory" (some would say, muscle memory) that enables muscle recruitment even when hypertrophy withers.

other benefits, such as aerobic or anaerobic capacity, fade, too. since the complex biochemical changes, not just the gross anatomical ones (like heart ventricle size), reverse engines to their previous state of dormancy or half-use, our capacity to perform for long periods of time (aerobic) or in short bursts of higher intensity (anaerobic) diminish, too.

the magic question for years has been, how little do i need to get in shape? and how little do i need to do to stay there? and while there is no precise answer to those questions, there is at least one caveat that persists beyond all the research studies: if you don't use it, you lose it. furthermore, if you do use it, and stop using it, it won't be there when you want it again. and this article discusses this issue a bit deeper: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/phys-ed-if-you-are-fit-you-can-take-it-easy/?ref=health

so, whatcha waitin' on; get up and start exercising...again.

oh, and happy new year, too.

workouts that work

2010-12-25T08:08:00.000-08:00

it's christmas morning and all through my house, not a creature was stirring, except me. hopefully the mouse that's been meandering on the counter near my home-made bread - he/she never did get any but keeps leaving droppings as proof of intent - has died from the poison i planted there for him. but my kids - 16.5 and near-18 - are with their mom's family; my girlfriend is with her kids and family in memphis; and needless to say the gym is quiet today - so i'm solo. not an issue for a non-practicing jew but it does afford me the opportunity to write this blog.

the title - workouts that work - is not new nor is it intended to be profoundly enlightening, so if you're seeking the ultimate in workout tips, look elsewhere. rather, as i oft do on this blog, i'm bringing to light the 'research' that's been reported in the ny times on fitness; in this case, on the afterglow of an exercise session. what is it? why do people feel - no, not good - that's endorphins or some such sense of accomplishment - HOT for extended periods of time after a good hard workout.

now, i've never studied this phenomenon and i'll take the word of the contributors to the article that no one really knows why, but i do know the feeling. in fact, against almost all advice, i am a late night worker-outer; that is, i usually do my cardio (stationary bikes, now that running or even ellipticals hurts my knee) after 930, 10 P.M. that's right, i come home, eat, read, lolligag, then decide, on the spur of the moment, if i have enough energy to get on the bike for 20-30 minutes. if i do - one could say i'm lucky bc i'm lean, fit looking, and after 40+ yrs of being a fitness aficionado, i don't need to do cardio as intently as competitors or out of shape folks- i will do some low intensity with reading or some version of intervals (with reading only during the warm up). then i shower and hit the rack with a book or journal...but only for a short while since sleep usually overcomes me quite quickly at that point. no, i do not get invigorated enough to stay awake, so don't ask. but then again, this is a 40 yr old habit of sorts - i used to do my tae kwon do exercises and calisthenics late at nite when i was a competitor - and it's never kept me awake. and yes, some people do get invigorated but i suspect it's a smaller number than the advisers might suggest when they warn against late-night exercise. (here's where i go personal: how many of you engage in sexual behavior before bedtime and get so invigorated you can't fall asleep afterward? unless the sex act goes unrequited in some form or another, most folks are usually calmed if not soon then immediately afterward, and sleep often intervenes before the parties separate. exercise is exercise regardless of the format, and good exercise is akin to good, even bad, sex in that one is often spent afterward. a hot shower is all that's needed to cap off the evening.)

having diverged, let me return to the point. here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/health/nutrition/21best.html?ref=nutrition

now, in winter, when i keep the house around 66-67 degrees, it's cool enough that i need a light jacket to sit around, esp downstairs, where the kitchen and the tv room/bike rooms are. but after my ride, i'm warm if not sweaty. i can move around without a shirt for a while before the chill hits but am usually on my way back upstairs to shower. i am comfortable as i hit the bed but enjoy getting under the blankets after a few more minutes of cooling down, and sleep befalls me. and tho i am not sweating or steaming as you might suspect based on my thermostatic environment, my internal thermostat does run warm. and to the point of the article - i don't care why. it's nice to know, and some grad students need to study it, but the warmth i feel after a workout is my body's attempt to reset its internal thermostat from hi to lower, to re-align blood flow from the legs and skin to the gut from whence it was shunted, and to initiate the adaptations that will enable the workout to yield health and physique results. one can get overwhelmed by articles such as this and if you're in the exercise sciences, maybe even get inspired to read on. but if you're simply trying to find a way or reason to exercise, esp in the winter months, there's nothing bad one can say about exercise but there is one more good reason to consider it: it warms the cockles of your heart and body.

and on this white, wintry, snowy christmas morning, alone in my den looking out at the dusted trees and bushes, all i can say is i'm warm. and i hope you are too. merry christmas.

on vitamin D: changing standards?

2010-12-01T17:48:00.000-08:00

the other day, i got my tufts nutrition newsletter. there was a small piece in there about the need to take more vitamin d and how many are getting this message. the same day, the ny times and wall street journal reported on an institute of medicine committee that reviewed hundreds of articles and came up with some revisions to the D controversy. interestingly, each paper had a different spin despite covering the same exact literature. (liberal vs conservative? not in this situation....)

the times emphasized the lowered standard for prescribing supplementation from 30 ng/ml to 20 ng/ml of blood as there is no consensus on what the lowest level is to prevent any number of diseases associated with D deficiency: bones, cardiovascular, cancer, etc. but the journal emphasized the tripling of the baseline daily needs from 200 IU to 600 IU, with the appropriate aging considerations. it also highlighted how older men don't need 1200 units of calcium and can get by on 1000. in other words, the report is shaking up the medical world.

several docs opposed the lowered blood level marker as studies and experience have shown that higher blood levels tend to support safer bones. some docs even suggest that D supplementation up to 2000 units is safe and more effective than traditional levels of supplementation. both papers did address the economics of D supplements as there are many manufacturers and vendors who will be hurt if docs stop pushing D hard.

all this is to say that medicine is fluid. one problem with evidence based medicine is that the evidence is often not good enough to make firm standards on most everything there is to test or treat. as such, as we attempt to drive our medico-economics on a national scale with such evidence based medicine, some folks will get short-shrifted as cost becomes the measure of application. i don't have the answer and neither private nor public insurers have the means to provide all any one person needs, but i do know it is not a pretty picture. what i can offer, however, is my humblest opinion based on the literature i read and the material tossed out for public consumption. and to offer you the option of at least making informed decisions.

read on: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB20001424052748704584804575645023841631864-lMyQjAyMTAwMDAwMTEwNDEyWj.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30vitamin.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a23

too much time, not enough activity

2010-11-30T10:38:00.000-08:00

as i've reported in the past, sedentary behavior, of which we are all guilty in the modern society of advanced economies, is killing us. (disclosure: while you sit and read this, i'm typing it standing up at my new upright computer desk. it feels good to be standing.) i'm not going to dwell any further on it other than to say this is the future of exercise prescription: stop sitting. so long as we can impose that institutionally, as in school or work sites, we might be able redirect the downward spiral of health, and the upward spiral of healthcare costs, in our country. if i had the power, i'd outlaw TV; that would improve kids' grades, all our health, and our political discourse. but i don't, so here's my blog today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/health/23brody.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Just a pint full of water makes the calories go down, the calories go dooown

2010-11-17T20:06:00.000-08:00

i read this in another place and now in the ny times, of a study, and other supporting studies, that showed overwt folks told to drink 2 cups of water before meals lost more wt over a 3 month period than did the controls. there are many reasons this may be true: water fills the gut, telling the brain not to eat so much; carbs, when they meet water, expand, puff up, stretching the gut, which then tells the brain it's full; and that much water - for those who've had to prep for a colonoscopy - is damned uncomfortable and makes you sloshy inside. whatever the reason, it seems to work: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/health/16really.html?ref=health

now, there are many good, tried and true ways to cut calories and lose wt. unfortunately, as i've written before, cutting wt is hard to sustain. eating breakfast; exercising at least one hr/day; eating mostly fresh produce - fruits and veggies, and whole grains; eating lots of low fat protein - all these, esp combined almost surely guarantees wt loss. but there's more to wt loss than meets the scale. there's emotion.

many people gain wt for any number of reasons but most if not all fail to lose it for one of three main reasons (my opinion): unwillingness to sacrifice what they deem lifestyle joys; inability to make the choices necessary because of socio-cultural environment; or inability to allow themselves the power to fend off forces outside themselves that impel them to behave against their better, more knowledgeable selves. it's the latter i want to address here.

we all have our emotional baggage. for some -the overwt/obese - some of that baggage is body-shape dependent. having suffered the slings and arrows of some emotional charge, be it parental, familial, schooling, or whatnot, many o/o are damaged goods. they feel bad about themselves, feel less than attractive, less than healthy - and therefore less than what they would like to be. so food, or shall i say, eating, is a refuge of first resort. in other words, even before you can go to the store yourself let alone make enough money to find other 'drugs' - be they real drugs or gambling, or sex, or whatever else people might use to satisfy some inner longing - there's always some food nearby.

for others, it may not be body dependent; it could be self-esteem dependent. that is, for whatever reason, again, these folks use food - excess amounts or the wrong kind - for self medication.

when such people look in the mirror, they simply don't like the person they see. we all tend to look at ourselves the way we think others look at us. we can often justify things by glancing at the wall behind our desk at our diplomas, awards, etc, or maybe at our grandparents' pictures if they somehow bring honor and status to our name if not our selves. but in the end, the mirror of society still pierces the armor and the sadness or the anger manifest in self-destructive food consumption.

now, before you go off the handle here, let me state the obvious. not all o/o people are sad, angry, or low-self-esteemed. it's only in the past 50 yrs that thin took precedence over zaftig - meaty. there's always been chunky, fat, blubbery, etc but today it's so prevalent and so much a national shame and drain, it's no wonder there's so much written and studied about o/o. but the truth is, not everyone can be, nor should be, lean let alone thin. studies have shown that the elderly need to have extra pounds on them in case they get a debilitating disease like cancer. nonetheless, there are many folks out there who neither live in their body's image nor feel any shame about their bodies because they truly have known love from the important people in their lives, and truly love themselves non-narcissistically.

however, 25 yrs in the business of training people, many of whom have at some point discussed their excess wt and even tried over and over again to tame it, has taught me that there's some major emotional distress at not being lean. even if the wt has not contributed to illness or risk of illness, even if the wt does not make them look bad in clothing, even if their signif other does not change the way he/she feels as a result of wt - still, it bugs them so. and when it does, i try to veer them off from their shame and give them sound advice about how they can manage their wt for health, not appearance. as such, drinking two glasses of water, tho it is not that difficult to incorporate, seems to me a drastic alternative to the many other, more healthful ways to cut calories. and not necessarily healthier.

protein for cardio

2010-11-10T18:17:00.000-08:00

in blogs past i've discussed the value of protein for muscle building and muscle training. but there's now a movement afoot to add protein to drinks otherwise reserved for aerobic athletes. based on a few studies that have shown benefits, one needs to look at the quality of these to determine veracity and validity. this ny times piece refers to an article that does and that tests the possibility of adding protein to a beverage for cyclers. the findings are interesting. the conclusion, tho still not yet confirmed, is not unreasonable. but before i take a stand on it, let me say, i'm not a nutritionist, a dietician, nor a biochemist. but i try to look at sports science objectively. as such, i will say this: for most if not all cardio athletes consuming appropriate amounts of calories relative to their athletic and basic needs, adding more protein to a drink WHILE riding or running is not helpful and could be detrimental. since it takes more energy for the body to break it down, and while running or biking you want to spare your energy for your legs, it makes little sense to pay extra for a less-than-pleasant tasting drink that, for the most part, provides the calories you need to keep from bonking. gatorade may be coming out with a product and others will follow, but save protein supplementation for afterwards and for the weight training.

read on: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/do-protein-sports-drinks-improve-performance/?ref=health

aging and 'physiologic reserve'

2010-10-26T19:00:00.000-07:00

maybe you think i'm afraid of aging because i cover it so often. the reality is, we're all doing it so i find its processes and progressions quite fascinating. kinda like following my newborns' progressions via the many books my wives (two divorces, so i credit each of them) had bought so we could benchmark their lives. also, much of my work with clients is with those who are experiencing age-related changes.

this piece in the ny times - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/health/26brody.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 - discusses the concept of physiologic reserve, a cool term i thought i'd share for those wondering why they no longer can do what they usta/coulda done. it refers to the extensive network of organic functions we have at our disposal that we rarely tap into. for ex, we use very few of the billions of brain cells we possess. this allows us to keep learning things, including new movements. we also have a lot of muscle fibers we hardly ever engage - except at the highest levels of training and conditioning. this is why even as we age and lose them we can still function relatively well into our later years.

but there is a tipping point for all systems. once that point is reached, declines occur, or at least become noticeable. without thinking too hard about it, we can readily note the memory lapses or physical deficiencies that plague those of us over 50, even those of us who stayed in shape most of our lives. this is natural aging and we can only do so much to keep it at bay. but i use this concept - now that i have a name for it, i'll use it more, just to sound smarter - when i explain to new clients why resistance training is so important.

personal example: when i was young and training hard, real hard, i topped out on push ups at 60. at 50, i'd start feeling tired. by 60 i was done. pretty good overall, compared to others, but it wasn't til i got over 40 that i realized how much of a wimp i was.

i had my second child, lydia, shortly after turning 40. so i set a goal for myself- i'd add one push up per week for her first year of life. it was easy at first but got hard at 90. so, when i had sophia 16 months later, i set a goal of 1/month. thus, sometime around my 42nd birthday i was able to do over 100 push ups. (today i can still pull off 80, but it's a very hard effort.) this proved to me that i had been undertraining while i was young and injury free for all those years i was stuck at 60. i had reserves but hadn't topped out on them when i needed them most.

nonetheless, the message i give new clients is this: if you can do 10 push ups at 30, and do them daily til you are 60, while it's a feat relative to your peers, because you've been losing muscle fibers all those years, you're now working at a much higher percentage of your overall capacity. so building up now - at WHATEVER age - will enhance your ability to maintain higher levels of function as your body starts to decline. you can always get stronger, at any age, but you have to work on it harder now while you can - at whatever age you begin. so, get started; start getting stronger; that way, your physiologic reserves are greater for that time in life when not enough is not an option.

the doctor-patient wt management plan

2010-10-25T15:57:00.000-07:00

it's on everyone's mind, whether you're lean and fit or obese and diseased: why can't i/they/he/she lose weight? well, if you're a doctor administering to a patient whose health can be dramatically altered by losing wt, you have several options: talk nice, give orders, don't say anything, or present the data. this article in the Times addressing a recent bit of work that shows what any fitness professional knows...but many do not practice: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/health/26weight.html?ref=health

now, this is my take on the issue, just my philosophy, so it does not have any more power than my experiences over the 20 plus years i've been doing training. first, my clientele - bright, educated, wealthy, primarily caucasian. second, my personality - all of the former except for wealthy, plus a former philosophy major, liberal, caring. why do i mention the latter aspects? because they factor in on how i deal with clients for whom wt loss is an issue; esp how i deal with those over long periods of time for whom advice, guidance, support, education, and training don't have any measurable benefit.

as a philosophy major, i spend many years thinking about the human condition. while i have no profound answers to offer, the one thing i learned over time is that most people won't change. they can, but most won't. neither threats of impending doom nor promises of 72 virgins in heaven will change one's behavior....until the person really wants to change. this works for individuals, societies, cultures, and nations, so you can fret the small stuff but there's no need to fret the big stuff; we just have to deal with that which presents itself.

as a liberal, however, i believe mankind, and each individual, is responsible for his/her life and decisions as to how it's lived, but that there are mechanisms, or at least should be, that will enable us to find the 'right' way to live. but, go back to the previous paragraph and you will appreciate the fact that liberalism, tho well intended, does not often work. for one thing, 'right' differs from person to person. for another, it's complicated.

for example, it's 'right' to exercise. but it's wrong to over-exercise or mis-exercise to the point of injury. raise your hand if you're an athlete who's never suffered from either overtraining or injury. good - no hands showing. well, we espouse the principle of paying for our lifestyle sins - that the obese should pay more for insurance commensurate with their risks, but then shouldn't athletes? of course, our injuries don't cost as much - now - but it was 15 yrs after my tae kwon do career ended that i needed my hip replaced; and will be a few more til i need my knee replaced. you'll say there are fewer and less severe and less costly medical conditions that sprout from being chronically active but the reality is, not all obese people will cost the system and not all athletes will save the system from costs. so, taken individually, not all of us should be hard core athletes but neither should all of us be obese. there's got to be a mid point somewhere, but who is to say where that is. there is no right level of fitness nor mechanism for getting there.

that said, as a liberal, i do believe society can facilitate the approximation of right at the expense of neglecting it. in other words, government, acting on behalf of society, should spend more money helping us to get fit, be healthy, and live more productively. i just don't know how to do that....

finally, i really do care. i want my clients to be healthy, get fitter, and enjoy their bodies and their minds. i love what i do and do it with love. those who have tried to lose wt, tho, are difficult to manage beyond their first 20-100 sessions - i say this jokingly but when someone's been trying to lose wt for 3 months or years, then there's absolutely nothing i can do to help. i don't give up but i do resort to less accommodating coaching. after reviewing one's behaviors that repetitively sabotage their stated goals, i resort to supportive questioning: that is, regardless of their answer or offered statements about dietary or exercise patterns, i find a positive spin to apply but direct them back to the 'better' method or choices. by this point, i know them fairly well so i can play this game. the one thing i never ever do is put someone down for their choices. but i have, on occasion, let them know that their choice speaks loudly for their real intentions. most of the time, this goes without saying, so i don't.

now, back to the article. docs don't have these kinds of close relations with clients like trainers. they have minutes, tens of minutes at best. reminds me of a cardiologist i met 20 yrs ago. after the movie, he asked what kind of advice i offer for wt loss. after expressing my philosophy so as to avoid sounding like a know it all - i knew a lot less back then- he shared his. he told of how he sits next to the bed of a patient who had a cardiac event, or surgery, and discussed diet. years after spending half an hour with patient after patient, sometimes the same person a couple years apart, he boiled it down to three words: greens, beans and grains. then he walks, figuratively speaking. his point is clear: he cared, he cares, he shares...then he leaves, leaves it up to the person to make a choice. it may not be the right choice. if it isn't right, he'll see him/her again, maybe. but it's all he could do.

that's why the data is not strong enough to change the way docs talk to patients. most simply don't want to listen. be nice, anyway.

knees, arthritis, running: are they connected?

2010-10-13T21:32:00.000-07:00

i've probably written on this before but this article in the ny times inspired tonite's blog: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/phys-ed-do-marathons-wreck-your-knees/?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fmagazine%2Findex.jsonp

i alert you to the concluding line: ‘There’s no strong evidence,’’ he said, that, if your knees are healthy to start with, ‘‘running a marathon will hurt them.’’

i think it's fair to say, as i've long held, that there are no wrong exercises for everyone but there are wrong exercisers for some exercisers. in other words, using myself as an example, having done tae kwon do nearly every day of the year for about 15 years, that my knee (only my pivot leg) is shot because i must have either trained wrong or had a propensity toward arthritis. (i also have a new hip on the same side and the knee will someday need replacing.) my friend, same age, same duration of youthful training, is still teaching, running, and sparring (gently, because we are, after all, old men) and is free of knee problems. (tho he's had both his hips re-surfaced. it's a tough sport...) my point is, some suffer consequences, others don't. same for knees and running.

the studies reported in this article are noteworthy for their longevity. rather than a cross sectional study of runners and non-runners, or runners and former runners, some of these in this piece followed runners over a period of time. what they generally found was that running did not cause arthritis, but it did alter the 'matrix' of the cartilage. however, that may be one of the many ways our body adapts to the stresses of long distance long-term running. obviously, some runners had to give it up because their knees did not adapt well. others are still running. thus, i think it's fair to conclude that, much as that last line says, running does not cause arthritis unless your knees are prone to arthritis.

now, many things can make you prone: genetics, previous injury, untreated training or footwear conditions (running on the same side of the street, or in the wrong shoes - old or inappropriate for your foot), or any number of nutritional or extra-activity variables that can't be determined. (for example, is my knee shot because i also tried to be a distance athlete? or because i worked out on tile floors 3 hrs/day? or because i needed orthotics for running but trained barefoot? who knows????)

so, in conclusion, let me state clearly my position and highlight that of the news piece: exercise however you wish. pay attention to your body. treat it like a living machine, providing it the elements of success under duress - fluids, nutrients, and rest. and maybe just maybe you will not be one of those who suffers cartilage damage from your activity of choice.

but maybe you will regardless.
bummer....

supplements, free radicals, and anti-oxidants

2010-10-10T19:43:00.000-07:00

i have colleagues who, as trainers, wish to help their clients and friends by also supplementing their incomes passively. so they sell or market supplements, either muscle building or immunity-enhancing or disease-reducing "proprietary blends" that have an ounce of science and a ton of marketing behind them. just the other day, a close associate was discussing with me the prospect of getting involved in a multi-level marketing scheme of scientific-sounding anti-oxidants but was rightfully investigating its authenticity before jumping in. he wanted my opinion. that was before i read this article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/phys-ed-free-the-free-radicals/?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fmagazine%2Findex.jsonp

my opinion was this: maybe it works but science has a way of isolating out of natural products or foods items or components of items believed to be the reason the natural products or foods are thought to be healthful. that is, take the C and E out of fruits and veggies, compress them into pills with megadoses way beyond those you can eat, and hope for miracle cures. but, studies just don't support most of these claims. in fact as i've reported previously, the latest data, based on multiple studies and combined data from multiple studies, shows that a multi-vitamin pill confers no health benefits vis a vis cancer or heart disease. (the only caveat here is, of course, when people eat restricted diets - vegetarians, for ex, need iron, zinc, and B12 from pills. and there are other limiters that might require supplementation.)

the article link above confirms that our bodies are pretty good at taking care of business. exercise, which produces tons of free radicals, that otherwise would be destructive, actually enhances our body's ability to manage them via internal mechanisms. and when you over supply the body with exogenous (outside the body) anti-oxidants, guess what happens: you become less adept at removing these by-products and also less adaptive to the benefits of the exercise itself.

it also confirms what those stodgy old dietitians have been claiming for eons: food is the best medicine. not supplements - which cannot be 'natural' because natural is food, and pills are super-concentrated versions of only one or a few elements contained in food.

so, once again, the age-old, 5 food group recipe stands firm: eat your fruits, eat your veggies, get your calcium from dairy - and don't try to tell me mankind can't get the nutrients from cows - we've been doing it since the first time a thirsty ancestor went up to a cow or camel and drank from its teat. very few of us are truly lactose intolerant and even fewer are allergic but the rest of us can handle it just fine. (in fact, low fact chocolate milk is now the premier post-workout beverage for strength athletes...and some would contend for cardio athletes, too.)

one last note. don't be surprised if you hear, soon, about the necessity if not the recommendation to eat more saturated fats. it's all aristotlean: everything in moderation. why is it we americans keep taking things to the extreme?

ACLs, knees, and genes

2010-09-29T20:48:00.000-07:00

a provocative article in the NY Times projects the possibility that genetics predisposes some - esp women - to NON-CONTACT anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/phys-ed-are-bad-knees-in-our-genes/?ref=health

tim hewett, of cincinnati children's hospital, a prominent researcher on ACL injury and prevention, reports that one set of twin girls tore their knees up within a year. their older sister also tore her ACL. another set of twin sisters had incurred torn ACLs in high school, as did their dad...and his two triplet brothers!!!! scary huh? suggesting that you can look at your family's knees and see your risk profile in scar tissue.

studies in south africa have found a gene sequence that alters the customary elasticity of ligamentous collagen. interestingly, more women had this aberration whereas males who had had ACL injuries did not have this variant and women who had not torn their ACLs also did not have it.

so, we can now add to the list of predisposing factors - weak, easily-fatiguing, and late-firing hamstrings; weak and delayed-firing gluteus medii; possible femoral notch anatomical variations; and poor training/jumping/cutting technique - genetics. like many things genetics, this does not mean you WILL have an ACL tear if other family members have had one. but it does mean you might want to train properly with more closed chain- squats and lunges - and plyometric - jumping/hopping - and agility - cutting, changing direction - exercises. see a pro who's studied this syndrome, not just one who knows how to build bigger muscles. you need better ones, not bigger ones.

sugar, hi fructose corn syrup

2010-09-23T15:47:00.000-07:00

the corn growers of america want you to not be afraid of hi fructose corn syrup, so they're changing the name: corn sugar!!! that should allay any fears of consuming too many wasted calories now that its name has changed, right?

wrong.

there are unwarranted fears about the correlational link of hi fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to the burgeoning girths of americans, and people all around the world. (see: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-fat/?ref=business) but the science of sugar suggests there are no substantial differences bw table sugar and HFCS. many health foodies still hold onto their faith-based prejudice against HFCS but the evidence is pretty clear on at least one thing: those who consume hi sugar foods/drinks tend toward obesity more than those who get their sugars in the foods from which they come naturally - fruits, veggies, and complex carbs.

in another blog on the NY Times website today, the issue of HFCS vs sugar is well analyzed so that even the non-scientist can understand it. both sides of the argument are presented but the one thing that stands out clearly is the commentary of the main researcher whose 2004 study showed the correlation of obesity to the ever-increasing amount of HFCS in our diet. he contends that it's the sugar, not the type of sugar, that matters. and that alone should cause you to pause as you shop, for HFCS, and now the soon-to-be-renamed "corn sugar" that's in the processed foods you buy are not making you any healthier. in fact, sugar, being sugar, is, if consumed to too large a degree in your diet, you put yourself at risk not just for cavities but for diabetes, heart disease, overweight/obesity, and nothing positive unless consumed right before a hard workout. in other words, cut the sugar, eat the fruit: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/in-worries-about-sweeteners-think-of-all-sugars/?ref=health

stability balls at work

2010-09-21T19:31:00.000-07:00

much has been done by exercise pros over the past 20 yrs to elevate the formerly known "swiss ball" (SB) to near-olympian levels of wonder results. what was originally a ball used in neurological therapy for newborns with developmental issues, once the ball hit america, like many other things that had intrinsic value and utility unto their own, the SB took on a mind of its own, with claims that only now are being fully investigated for veracity. but let me give some history here....

about 18 yrs ago, my colleague, who had received treatment for chronic low back issues, came to the gym with a new-fangled exercise toy - the SB. she knew two exercises, as prescribed by her PT: the crunch and the bridge (feet on ball, lying supine on floor, raising hips.) both were good enough for most people's needs but the story doesn't end there. within a few years, every gym and trainer had a SB and new exercises were being created a mile a minute. within a few years, some jokers - you know them, and they know who they are - were even promoting the SB for doing squats - no, not against a wall or with a partner; doing squats ON the ball. like the dogs in the circus, or even the elephants. only stupider - because presumably these were bright human beings doing stupid human tricks...of absolutely no legitimate value whatsoever.

claims such as improving balance, stability, and core strength overwhelmed the media and trade mags. but there was still no research to back it up until the late 90s. at first, the reports looked good - SB crunches engaged the ab muscles better than regular ones tho not as well as other - in particular, the bicycle - exercises. still, it had value now. and the new concepts of spinal stability especially of the smaller interspinous muscles - rotatores and multifidi - were supportive of unstable surfaces for performing exercises to benefit these mini muscles that normally atrophy post injury. from there, tho, it was a stretch to make other claims such as get stronger, get better core stability for athletics, and get better posture. thus far, none of these claims have been verified.

having been an instructor for Exercise ETC, Inc, out of Ft lauderdale, i had to confront these issues head on with participants who bought into such claims. many a time i sat on a SB with lousy posture mimicking that which they themselves were sitting to demonstrate that it's feasible to sit on a ball and get no inherent benefit to posture. likewise, many studies have been done demonstrating that more strength is gained by doing exercises on stable surfaces than on unstable ones. furthermore, once basic stability of the spine is intact, further challenges via the SB probably don't offer any functional benefits. after all, how many life activities take place on a 65 cm spherical surface? no great athlete in pre-modern or modern history has gotten there with such a tool and all great athletes who use them were great before they used them; the SB may simply be another of many tools in their training arsenals, one likely to be more a waste of time than anything else.

so here comes an article in the Times discussing claims that sitting on a ball at work increases calorie burn and posture. and one study did indeed show an increase of 4 - read: FOUR - extra calories per hour of sitting. let's put that in perspective: get up and get a drink of water, talk with a co-worker for a few minutes - and you'll burn more calories, hydrate yourself, and derive social benefits far beyond sitting those extra few minutes on a ball. besides, for a full 32 extra calories/day, why not take a 1/3 mile walk and get cardiovascular benefits that far exceed those of sitting anywhere let alone a ball.

btw the studies do not support improved posture. in fact, not only can people slouch on a ball; not only might you sit straighter whether on a ball or in a chair; but posture is nearly impossible to train without conscious decisions made throughout the day to exert oneself into a proper posture. so it ain't the ball, per se. in fact, if anything, the new science of sedentary behavior suggests that sitting on anything is less valuable to health and body composition than standing, so SB sitting is actually bad for you, and no better than sitting on a good chair.

read on: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/health/21really.html?ref=health

stretching

2010-09-01T20:24:00.000-07:00

another article sums up the latest professional spin on stretching. done on runners, many many runners, of all ages, some of whom were assigned a 5 mins stretching routine, others who were asked not to - it took two years to find enough who would not stretch - the study found that 16% of stretchers and 16% of non-stretchers got injured over the course of the study. thus, stretching's a wash.

but is it? they also found that 23% of former stretchers who stopped stretching for the study got injured. the researchers concluded that the change of training habits likely contributed to their injuries and warned that “sudden changes are probably not a good idea.” i hate to say 'duh' but there's more to this than meets the eye.

i've written before on the lack of benefits of stretching and the value of dynamic warm ups instead. and i stand by the research both professionally and personally, from experience. but i do want to clarify something here: stretching passively may indeed be necessary for those who have conditions or muscle imbalances that do contribute to injury, such as ITB syndromeor patellofemoral pain. i would also add that for many, static stretching is essential even compared to dynamic stretching. older adults, those with known pathologies, and those for whom balance may be an issue benefit from slow, long-held stretches. of course, a dynamic warm up of even light walking loosens up the intended muscles and gets blood flowing deeper into the tissue to be stretched, so don't forget that part PRIOR to your stretches. nonetheless, there is still merit here.

what makes this study interesting was the data on previous stretchers' injuries. what we did not hear, tho, is a breakdown of the nature of the injuries incurred. it is very possible that the non-stretchers suffered injuries that would indeed have been mitigated if not prevented had they stretched. it's also possible that the stretchers, feeling like they'd warmed up enough, went out too fast and furious and thus injured themselves for reasons totally different than those related to stretching. as such, we still do not know whether or not stretching is beneficial or possibly hurtful. though large-subject pool studies have shown no benefits, like this study, it's not unreasonable to think that stretchers get injured as much as non-stretchers, just with different types of injuries. therefore, stretchers may not need to stretch and non-stretchers need to stretch but we'll never know til a study looks at the nature of the injuries within each group. til then:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/phys-ed-does-stretching-before-running-prevent-injuries/?ref=health

obesity

2010-08-21T18:15:00.000-07:00

yes, it's what you do or don't do with your time, money, and mouth. yes, there are many options available and many influences that often direct your time, money, and mouth away from healthier choices. but...can society, politics, and the private sector work together to reverse the trend toward obesity in america effectively? can it, or should it? two separate questions. of course, if you believe as i do, that we're all in this together - we healthy people pay for the choices of others even by our own private health insurance, and even life insurance, policy premiums because of demographic statistics that are actuarialized to determine rates. furthermore, any public health costs are escalated to bank-busting levels by choices made, and fostered, by the many systems in our society.

this article in the Times addresses the possibility that the public and private sectors could re-tool themselves to improve our diet and our physical activity habits. it's by no means comprehensive in this endeavor but it's a start in getting folks thinking that maybe there are things that can, someday, be done to reverse the slide into obesification: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/business/22stream.html?ref=health

type 2 diabetes drugs and bone breaks

2010-08-17T09:17:00.000-07:00

there are many drugs for almost any disease, but none are risk free. type 2 diabetes (t2d) is a disease prevalent in the aging populations of industrial/developed nations largely due to lifestyle patterns of excess food intake and sedentary behaviors. some of the common drugs used to manage this disease have been shown to increase risk for bone fractures in women more than men, and some warnings are being posted to docs to consider to whom these drugs are prescribed: post menopausal women are at higher risk for both diseases (osteoporosis). read: http://www.healthcanal.com/female-reproductive/10086-Diabetes-drugs-linked-with-higher-risk-fractures-postmenopausal-women.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+healthnewshc%2FOxfp+%28Health+News+from+HealthCanal.com%29

my view on the matter is the infamous Desiderata: ....change those things you can. we can't change aging, except by dying. we can change some of the effects of aging, esp if we start young, such as with proper diet and appropriate exercise/activity. but we can indeed change our risk for and need for meds for T2D, simply by, well, proper diet and appropriate exercise. even if you have the diagnosis, you can, esp early on, reverse it by simply losing weight through, well, proper diet and appropriate exercise. and you don't have to lose tons of it. but the choice, unlike that of living, dying or aging, is easier than the latter, and proper diet and appropriate exercise results in nearly-immediate changes in blood sugar levels that, in due, but short, time could reduce the need for meds and put you back in the game of life....which is, after all, what it's all about.

weight management/loss

2010-08-09T20:49:00.000-07:00

the age-old debate - less carbs vs less fat - has been undergoing much new study since dr. atkins first proposed a lo carb diet back when my mom was trying to drop pounds for my bar mitzvah. (yes, for a couple years there, she was doing that yo yo thing simply to look hot for my and my brother's bar mitzvahs. when i look at the photos of those events, it's clear she, too, was a by product of an era when thin was beginning to be in. shame - some things have only gotten worse with time.)

most good research on wt loss has concluded that (1) most other studies are too short to be of value; (2) most long term studies show significant wt loss early with substantial wt re-gain later, esp for the more extreme diets; and (3) calories in, calories out is the only way to reduce wt effectively.

and here's a new study, reported in the ny times, that demonstrates no superiority between diets: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/health/research/10diet.html?ref=health

now, you might be thinking that hi pro/low carb diets are better because they raise HDL. maybe so, but the article here does not tell us to what extent. we know that simply losing wt lowers LDL and in some cases raises HDL. so the actual difference b/w the two diets may be "significant" but not a lot, that is, not enough to be clinically significant. we just can't tell from this piece of news.

however, there are better and more effective ways to raise HDL, and to lower wt. it's called exercise and balanced eating. we know all about exercise, right? but do we really know what balanced eating is; my guess is, no.

balanced eating is any form of eating that includes those bedeviling foods that one can't help but call - carbs. yes, carbs - fruits, veggies, and whole grains. hundreds of studies show the vast benefits of diets hi in these items. yet, any low carb diet restricts these - esp the grains- early and even throughout the diet period. thus, the diets are boring and eventually unsustainable.

now, one does not need to go to the full lengths of the books to achieve favorable results. in fact, most hi pro diets start feeding you more veggies and some 'special' fruits after a while. but, if carbs are kept to below 40% of your caloric needs, not only are you risking some nutritional deficiencies - esp if you're eating low enough calories to continue losing wt- but maybe even risking losing out on some very well-proportioned and as yet undetected phytonutrients that will help you fight off all kinds of diseases. and they may even help your bad breath.

balanced eating; balanced exercise; balanced living.
what a concept!!!!

obesity, again

2010-08-04T20:58:00.000-07:00

another article on rising obesity rates - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/health/nutrition/04fat.html?_r=1&ref=us.

what's a country to do?

for one thing, some soon-to-be unfolded efforts to tag foods in the stores based on a 0-100 scale (100 being excellent for health) may help folks make better dietary choices. and if that weren't enough, there's now more discussion on making developments - neighborhoods - more activity friendly, tho that's a way in the future dream. for the most part, getting mother nature to drop the temperature below 90 would be helpful but the reality is, no matter the outdoor temps, most americans simply don't move enough.

so, what's a country to do?

well, yesterday the voters of missouri resoundingly voted against the federal health plan that mandates purchasing a health insurance plan. that will be the crux of the many lawsuits aiming to gut the program. and i'm sure there are good, and bad, arguments for and against it. but i'm not so sure it's one that law alone should manage. of course, being a nation of laws, that's not an option unless this blog can convince my fellow americans to reconsider their opposition to a plan that will help keep costs down by providing some measure of health care prior to the end stages of disease, maybe mitigating the need for extreme measures. let me expound.

joe eats too much junk food, drinks too much beer, and sits around watching too much tv. joe's formerly fit athletic body is now fat and plaque-laden. he is totally entitled to his choices, his lifestyle, and i don't begrudge him that...until he goes to the doctor. whether or not he is insured, the drug, insurance, and medical conglomerates will prosper on his life choices, driving up the costs for all of us who may or may not be choosing similarly disease oriented lifestyles. why? because of basic economics: supply and demand. you see, joe has to have more and better drugs to manage his deteriorating body; his insurance is paying out more than he can afford to put into it monthly; and the medical community, short of hours and long on modalities, will make a killing on his conditions. thus, the costs are shared by those of us who hardly use or abuse the system both in drug development, costs, distribution, and reimbursement; in insurance premiums; and in the ever-constant struggle by docs to get reimbursed by the insurance industry, and to prevent lawsuits by providing best of care vs best of prevention, which combined drive up costs for all.

now i know the argument - and concur in its rationality - that ever since medicare and medicaid, government subsidization has driven the cost of health care beyond previous amounts. so, in the 1960s, your doc lived next door; today, he lives in the finest of mansions in the best of neighborhoods, regardless of his clientele. and that's one of those unintended consequences of good programs and bad policies. but here we are, and going back to the way it was - when docs took $10 for an office visit - is not an option. neither the docs nor their technologies can be bought for 1960s prices. so, what's all this have to do with obesity? wellllllll

we have a choice in this country: we can allow individuals to choose to live unhealthfully, or we can encourage and SUPPORT healthy living, as a nation. there are costs all along either path, so let's face that reality. if 25 states opt out of the mandate for health insurance, then, should someone from that state travel to my state and have an attack or injury or event requiring health care, which state is going to cover the costs? for all intents and purposes, even a citizen of missouri would be like an illegal mexican when it comes to health care: no contribution, my costs.

it behooves us all to be patriotic in our observance of healthy lifestyles. it behooves our leaders to consider rewarding such lifestyles and even punishing unhealthy ones. there are rational ways, dollar-ways, to make folks understand that their choices affect not just them but us. and that there are valid reasons as to why we can make reciprocal demands upon them to comply more with what are generally considered hallmarks of a healthy lifestyle. as such, we can demand that junk foods not be included in school lunches, at work site eateries, or interspersed in aisles and media so that the attraction is harder to avoid. (i say this knowing full well that the marketplace will think i'm a socialist. i counter by saying the nation's wellbeing should not be subjugated to the financial interests of a few any more than its security should be subjugated to the religious fanatacism of a few.)

and let's reward movement - encourage it in kids (how about neighborhood schools again?), in neighborhoods (sidewalks anyone? police walking the beat?), and in adults (workplace supports). and discourage sedentary behavior with financial and workplace disincentives. (what would you be willing to sacrifice in your lifestyle for a paid vacation day? better yet, would you be willing to engage in healthy choices for an extra few days off?)

this is not the answer to all questions in this issue. it's really just a provocation for you the reader to think about how we're going to handle this epidemic. i'm going to do a 15 minute indoor bike ride now. good nite.

feet revisited - shoes, no shoes or the right shoes

2010-07-25T09:07:00.000-07:00

the issue of running shod or barefoot still crops up in a variety of formats. but a most interesting article in the NY Times yesterday brought up a whole different way of considering the issue: special shoes for special feet vs no special shoes.

this is prompted by the long-held belief that motion-control shoes prevent overpronators (flat-footed people) from excessive rotation of the ankle, lower leg, and knee, and thus prevents problems up the kinetic chain. obversely, supinators- those with high arches - tend to not be able to absorb shock upon foot strike, so cushioned shoes were deemed appropriate for this population. however, as the studies referred to in the article suggest, maybe the degree of shock absorption is not the cause of knee problems in runners. this is novel.

whenever a client comes in to ask my advice re an injury or ache, i sometimes garner a guess. but if it's painful and chronic, i more often refer to a sports med doc who's better capable of making a diagnosis based not only on his best guess but on proper evaluation of the patient. even if the client has seen an alternative doc - chiropractor, massage therapist, etc - or even if he's seen an orthopedist (many of whom are better at diagnosing surgically-necessary problems but not necessarily causes), i refer to a diagnostician who is not a surgeon. why? because he is more apt to consider the entire person, not just the injury site itself. if he can find a cause that does not need surgical repair, he will refer back to me or to a physical therapist if the injury warrants it. but he will also quickly refer to surgery if necessary.

the point is, without an accurate diagnosis of the cause, no matter the repair, it is likely to crop back up if the same activities resume. (on a personal note, i went yesterday to a Muscle Activation Therapist (MAT) to see if i could get some help on a problem. he did a thorough review of my whole body, not just my hip, and found some 'weak' areas of segments of muscles, and even whole muscles, that were not firing well. he treated them, sent me some exercises for them, and we'll have to see how it goes. but, despite my capacity to do many exercises for the muscles he identified as problematic, the neurological firing patterns were dysfunctional. hence, problems await.)

so, if you are a runner, and you are experiencing problems, yes, sure, please do look at the feet first. they hit the ground with lots of force many times. a podiatrist, esp a sports podiatrist, is a good first measure - tho my sports med doc is not a believer in orthotics, the ones i had made for me in 1976 still work - but don't stop there. skip the shoes- like the many articles on barefoot suggest, shoes may only hide the problem, and like this article suggests, shoes may actually create the problem - but then see a sports med specialist - and some personal trainers and p.t.'s are good sources for this kind of info. but first, and foremost, take time off the perpetrating activity. otherwise, compensations take over and new problems will arise.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/phys-ed-do-certain-types-of-sneakers-prevent-injuries/

core exercise

2010-07-19T18:49:00.000-07:00

so, i've been traveling a lot lately, some pleasure - like to panama city beach with my girlfriend during the july fourth weekend, some paternal -like to los angeles and seattle with my daughter checking out colleges, some work - like to kansas city to teach other trainers for exercise etc, and most recently, some pure play - to crested butte, colorado with six of my old philadelphia neighborhood. seven old men - all of us now over 56, up to 58 yrs of age, who've known each other for over 50 years. pretty amazing. what's also amazing is how healthy and fit we all were - we did a 10 mile hike at over 11,000 ft climbing 2200 ft and no one had to stop for medical reasons; even our knees held up pretty well. the next day we ventured forth on a 4 mile trek around the top of a mountain at 11,600 ft, but the trail was covered with scree, fallen rocks, that sometimes narrowed to 1.5 ft in width with a near vertical drop of hundreds of feet. three of us chose to forgo this trek - two for knees (me included) and one for vertigo. we had a nice time just hanging out at the trail head in the sun, with the breeze and a small, very warm for a high-altitude lake lake where we dipped our not-so-tired feet....because we could.

but the reason for the blog is not my personal life. one of my buddies, an avid exerciser, very knowledgeable for a layperson, asked about the TRX, suspended training system. he contended that it was the 'best' core exercise his friend has ever had and was wondering about getting involved in it. my response was characteristically....me. you see, i'm skeptical. i'm not so sure it's all it's cracked up to be. here's why.

first, many of the exercises are suspended by arms to allow large lower body movements such as squats, lunges, lateral lunges, cross over lunges, etc. these are hi rep exercises with load essentially reduced by arm suspension and thus become a form of cardiovascular exercise. with added resistance you could get more muscle building with less time investment.

second, many of the core exercises, tho creative and dynamic, are in prone or supine positions. while good semi-isolating exercises, they are less than functional. after all, they are prone or supine. core exercise, by definition, is an exercise that engages many of the trunk-lumbar spine-pelvic-upper thigh musculature. these can be done in any position....but we really live in an upright state, even if sitting. so i emphasize - except for those with spine issues - core exercises in sitting or standing positions. while not as isolating, they allow for the core to be engaged in ways it will have to stabilize the spine during sport, recreation, or ADL. as such, i would argue that the best core exercises are those that apply to life. however, i do appreciate the development of core strength and endurance via more isolating exercises, esp the planks and bridges. TRX moves can enhance said isolating exercises. but, i would still say these are not the best core exercises simply because they are isolated in non-functional positions.

finally, TRX and other toys of the trade- Bosu balls, stability balls, etc - may or may not be better than the traditional tools of the trade - free weights - until otherwise tested. like a said earlier, a squat with added load will engage more core muscles in more functional patterns of movement than the TRX. and it will help build bone density! in other words, for the time, and the effort, you'll get more bang from your buck using traditional tools.

remember, the TRX was designed to allow Navy SEALS to train where equipment did not exist. it served its purpose. but what do SEALS actually do to get in shape to do their job: run, swim, climb, jump, carry, push ups, sit ups, and other equipment-less activities. add some resistance to these and you have a much more beneficial and less taxing program....for life.

healthy-er junk food

2010-06-24T07:05:00.000-07:00

nanny state-ism is, like it or not. we share in each others' pain, illness, and wellness if not by intent at least by infrastructure. from private to public health insurance plans, the means of operational success comes from sharing the burden of illness with those who are healthy. in fact, we've seen much from the recent health care debates that demonstrate that the cost of any insurance plan is increased as healthier (read: younger) people opt out, leaving the more costly sicker people, or people at risk of becoming sicker (read: older) remain in the pool. hence, requiring everyone to pay into the pool, young and old, healthy and unhealthy, rich and poor (read: subsidized by government) is the only way to reduce premiums to all.

thus, the question at hand: does the state have the right or responsibility to watch how we eat?

well, since government has to approve food production methods and ingredients, one could argue that it already is watching over us. but it should not tell us what or how much to eat.

the other side suggests that, with small changes in oversight, substantially large changes in individual and public health can reap great benefits with minimal loss of either corporate profits or personal tastes. here's an article of a discussion in england, a real nanny state, that addresses such small changes in food production: less sodium, less or no trans fats: http://www.healthcanal.com/public-health-safety/8800-Cut-salt-and-saturated-fat-levels-processed-food-save-thousands-lives-says-NICE.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+healthnewshc%2FOxfp+%28Health+News+from+HealthCanal.com%29

whether or not you believe the state should be a nanny, there can be little argument for allowing the state to cooperate in the profiteering of corporate foods (what some might call, Food, Inc.) at the expense of both private and public health since we're all paying.

exercise and the brain

2010-06-19T11:22:00.000-07:00

much has been written and discussed and debated about the role of exercise, and fitness, in mental, and academic function. i recall when i was in grad school - late 1970s-mid 1980s - reading on the usefulness of cardio conditioning in treating depression and addiction. so, when i got an anonymous posting in regards to one of my posts suggesting i look at the work of john ratey re the value of exercise in regards to alzheimers, i did. obviously i did not research all his work nor even read all the articles about his work. what i saw, tho, was more corroboration of that which i've been reading about for over 30 yrs. at least, so far as education and mood states are concerned. when studies are done on those with deteriorative diseases such as alzheimers, and when they show correlations with exercise prior to or after those diseases, i can only bring up some methodological issues, the first of which is causation.

as great as western medicine is at finding the complex variables that relate to any one disease or even disorder (small diff but real), after 10 yrs of human genomic study, a recent health-related article (the Times? Health News?) headlined that so far no definitive singular genes have been identified to allow for any specific treatment of any one disease. makes sense to me: genes interface with environment to prosecute their potential. as such, fit, health, lean, well-nutriented people still get sick, diseased, and die...sometimes sooner than their polar opposite unfit, unhealthy, overweight, poorly nutriented comrades. could it be the environment in which they were raised from day one? or maybe that job they held in high school? we'll never quite know.

so, when a study shows that staying or even getting aerobically fit delays progression of an extant disease such as alzheimers, keep in mind that we have absolutely NO idea as to how fast or slow it would have progressed had the subjects not done any exercise at all. the data has to be accumulated over large numbers of patients over long periods of time factoring out for medications and other environmental effectors - such as type of care, socioeconomic and health care opportunities - yes, poor people won't have as good an outcome as rich people; unfair but that's how it is and scientists can't factor in too many variables all at once - and even then can only come up with correlations, not causations.

in conclusion, dr ratey's research on the value of fitness on brain function and health is sound when looking at non-diseased people. once we venture into the realm of brain diseased people, all we can offer are co-related suggestions. and exercise is and should always be related to favorable future outcomes if only for quality of life matters. so get your early-diagnosed alzheimer patient out and about, performing complex movements in the gym and especially outside the gym, playfully, enjoyably, and socially. it may not extend function or life but will provide a host of pleasurable moments and memories for those left behind.

strength train yourself flexible

2010-06-16T15:08:00.000-07:00

studies have been showing over the past decade or so that resistance training (RT) improves flexibility. furthermore, it reduces your risk of lengthening injuries - like a hamstring tear during running, or back strain from bending - by not only increasing the ability of the muscle to pull more load but also resisting a load that's pulling it. in other words, when a force is greater than the tension of the muscle, the joint will move as the muscle lengthens, rather than shortens. think of bending over to tie your shoes - your hamstrings, glutes, and low back muscles lengthen to allow gravity to lower your upper body down. when they contract to raise you back to vertical, they shorten.

why the science lesson? because, if you do RT through a large range of motion, muscle will get stronger even at the extremes of it's range. muscle gets stronger by three mechanisms: first, neurological; then collagen deposition which makes it tougher; finally, hypertrophy, or protein accretion. when you stretch, you get some of the first two but little of the third. when you do RT you get them all. therefore, when you stretch to tie your shoe, your muscles have learned to go through that range but have the collagenous strength to withstand the load at that angle, and the strength to pull you back up safely.

bottom line - strength train throughout a joint's range of motion.
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20100604/resistance-training-improves-flexibility-too?src=RSS_PUBLIC

core training in the vertical world

2010-06-12T09:53:00.000-07:00

this morning i got an email from a former colleague/trainer from belmont university's physical therapy department, emily. she finished her degree a year or more ago and is living in virginia i think. she wanted some info on core training for athletes - h.s. jocks - to whom she's giving a presentation.

now, this is how things work: you go to school, learn a lot, focus in one or two areas, go out and practice what you learn, focus in one or two areas....and next thing you know, you lost whatever it is you once knew. so, as a trainer she learned, from me and the relevant literature, what and how to train the core. as a therapist, she learned again some of the same but less expansive material since p.t. is treating unhealthy folks just enough to get them out of the clinic. what to do from there - distinguishes trainers from therapists. but my grips is for both.

in reviewing literature to send her, on line, i went to the NSCA's site and got one from stuart mcgill - a prominent researcher in the area of core function, and another from someone who though he was. i say this because mcgill emphasized the ludicrousness - if there is such a word- of the navel drawing in maneuver whereas the other guy made a special emphasis on doing so before doing any core work.

now i'm a fan of the navel drawing in maneuver - you know, pull the belly button into the floor. it was developed as a way to retrain the transverse abdominus - the innermost abdominal muscle that does not in any way move the torso but does stabilize it at its weakest level. i say this not to demean its value. but it really only does its job as a stabilizer when the spine/vertebrae themselves are out of alignment - when you have a spondylolisthesis, slippage of one vertebra over the one below it. but what stabilizes the spine when you have to move beyond static stability of the vertebrae? that is where trainers lose sight of the forest thru the trees.

without going too far and deep, let me share my thoughts on this. name 3 professions where you have to lie on your back and raise your upper torso toward the sky/ceiling?......time's up. how about: michaelangelo painting the sistene chapel; a coal miner; and a hooker - ok, she doesn't have to raise her upper body up but she has to do a pelvic tuck....several times a day. for the most part, we operate vertically. and generally in a rotational, not back and forth, manner. therefore, let's think about training the core both "in line" and in rotation. so, planks are starters - my bow to mcgill - but then progress to upright versions of a plank - hmmm? well, how about a tubing or cable chest press with two hands? you have to resist being bent into extension, just as a plank is resistance against the belly moving into the floor. and you're getting upper body work, too. and you're vertical, pushing as tho: pushing a carriage, shopping cart, defensive linemen, etc. likewise, a row of tubing or cable forces the lumbar extensors to stabilize against forward bending. then moving to one arm chest press and one arm row - now you have a rotational force to resist. change legs; different hip rotator actions at play now. then add rotation; then add lunge and rotate while pressing or rowing.

in other words, build on core control with core stability to core endurance to core strength to core power (adding speed). but do so in positions that matter...unless you intend to paint the next sistene chapel, that is.

social media

2010-06-09T16:17:00.000-07:00

there are many new ways to communicate and blogging and Facebook are two i've decided to venture into. based on the suggestions of a marketing study at Vanderbilt on behalf of STEPS, i thought, what the hell? so here it is.

it was also suggested i start twittering - a 140-character way of sharing quickie info. since i read a lot, this would be an easy way to share lots of snippets of quality facts. however, why should i recreate the wheel when a good friend and colleague, Guy Andrews, of Exercise ETC, is doing so. please sign onto his blog for up to date by the minute exercise and health news-bits: http://twitter.com/ExerciseETC

i believe you will find his quick-twits easier to digest than my expositions, but don't stop reading here. the info i offer is able to fill in the meat of the studies others refer to in snippets.

like did you hear about.....

ACSM Annual meeting thoughts

2010-06-08T19:19:00.000-07:00

last week i attended the ACSM annual meeting in beautiful baltimore. i kid you not; it is a beautiful convention center/inner harbor/down town area with good restaurants - my cousin took me to an afghani restaurant (owned, incidentally, by pres. karzai's brother) - and clubs and things to do and see (like the first george washington monument in the center of a square near the george peabody conservatory.) the convention, well organized and attended - i heard the biggest yet, with over 90 countries represented - had much to offer the geeks and practicing geeks, like me. i really enjoy hearing the researchers' research and others' opinions/suggestions that so make science a wonderfully energetic endeavor. whilst i would not consider myself one, the value is invaluable. i love taking the info, processing it into terms i can employ in my capacity as trainer and educator, and implementing it into programs for my clientele. much of what i learn is self-affirming but there's some that i learn in greater detail such that now i can understand what i've read elsewhere. for example...

obesity. we all learn and think that obesity increases your risk for heart disease, diabetes, and early mortality. and yes, the BMI data does show this. but that's like saying "all..... look alike": to the untrained eye, to the biased viewer, they really might...but really aren't. in other words, as steven blair (cooper center, dallas) and glenn gaesser noted in their symposium on the topic, the reality is that obese folks have as good a cardio risk profile as lean people...if the former are fit. thus, lean unfit people were worse off than obese fit people. furthermore, while reducing wt is good - we assume - one must ask at what expense? gaesser pointed out that chronic wt loss - cycling - actually increases your morbidity each time you regain the wt. and it's not just large amounts of flux that create this effect; it may be more related to how many times one has tried to lose it. cycling may actually BE the problem with the obese trying to lose wt, usually to no avail and often to negative effect. perhaps, and the evidence is clear and strong here, all we need to do is focus on helping the obese get fitter - not marathon fit, just fitter. and, for you trainers out there, resistance training is sufficiently effective even compared to aerobic conditioning. why? read on....

it is suggested that cycling causes loss of lean tissue - muscle. we've known that elderly folks have worse outcomes if they lose too much muscle mass. it makes sense then that losing wt, esp fast wt loss as most diets offer, also takes a toll on the lean tissue. hence, repetitive wt loss in the obese has been shown to increase risk of disease.

furthermore, studies have shown that short term fitness training - as short as 3 weeks - which is too short to have demonstrated substantial wt loss, has reduced blood pressure, blood lipid values, and get this - risk of type 2 diabetes. some folks have even been able to get off their metformin (a treatment drug for type 2).

oh, there's more, but my fingers are tired. ok, try this on: sretching - most studies show excessively long - over 2 mins - static stretching reduces power/strength. however, as i brought up in the q&a, most athletes don't stretch immediately prior to performing a power lift/bout. hence, no need to worry, but static stretching is also shown not to be effective in producing reduction of injury nor improvement of performance....except in events that need it, like dance, diving, etc. and even there, dynamic stretching may be better than static stretching at all levels. why stretch, then? if an injury or posture has the ability to alter your mechanics, stretch; if you had surgery or any injury that minimizes mobility, stretching is necessary to restore proper muscle balance and function, and static, early on, is safest. the other reason: it feels good, and relaxes you.

stop reading, go stretch, and feel good.

disease prevention/management

2010-06-02T11:40:00.000-07:00

fitness = wellness, or so it would seem. however, genetics, culture, and luck, can impact one's wellness, too. fortunately, tho, goals set a decade ago by a government health initiative, to get more people tested and treated for high blood pressure, is working: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/health/research/01pressure.html?ref=health

obviously it would be better to prevent it than treat it, and that's the mission of those in the exercise world: to get more folks moving more. getting folks to take more STEPS - sorry about the plug but that's why i chose the name of my biz 20+ yrs ago - is worth it for those who do: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-05-23-walking-metabolic-syndrome_N.htm

but why just talk about it? sitting at this computer, reading what i read, it strikes me ironic that my sit time affects my life more than my exercise time. one study, in MSSE, june 2010, notes in the conclusion, that women who lost wt during an 8-wk program did so by moving more than they had before the study began, and more than the designed exercise program implemented. those who did not lose wt, however, even with the 150-mins/wk program, did so by reducing the amount of movement they did almost as a compensation for the exercise they did. in other words, with no change in diet, some were "responders" = lost wt by continuing or adding movement; some were "non-responders" - gained wt by stopping extra movement in their lives.

so i'm going to get up and move around. why don't you?

clarification and addition

2010-05-28T17:59:00.000-07:00

in an earlier post this evening, i referred to a study mentioned in the Tufts Nutrition Letter re calcium supplements not being beneficial to prevent heart disease. however, a Swedish study did show that calcium intake did correlate with reduced risk of heart disease in men. it was a very large epidemiological study which gives it lots of oomph. in fact, those eating the most calcium products were 25% less likely to die of all causes, cancer included. my correction, however, is to the issue of supplements - which do help manage bone loss - but, again, do not reduce heart disease risk. i wanted to make that clear. the study did show, however, that vitamin D supplements did improve one's risk against said disease.

and for you coffee addicts, many studies have lately come out showing its benefits. four new ones came out recently to show its benefits in controlling blood sugar. most interestingly, a French study found that only coffee at LUNCH really made a difference. another study also found that contrary to popular belief, 4 or more coffees a day - not sweetened, mind you - may actually reduce heart rhythm disturbances.

this is why i love to read up on this stuff. it's always surprising....

on matters pertaining to food

2010-05-28T16:18:00.000-07:00

one of the many hang ups our society...of people and of trainers, is food. supplements have always been with us ever since the days primitive warriors ate the hearts of their victims to garner their strength and prowess. fortunately, it's only the supplement industry that's eating our hearts...and wallets, but caveat emptor is the phrase of choice.

now, how should we eat? what should we eat? how much should we eat? when should we eat? hell....why should we eat what we eat when we eat it? confusing but science, sports and medical science alike, are homing in on the answers to many of these questions. nonetheless, tomorrow another article will come out displacing everything we believed yesterday and it's time to start anew.

for example, there is a lot of noise coming out about a major study in europe - a meta-analysis, where data from several similar studies is compiled to give greater impact to the results - that showed that fruits and veggies do NOT confer resistance to cancer. something like 2 servings/day reduces your risk of a variety of cancers by 3% only. that means even the rx of 5-9 servings would only give you about 15% reduction of risk. that's a lot but statistically not much. what with all the studies showing that vitamins or even antioxidants don't confer any risk reductions, it almost makes sense to avoid supplements. esp since fruits and veggies do show great value in reducing your risk of cardiac problems. is it the fruits and veggies...or the healthy lifestyle those who eat fruits and veggies tend to live? hmmmmm

another new research in ACSM's flagship journal, MSSE, had 20 women do a wt training program for 12 weeks. half drank a glass of skim milk after their workouts and an hour later another serving. the other 10 drank equal calories of carbs. both drinks were flavored to taste similar to avoid any placebo effect of knowing which drink was which. at the end of the study, milkers were stronger in the upper body and had lost more fat despite both groups not having changed total body mass. moral of story: as we've said before, drink milk after your workouts - it enhances protein accretion. little did we know, tho, that it also helps you lose body fat.

the june issue of the Tufts Nutrition letter headlines an article, a repeat of others i've seen, that suggest calcium from pills is pretty useless when it comes to longevity (not bone density.) calcium in the diet, on the other hand, does have protective benefits for the heart.

finally, annual hi-dose vitamin D, oft recommended for post menopausal women as a way to ensure adherence to D requirements, actually INCREASED the rate of fractures and somehow even falls. in other words, if you're going to take D, take it in frequent and smaller doses.

what's this all mean? well, nearly everything i read on health and diet suggests that eating real food - and i've not heard much legit research to say that organic is more real than mass-farmed - is the way to go for health benefits. the other thing that keeps cropping up is that only ONE lifestyle choice, done right, benefits not just bones, muscles, heart, and over -all health, not to mention brain and mental function, but has very few if any negative side effects: EXERCISE. and even there, the dosages are now being reduced to smaller and less intense measures making it almost inexcusable to avoid exercise...unless you're reading this entire blog. get outa here....

aging skin

2010-05-23T13:23:00.000-07:00

yesterday i met a once/yr client, a 50+ very fit, self-motivated to do cardio and resistance training (RT) on her own, who takes great pride in her petite, toned shape. she calls in every so oft for a new regimen, a new program, usually to get to her legs w/o building them up. her wt has been steady for years upon years. but now, hormones changing and hormone replacements being manipulated, she has discovered some - OMG - belly tissue. i hesitate to refer to the extra as fat as her subcutaneous skinfold, which i tested and will share with you, was 5 - slightly better than 99% of people, even male athletes. (confession: when i was in my best of shape, at about 3% fat, i had a 4 mm read there.) also, she's concerned that her legs, which she'd built up again with a great video routine she'd been doing, were now flabby since she scaled back. why did she scale back? to get into her size 0. what to do????

ok, so i did check her body fat after discussing aging skin. she knew about aging muscle but felt she'd stayed ahead of the curve on that. her body fat - for those who've done skinfolds, you know how some women can be hard to pinch; well she was a charpe (sp?) dog, easy to peel, even at the thigh - was 17.9%. i showed her a chart that compared athlete types, male and female, and she ranks better than most college athletes, and in some sports, better than male athletes. in other words, her belly fat, and her thigh wobble, was really nothing more than whatever fat she may have plus sagging skin.

today, while helping the woman whose house i'm keeping get the pool ready for summer, i got a question: ok, irv, what can i do to prevent...and then she showed me....her skin from sagging? hence i felt i was getting a universal message, deal with sag.

we have several types of collagen in our bodies - a molecule that is tough, elastic, and when all is right in the world, lined up in parallel to ensure smoothness, as in muscle fibers. as we age, however, the collagen that makes up most of our skin changes to another type that is less elastic, less tough. hence, older people - you pick the age but generally over 65, 70 - have thinner skin that droops more when lined up perpendicular to gravity. now, what does that mean?

well, stand up and look in the mirror. if you think your face is saggy now, try placing a mirror on the bathroom counter top and lean forward for a few seconds - it sags even more...toward the floor, i.e. perpendicular to gravity's pull. thus, when you raise your upper arm- in abduction - and flex the elbow - a la making a biceps muscle - the back of your arm is perpendicular to gravity...and, unless you're young, muscular, and lean - helps to be a male - your triceps sag. that's life....

so, what can i tell folks who are concerned about sag? well, for one thing, don't make love on top....ok, you might be appalled by the idea but you should see what the person on the bottom sees! likewise, expect the skin on your belly to pooch, esp while doing push ups or planks, even if your abs are totally flat; you could suck in but the skin will eventually sag. don't raise your arms and wave - teachers learn this early on but blackboards force the situation; computer writing will help their self esteem. finally, unless you want to get fatter - which essentially fills the void of lean tissue and skin - or are able to build bigger muscle -which is what i told my client for her legs - as you age, your skin will sag.

anecdotally, i've seen this more in WASP-y people than in darker skinned, esp olive skinned, people. for those who have reached that magic age, for whom it's too late to have avoided sunlight (remember, boomers, being tanned was healthy in our youth), and for those who've either lost tons of wt or have less ability to bulk up with lean tissue, your skin will sag as you age. gravity, i always say, will win, til you are flat on your back- in the coffin - but for now, you must learn to get comfortable in your, yes, your sagging skin. so keep doing RT and cardio for health and function, but it's too late to order new grandparents. sorry.

aging fitness

2010-05-16T09:13:00.000-07:00

yesterday i met with a 61 y/o attorney with whom i'd met two years ago to help with his knee problems. he stays active and is fit tho a bit paunchier than he'd like to be...because he also enjoys drinking a few in the evening. so, while his wt hasn't really changed, and he does exercise vigorously several times a week, he is now recognizing that he needs to take care of his body better, and more efficiently. hence, he came to see me again.

several years ago, a wise gentleman in his late 60s with whom i was training at least once/wk but who was actively training at home, requested that i provide him a de minimus workout - one that he could do quick and easy anywhere that would keep him healthy enough to be able to do anything and any activities with a reduced risk of pain or injury. so i gave him about a 7-10 min workout, with some core exercises and basic upper and lower body exercises, virtually all body wt, some with tubes. he still does many of these after all these years.

now, could or should anyone do more? yes, in an ideal world, we are physically active more hours/day than we are sedentary. but that world is third, and we live in a modern, industrialized, mechanized, computerized, sedentary world. so how much do we need, and of what?

for the fellow who came to see me yesterday, with a bad left shoulder and knee, much of what i offered him was a deletion of unnecessary if not dangerous exercises, plus a few compressions of unnecessary amounts of particular exercises- like the 10 minute planks he was doing in a class environment, plus a few rehab type exercises so that he could get his shoulder in a place where he could do more safely. i offered that he start doing a few days/wk of tabata sprints - 20 sec work/10 sec recovery x 4, building up to 8; two sets, interspersed with a few minutes of gentle recovery; making up a total of less than 20 mins of cardio that would give him significant aerobic, anaerobic, and metabolic benefits.

and he was happy.

my point is, one could work out long, hard, or long, easy, or not at all. but the long is the killer - it's the main excuse for not doing anything fitness-wise: time. so coming up with short, hard for those who are fit, or short, easy for those who are not, should be the aim of all fitness pros. after all, aging is tough enough. why waste valuable time trying to fight it when in fact it may actually hasten it.

how to organize an exercise session

2010-04-27T07:16:00.000-07:00

every trainer has his or her opinion on this matter, and every athlete still wonders: which exercises should i do first, and in what order do you plan your routine? typically, the novice goes with the flow - whatever's available in the gym, or whatever muscle group he wants to build, regardless of what he did yesterday or the previous workout, whichever came last. the more experienced typically follow some fuzzy order based on the most recent article in the body building mag or some pseudo-health/fitness magazine. trainers, i've noticed, have their preferred exercises - i have mine, too - and often put them in early in the routine without much consideration, if at all, to what the client needs let alone wants. i know i usually do an upper-lower, or lower-upper routine although i do have some clients with specific needs and goals for whom i'm more precise in my planning. however, the issue i often take seriously is whether or not to go big muscle group to little, or other way around.

much research has been done on this and an abstract from the NSCA annual meeting in july 2009 adds weight to the accepted norm: if you want to build big, start large and go down. if you want to supplement building big, occasionally go small to large.

Influence of Exercise Order on Maximum Strength and Muscle Volume in Nonlinear Periodized Resistance Training
Roberto Simão, et al.

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of exercise order on strength and muscle volume after 12 weeks of nonlinear periodized resistance training. The participants were randomly assigned into three groups. One group began with large and progressed toward small muscle group exercises (LG-SM) while another started with small muscle group exercises and advanced to large muscle group exercises (SM-LG). The exercise order for LG-SM was bench press (BP), machine lat pull-down (LPD), triceps extension (TE), and biceps curl (BC). The order for the SM-LG was BC, TE, LPD and BP. The third group did not exercise and served as a control group (CG). Training frequency was two sessions per week with at least 72 hours of rest between sessions. Muscle volume (MV) was accessed at baseline, after six weeks and 12 weeks of training by ultrasound techniques. One repetition maximum strength (1RM) for all exercises was accessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of training. After 12 weeks both trained groups showed significant improvements in all exercises (1RM) as well triceps and biceps muscle volume improvement in relation to the control group; however, differences were not see between the training groups. Effect size data demonstrated that differences in strength and muscle volume were exhibited based on exercise order. Both training groups demonstrated greater strength improvements than the control group, but only bench press strength increased to a greater magnitude in the LG-SM group (ES=1.74 ) as compared to the SM-LG (ES=0.90). In all other strength measures (LP, TE, and BC), the SM-LG group showed larger effect sizes. Triceps MV increased greater in the SM-LG group; however, biceps MV did not differ significantly between the training groups. In conclusion, if an exercise is important for the training goals of a program, then it should be placed at the beginning of the training session, whether or not it is a large or a small muscle group exercise. In this approach, the immediate need of the client receives greater emphasis in program design than the traditional large to small muscle exercise sequence. Because weaknesses in smaller supportive muscles can limit the performance of more complex exercises, increased focus on those smaller muscles (if they are found to be a limiting factor) early in an exercise session would be expected to have a positive impact on the performance of complex exercises over time.]

it's almost a no brainer but for most of my clients, it's important to consider seriously. since most are here for pure health and simple function - that is, not for getting cut or performing at hi levels competitively - going large to small makes more sense on a variety of levels. for one thing, you burn more calories, bumping up the metabolic rate both during and after the session. that's important. for another, esp for post menopausal women and all older (you define older) folk, building big muscle groups adds to bone density to those areas often measured - hips, spine, wrist. furthermore, the exercises that do this, esp the lower bod exercises, improve balance. third, the neurological benefit of moving multiple joints and muscles leads to better transfer to activities of daily living. finally, tho i'm sure there's more, few can show the benefits of toned arms or legs because most have too much subcutaneous fat, so why bother. this is not to say some exercises of these smaller groups are not necessary. it's simply to suggest that, as a priority, go big to small, but include at least one set of the smalls to ensure better bigs....just as the article suggests.

more healthy news

2010-04-21T12:36:00.000-07:00

this article discusses research that shows wt loss reduces pro-inflammatory events and substances that contribute to heart disease: http://www.healthcanal.com/immune-system/7192.html

what's cool about the study is that it also demonstrates that fat, your personal body fat, may be a better predictor of how well you'll lose wt if you have bariatric surgery, but who knows? maybe even just basic wt loss measures such as eating less and exercising more: “We also showed that the activation status of immune cells found in fat predicted how much weight people would lose following a calorie restricted diet and bariatric surgery. Those with more activated immune cells lost less weight. It’s the first time this has been described and is important because it helps us understand why some people lose weight more easily than others...."

this suggests the possibility that wt loss alone may be sufficient to alter one's inflammatory milieu thereby affecting one's overall health status, and hints at the possibility that exercise without wt loss may be insufficient to alter one's health status.

it hints, too, at what is more and more becoming truer and truer - wt loss is healthier than being, note i said, BEING overwt. in other words, don't try lose just to lower inflammation, only if you have lots of excess wt. as to how - well, bariatrics is one possibility but there are easier, safer, and healthier ways to go.

vertical core exercise

2010-04-12T20:20:00.000-07:00

now why didn't i think of this name? damn it - i've been promoting it since 1992 when i first got hold of a newfangled exercise toy, the elastic band with handles. i call it the torso rotation when you hold one end in your clasped hands directly in front of the sternum and rotate at the hips away from the anchor at the other end of the tube (the tube is the elastic implement). this works the obliques, the glutes on the side opposite the direction of turn, and the lumbar erectors and rotators on the side to which you are turning. it can be done in all kinds of stances, sitting, kneeling, on balance devices, even lying down; isometrically, isotonically (technically tubing can't be isotonic but let's use that term to imply dynamic), and even ballistically (like a plyometric); and it can be done at all angles of pull. but all i could do was name it torso rotation; what a dummy. at the recent fitness conference of the ACSM, someone came up with vertical core exercise and i hand it to that person. now you can read more about it here: http://www.healthcanal.com/life-style-and-fitness/6990.html

the only thing this article doesn't do is explain the movements it describes in enough detail to be able to replicate them. if you figure it out, please let me know. thanks.

wt loss in older adults

2010-04-07T13:54:00.000-07:00

traditionally, physicians have been reluctant to encourage older adults - those over 75, for example - to lose weight since studies have shown that older adults who lose weight tend to have unnoticed medical problems. in other words, wt loss that occurs in this population is often due to disease, not desire. a recent study demonstrated that intentional wt loss via exercise and diet more than doubles your chance of survival over the next decade compared to your old-age peers: http://www.healthcanal.com/life-style-and-fitness/6856.html

why is this such big news? because wt management, esp wt loss if obese, is beneficial at all stages of life. we've discussed these issues from many directions since i started this blog and can honestly state that there's no one perfect way to change your wt without 2, no, 3 things: eating fewer calories; exercising; and most of all, motivation. if you think you can do it for a few weeks or months and get to your goal wt, you're kidding yourself. once you establish a new set point - a wt achieved by making these lifestyle changes - your body adapts by needing fewer calories. therefore, to continue losing you must buckle down and not only stick to what you've been doing but also do more of it - caloric restraint and physical activity. it's not until you've achieved a very low body fat - not body wt, can you let up a bit and eat.

so, tell your parents or grandparents that it's now ok to start living healthfully and to cut wt. that way, they'll more likely be here to see what 2020 looks like.

when or if to see a doctor

2010-04-04T21:01:00.000-07:00

if you're an athlete, or even a weekender, or even an around-the-house piddler, and you incur a new or recurrent ache or pain, you might dismiss it for a few hours....but then get concerned when you try to get back into whatever it is you have to do. the ache or pain increases, or simply does not subside, and you start thinking maybe you should see a doctor. but, as this article points out, quoting doctors, this may not be a good idea. besides the fact it's going to cost you time and money - and getting a red flag for your future insurer to tag you with - some of these may simply go away with that time-honored time-related thing called "relative rest." what is relative rest? it's that which takes you away from what it is that is causing the pain but not from other, generally less intense, activities. so, if your knees hurt from jogging these past few beautiful spring days, maybe you simply did too much too soon - the usual script. all you may need to do is take a bike ride or walk on a treadmill instead of pound the pavement. if the knees still hurt by the end of the week, you could conclude that running's not good for you...or that you just jumped into it too fast....or your shoes, the ones you wore last fall, need to be replaced. HOWEVER, if the knee is keeping you from doing ADLs - your activities of daily living, like sitting at a desk or walking down the corridor - and if it's causing swelling or weakness or instability, then go to your sports med doc ASAP. this article gives you some insight as to how to make the determinations, and why, but i can tell you this from my experience: most docs, esp general practitioners, don't know much about sports injuries and will generally prescribe a pain killer, anti-inflammatory, and rest. the pain killer is often overkill; the anti-inflammatory is sometimes counterproductive to the healing process, and rest is, well, rest is something you can do for yourself, so give it a try: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/fashion/01best.html?ref=nutrition

Exercise and wt control in aging women (and men, too....)

2010-03-25T06:47:00.000-07:00

on wednesday, march 24, an article about a research project hit the news big time. a continuing study, as a sub group of the women's health study (by Dr. I Min Lee), found that women who were middle age (avg. 54), followed for 13 yrs on their diet, exercise, and wt, were able to maintain wt if they exercised 60 minutes a day. SIXTY MINUTES A DAY!!!! that's too much, we all say, and we are correct. with distress in their voices and sadness in their eyes, women are now throwing up their hands in defeat and failure as 60 minutes is more than twice as hard to get in daily as the previously-recommended 30 minutes. what's a person supposed to do?

well, here's the skinny on this data - it's no different than it's always been. the conclusion wraps it up but more on that in a moment. the reality is, 30 mins/day of moderate exercise, even in 10 minute segments, is for better HEALTH, primarily cardiovascular health. to maintain wt requires 60 minutes; for those already obese, NINETY minutes!!!! why? because our metabolism slows with age. if you eat the same exact amounts and types of foods in ten years as you are eating today, you will gain weight...unless you're like 12 years old. so, for those over 25, to maintain wt, or to lose, you have to EAT LESS!!!!! what a surprise! or exercise more than you have time or inclination to do. this has not changed; what's changed is the way it's being reinforced in the research world and emphasized to the average reader/listener.

bottom line: eat less calories, move more to burn more calories and you can keep your wt under control. to lose it, you have to be even more diligent on both ends of the calorie spectrum.

one more point: the best way, safest way, most beneficial way to maintain metabolic rate is thru muscle building - that is, resistance training.

so, nothing really new here, huh?

Hi Fructose Corn Syrup makes you fatter than sugar

2010-03-24T16:08:00.000-07:00

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the bugaboo of nutritionally minded, and nutritionally smart, people. It's a consequence of technology trying to find a market. When it was first 'discovered' in the '60s, most soft drinks, like sodas and fruit drinks, were flavored with sugar - about 50% fructose and 50% sucrose. But with America being so inundated with corn, HFCS became a cheap source of sweetening and is now in almost every processed food product where sugar used to be. HFCS is about 55% fructose. Apparently, based on this most recent study at Princeton, HFCS is metabolized differently than sugar such that, in equal caloric amounts, when consumed by rats, it made them not only gain enormous amounts of excess weight - FAT; it also gave them the beginnings of what we now call "metabolic syndrome": obesity, hi cholesterol, poor blood sugar control. In other words, if all goes well politically as more of this evidence mounts, part of the solution to America's obesity problem, some of which has been directly linked to excessive caloric intake of HFCS foods, may be to eliminate it from the food chain. While you won't hear many exercise or health professionals declare this, let's bring back sugar.

Read the news on this research:

http://www.healthcanal.com/life-style-and-fitness/6548.html

the carb-fat dispute continues

2010-03-15T07:29:00.000-07:00

how to best lose weight? low fat, low carb/hi protein, or low calories? this debate has been ongoing for at least 40 years, maybe longer, but i was too young to care back then. now i do, and professionally, have been battered about by the various studies showing one or the other as best.

the real issue, i believe, is how to alter the caloric balance bw intake and output such that physiological mechanisms either remain in place or are enhanced to maintain proper metabolism. by the latter, i mean a metabolism that is appropriate for weight control, i.e. retains muscle mass, burns calories at an expected rate/unit body weight. we know that losing weight means losing muscle means lowering basal metabolic rate (BMR) such that any additional calories are more readily stored as fat. in order to keep metabolism high enough to resist this storage, we need to include exercise, preferably resistance training, to our weight management efforts. if we only diet, we lose too much muscle. if we eat hi protein/low carb diets, and eat fewer calories than we need, we not only lose weight faster but we retain more muscle mass. sounds good...but does it last? and that's the issue here.

losing weight now is the american dream but keeping it off for the better part of one's life is the medical and health care dream. low fat diets are easier to engage in but not as beneficial in the short term. low carb diets are good in the short term but this study shows they just don't persist: http://www.healthcanal.com/life-style-and-fitness/6353.html. as this blurb from the journal itself shows, the numbers are not profound enough to satisfy the average weight-loser's goals, but they may indeed satisfy their doctors' goals.

Results of a randomized, controlled trial found greater weight loss at six months with a low-carbohydrate diet than with a calorie restricted, low-fat diet in 132 patients with a mean weight of 288 lbs and a high risk of diabetes. However, after 12 months, there were no significant differences in weight loss. Findings at three years were similar, but the pattern of weight change from 12 to 36 months differed. While the low-carbohydrate group lost more weight at 12 months, they regained more weight during the next 24 months. In contrast, the low-fat group maintained their weight loss. The difference in weight regain may reflect initial weight loss, as greater weight loss from baseline to 12 months was associated with greater weight gain.

bottom line: eat fewer calories, of any sort, and be consistent through life. oh yes, be sure to exercise too.

more on barefoot running

2010-03-09T20:19:00.000-08:00

the articles continue coming in about the merits or hazards of barefootness. the American Running & Fitness Association, of which i am a lifetime member and happy recipient of its newsletters, has an article in this month's Running & Fit News: http://static.americanrunning.org/fitnews/ARAfitnews_V28_1/continued2.html. it discusses some of the books out there along with some commentary by some of its board of advisors. while it does not address some of the issues technically of importance to runners - like how to start doing so, or even why - it also does not answer the biggest question in my mind: how to run barefoot on city streets and pavements littered with shards of broken glass, nails, and other debris capable of puncturing even the best-calloused foot? granted, you can thicken the skin by constantly walking barefoot and, having done so in my past as a martial artist, possibly endure by adaptive gait hot asphalt or small non-puncturing debris like stones and pebbles. but running on such surfaces does not offer the opportunity to avoid the many obstacles to safe barefootness. so, when all is said and done, short of running on a manicured lawn or football field or even a treadmill, barefoot running, to me, is highly dangerous and possibly not beneficial, esp for racers. the article, too, agrees. run, but make sure the shoe fits the internal - foot - mechanics and the external - road or off road - environment.

the 100 calorie deficit

2010-03-02T20:41:00.000-08:00

ok, so people know they should be losing weight; they have read and heard it ad infinitum. they feel terribly guilty about their excess weight, their diet and exercise habits, and their burden on the health care system. and they refuse to engage in the long hard arduous struggle to counter the effects of modern living, otherwise known as sedentariness and gluttony. but no formula thusfar has met the match to satisfy people's emotional need to meet some possibly unrealistic standards of leanness. and few will achieve the level of commitment necessary to get there. but here's the kicker: is it worth even trying?

this article - http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/in-obesity-epidemic-whats-one-cookie/?em - discusses the 100 calorie method. this method is one i use to educate clients. it states that creating a 100 calorie deficit each day, primarily by eliminating a wasted calorie food - like sugary, fatty foods, or cutting back on alcoholic beverage - will theoretically yield a 10 lb wt loss at the end of a year. they look at me with sadness, wishing to accomplish this goal faster, sooner. when i add that a 100 calorie walk - about a mile if briskly done - adds another 10 lbs lost that next year, they warm up. now, the prospect of losing 20 lbs of real wt, not muscle or water but fat, seems more reasonable and realistic to them. still, very few will make the effort over the long haul. i've had clients stay with me for, in some cases, up to 20 years, and still they can't seem to make the commitment to lose. granted, they have for the most part maintained wt over the long haul, so that does count as a victory over wt gain. but they would still like to, and need to, lose some for health if not appearance, and still can't, with educated knowledge and fiscal security, make that level of commitment.

this article discusses the possibility that the science behind the 100 cal deficit fails to acknowledge the metabolic changes that slow wt loss down even if at this steady rate of deficiting. that is true - as you lose, you need less energy to move so to keep losing you have to reduce even more calories. that's exactly why exercise HAS to be part of the formula. as you lose, you can move easier, faster, longer, and thereby burn more calories in less time, tho with greater effort, on an absolute scale. that is, since you are lighter, you move faster, and the outsider looking in would fret at the prospect of having to move as fast as you. however, it was harder to move as fast when you were heavier, so the relative work was greater. bottom line, in my humble opinion, is that the relative work is similar, or needs to be, in order to burn off 100 calories, so get over it. being lighter is less stressful to the musculoskeletal system (easier on the joints) and the cardiovascular system (easier on the heart), and therefore has value over and above wt loss itself. [yes, it's possible to be too light, too skinny, too unhealthy, but that's not the issue for 67% of americans.]

so, for the person willing to listen to reason when it comes to wt loss, here's the dr. irv 200 calorie solution: reduce intake by 100/day and move briskly 15 continuous minutes/day and wait - the wt, the fat will slowly but surely slide off. at the end of a year, you will lose a solid 10-20 lbs and won't have to struggle to do so. furthermore, you won't have to struggle to keep it off. finally, it may not make all your problems go away, but at least the problem of feeling guilty about failure because of the daunting efforts demanded by other methods will no longer exist. good luck.

agave agape

2010-02-27T10:28:00.000-08:00

the unwavering love of natural in our dietary nazis is unquestionably reserved for those overly suspicious of technology, industry, mass marketing, and government. i know some are truly concerned for health matters but argue vigorously against those who contend some conspiracy to create physiological and metabolic genocide in search of the dollar. and, while this one article alone doesn't debunk the entire health food industry's claims on behalf of other natural products, such as agave, in opposition to the unnatural ones, such as sugar, it does make one think, if you dare: what else out there, sold for lots more than its worth, is just as much a scam, and potentially even more dangerous to health, than those vilified foods they are marketed to replace? in other words, is natural vitamin E better at propagating the diseases pharm-grade E has been found to exacerbate? bottom line, in my humble view, is to eat more foods less processed and eat more processed foods that have less sugar, salt, fat, and preservatives. that allows for breakfast cereals, etc along with produce that can be purchased at your local grocery store. it aint' perfect but why live perfect at the dinner table if you have to drive further in your big car wearing fancy clothes brought over from europe or china after visiting your local gym with all its imported-from-china exercise equipment with your starbucks 3-times-as-expensive coffee......you get the picture.

http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/02/15/debunking-the-agave-myth/?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl9|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thatsfit.com%2F2010%2F02%2F15%2Fdebunking-the-agave-myth%2F

to sit or not to sit

2010-02-24T09:11:00.000-08:00

there are many reasons to not read this blog: don't want to learn anything, don't want to read my rantings, don't want to be healthier. the main reason, tho, is you don't want to sit long enough to do so. therefore, read this article on the physiology of sitting. as a point of discussion, let me quote this one section and explain:

.....The implication is that when you sit, a crucial part of your metabolism slows down.
Nor is lipoprotein lipase the only molecule affected by muscular inactivity. Actively contracting muscles produce a whole suite of substances that have a beneficial effect on how the body uses and stores sugars and fats.
Which might explain the following result. Men who normally walk a lot (about 10,000 steps per day, as measured by a pedometer) were asked to cut back (to about 1,350 steps per day) for two weeks, by using elevators instead of stairs, driving to work instead of walking and so on. By the end of the two weeks, all of them had became worse at metabolizing sugars and fats. Their distribution of body fat had also altered — they had become fatter around the middle. Such changes are among the first steps on the road to diabetes.

at issue here is how our bodies process fats vs sugars. apparently, even a little bit of extra motion, esp walking, activates fat burning mechanisms that, when not being stimulated, revert to metabolic and physiologic disturbances akin to disease states, like diabetes. while a single day won't produce such results, a lifetime of sitting could, and does.

so, as you read this, tap your toes, wiggle your ears, and change your sitting posture....then get up and walk.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/stand-up-while-you-read-this/?th&emc=th

childhood obesity

2010-02-22T11:57:00.000-08:00

the challenge is enormous - how to get kids eating properly if their parents don't or won't. in other words, in a society where there are many lifestyle options, there is no legitimate way to get folks to act in accordance with any one set of standards, let alone dietary. so even the word 'properly' leaves much to the imagination - is that regional, sectional, sectarian, national, racial, etc? the one thing, tho, that seems to be equally resonant is medical, and kids in western, industrialized, or simply affluent countries, like America, are getting fatter faster than evolution can mitigate. thus, the schools may be our best bet to get them to change lifestyle patterns, despite what they experience at home, and maybe just maybe effect nominal changes in RATE of wt gain until adulthood. perhaps, too, lessons will carry over such that good choices can be made in their, and their offspring's, futures. or perhaps we're just dreaming.....

http://www.healthcanal.com/public-health-and-safety/5824.html

on toe or heel

2010-02-16T16:39:00.000-08:00

seems a lot is being published in the area of feet and running. i've commented before on this in regards to barefoot vs shod running. we have that choice, unlike our fellow land animals, and we've chosen, for the most part, shod. so scientists keep checking things out to see how economical it is, both muscularly and physiologically. this study - http://www.healthcanal.com/medical-breakthroughs/5659.html - highlights the differences between running on the heels vs on the balls of the feet, and makes all the right claims: faster runners don't hit the heel, but heel walking is more efficient. anthropologically, it makes sense: we're basically all day walkers - go to africa and note the masai walking with their herds all day looking for grasses and water. they can run, and we are designed to do so generally on the balls of our feet, to escape or capture for survival. note that efficiency differs from effectiveness: if you wish to hurry, you'd be more effective rapidly getting onto the balls of the feet; if you wish to get there, without getting winded or sore, heel-toe works fine.

3 ways to battle childhood obesity

2010-02-10T08:07:00.000-08:00

a recent study in Pediatrics reported:

The study, which included 8,550 4-year-olds from around the United States, found that children who ate dinner with their families more than five times a week, slept for at least 10.5 hours a night, and watched less than two hours of TV a day were 40 percent less likely to be obese than children who did none of those things.

Roughly one in seven children who practiced all three of the behaviors was obese, compared with one in four youngsters who practiced none of them, according to the study, which was published in Pediatrics. (for the article on this study, see http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/08/childhood.obesity/index.html?hpt=C2)

my friend sarcastically sent this to me with the comments that you need to: be rich, white, and college educated. his points were not far off the mark in that you did have to be in a stable household the likelihood of which is easier and more common in college educated and wealthier households. as for being white, well, statistically speaking, more college educated and financially secure people are white, or the obverse of this is that more obese, tv-watching, broken family, single parent, undereducated kids are minorities. that's a sad state of affairs for our nation and our society, but speaks to issues way deeper than the BMI of these kids. and i'm not going to comment on the socio-economics or racial politics that contribute but do not cause childhood obesity.

another study reported the other day (http://www.healthcanal.com/life-style-and-fitness/5565.html) that the food ads in movies and on tv that kids are exposed to may be a greater indicator of poor nutrition choice-making than the number of hours in front of the screen. thus, tv and video movies, the study concluded, are more damaging than video games or computer time. regardless the statistics, i think the one thing that is clear and evident is that we move way less than we were designed to move, and that those in rougher environments, be it home-based or neighborhood-based, have fewer options to engage in safe, free play. if i sound pessimistic, it's because i am. however, i have some hope that some can change. that's why personal training, and someday maybe public facilities will be able to offer some elements of it and group training even to the underprivileged, can impact the tide of obesity that's running over the US. it's also why i firmly believe in educating my clients so that they can understand that it's not just a matter of choice, not for kids and maybe not for many adults. there is a huge element of strength of will to make the kinds of changes necessary to stem the tide. it's what and why i believe educated personal trainers are worth seeking out.

picking the right parents

2010-02-08T12:12:00.000-08:00

we all know genetics factors in on such things as hair color, facial appearance, body types, etc. some of these we can only change by seeing professionals with expertise in drastic, or in the case of hair non-drastic, measures. but we think if only we exercise, we can get better - better endurance, strength, flexibility, balance or whatever. and the truth is, for the most part, that is right. but why do some get better faster or to a greater degree than others?

the study cited actually tested a very large number of subjects by training them for several weeks after testing their aerobic capacity and doing genetic tests. what they found was that some improved by up to 15% but others only 5%. and they found 11 genetic indicators of why this occurs...and you have NO control over those. so what can you control?

you can still benefit in a variety of ways from an exercise program. as the study concludes, we need to customize training according to what you can best expect to excel. some might do better with more resistance training, others more cardio. the truth is, however, we can all benefit from some of each, plus more of what will enhance our performance goals. whether we're preparing for the 2012 Olympics or the birth of our first grandchild, exercise - intentional activity designed to improve any or all variables of fitness - is good for you.

so, pick the right genes for the future if you're into making cardio kids, but yours are already determined. make the best of them, and start moving.

http://www.healthcanal.com/genetics-and-birth-defects/5524.html

new wt loss drug that acts like exercise??

2010-02-04T06:19:00.000-08:00

we fitness professionals have much to fear from big Pharm: someday a drug will be developed that will remove one of the major impetus, or is it impeti, for people who seek out our services. well, maybe that drug is here: http://www.healthcanal.com/life-style-and-fitness/5425.html

while i would not be opposed to a drug like this hitting the market since it could help many who are simply unwilling or unable to help themselves drop the excess wt that's contributing to their personal and our national health care crises, i am reluctant to either fear or tout it. when phen-fen hit the market ~20 yrs ago, and some of my clients got scripts for it, they continued to exercise believing that there were many other, more easily achieved benefits to it than a drug could offer. and i agree; i won't even go into the list but most of you know them. in fact, the likelihood of exercise helping you lose significant amounts of wt is slim, unless bolstered by substantial dietary restraint. and that's why i'm not about to tout the benefits of any drug or drugs when it comes to wt loss. there will be some - i would not venture to guess but i'd say quite a bit - who will succeed in using the drug without abusing the privilege of being able to eat more while take a drug to help you lose more. but there will be many more who will see the big mac as an option now that they can take a pill to counter its caloric boom. furthermore, losing wt helps with some elements of good health but activity would still be helpful for all the others, including keeping the wt off.

but the biggest reason i'm not afraid of a drug, especially the one discussed in this article, is that the side effects are yet determined. it took a few years before the heart valve issues of phen-fen reached a critical mass that took it off the market and instigated lawsuits. believe me- any drug that helps you lose the wt you'd lose by walking 20 minutes will have cardiovascular implications for those whose systems are already compromised by being overwt. so, fitness pros, relax: this new miracle drug will drive folks back into your clutches within 2 yrs of their taking the drug, and within 5 yrs of it being on the market. the rules of wt loss remain consistent with newtonian physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, whether it's eating too much or exercising too little, you're still going to gain wt.

shoeless running

2010-02-02T11:58:00.000-08:00

last week i discussed the idea of running shoeless; today another article popped up about this that concludes shoes make us run differently than we would if barefoot. whereas the previous article suggested not to run on solid, hard surfaces, this one suggests barefoot would still soften the impact of foot strike as you'd be hitting with the forefoot, not the heel. it cautions against injury by undertaking too much too soon - the same caution any prospective runner, or athlete, should keep in mind. but it offers one more thing to do before undertaking this mode of running: read the book referred to in the article. the process is one of gradual progression in terms of time, speed, distance, and surface. i just recommended to a client to do so on an indoor rubberized track first, progress to an outdoor track after which, over time, the callous on the foot will be strong enough to handle some concrete/asphalt running. will it protect against broken bottles or other sharp pointy objects? no, not yet, so keep your eyes looking about 6 ft in front of you. if done right, your muscles will be adapted by the time your feet look like a third-world native's. if you can handle appearances, go for it. i can tell you this, from my tae kwon do days, for a guy, some callous isn't bad. but you women may not like the look, or feel: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100127/sc_livescience/runningshoeschangedhowhumansrun

on shoeless joe

2010-01-29T12:49:00.000-08:00

some of you may be old enough, or have seen the movie, "Field of Dreams", to remember the name "shoeless" joe. i'm old enough to know the name but not the reason he got this name. however, for almost 20 yrs, the idea that mankind should not be wearing fancy expensive hi-tech shoes for running has been bandied about, based on anthropological conjecture. actually, a study in canada about 20 yrs ago tested the idea of going barefoot for 1 hr/day for subjects who had plantar fasciitis, otherwise known as heel pain. the results showed that indeed the foot "shrunk" in length, presumably due to the small muscles of the arch learning to do their job again. did this resolve the fasciitis? first, i don't recall; second, it was a one month study - if the cause of it was removed, e.g. running, then it will resolve some. only long term relief counts; third, that was not the intent so it didn't matter.

now, i could add personal anecdote - as a martial artist who bounced around barefoot 4 hrs/day x 7/wk, and never had fasciitis until i got older and stopped training and stood around in good athletic shoes with a podiatrist-made orthotic that provided relief during those years when i was also a runner - but i won't. bottom line: the answer to the question - should mankind, or you, run barefoot instead of with fancy shoes? - is yet to be answered. however, this article points to a study that found that some of the same forces women experience in the knee and foot while wearing high heels are also felt wearing running shoes; in fact, even more in running shoes!

the lead author does not suggest running barefoot - asphalt is not the surface we evolved to move on without protective covering. however, there are shoes - really, foot-gloves - that could protect the plantar surface of the foot that many trainers at my gym, STEPS Inc, wear just for working out. but that's different than running. my answer is - protect your feet, wear shoes; get properly fitted shoes, and then ask the professionals fitter about a cheaper pair if you don't need cadillac support. why the cheaper? for one thing, less support may enhance foot and ankle neuromuscular development. for another, that canadian study suggested it 20 yrs ago, and this one here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34824451/ns/health-fitness/ - reinforces the idea that maybe just maybe you're spending too much money to be cool rather that to protect your body against wear and tear. just a thought....

normal wt obesity

2010-01-26T06:13:00.000-08:00

it sounds paradoxical but those in the exercise/fitness field know it's there: people whose wt and whose BMI are normal, or even low, but are obese...by body fat standards. we've all heard about muscled athletes whose BMIs are high because their wt is hi relative to their height. so we should not be surprised to hear that there are many who fit the contrary formula of low wt/hi body fat. there are two basic formulae to alter this ratio: lose body fat or gain muscle mass. for men, either is relatively easy, even as we age. for women, it's much harder to do the latter and much slower to see the former. best advice i could give is: start young, get control of your wt now, and don't put it off any longer. too late for many, maybe most, but never too late to start. read on:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB20001424052748704762904575025313433081780-lMyQjAyMTAwMDIwNjEyNDYyWj.html

on stretching

2010-01-22T10:05:00.000-08:00

this article from way back in november - http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/phys-ed-how-necessary-is-stretching/ - addresses the upside and potential downside of doing flexibility training, esp in excess. having studied stretching for the past decade when the science of stretching really took hold in the field, it was a comfort to see the author - who invariably does a good job presenting in common language the scientific principles behind many fitness and exercise matters - once again present a difficult concept in simple terms.

basically, as other studies have shown even better than this one, runners with less flexibility tend to be faster, more economical ones. it also discusses the fact that people who need to stretch are those whose lack of flexibility contributes to pain and dysfunction; if you have no pain or dysfunction, you may not need to stretch. my only caveat here is: if you live long enough - say, past 30 but definitely past 40 - you will need to do some stretching in order to avoid pain and dysfunction. as we age, tissues stiffen. in some joint areas, that may actually be a good thing; in others, it may portend a bad thing. but stretching is not the only way to increase range of motion; moving body parts thru large ranges of a joint's movement capacity will also do so. hence, the Olympic powerlifters at the 1984 Olympics in L.A. were the second most flexible athletes after the gymnasts of course.

so stretch, do yoga, pilates, or dance; lift wts or other large body movement exercises/activities; then ask yourself - have I moved my joints thru a large range of motion today so that they don't get stuck in the short ranges we tend to live in - like, while typing blogs? go ahead, stand up, move around...and stop reading this blog, for now.

Salted...

2010-01-21T13:12:00.001-08:00

occasionally i go to the movie with a buddy of mine who loves popcorn - but not the kind i would share. he likes buttered popcorn. so do i but i hate the mess, the unnecessary and useless calories, and the idea that he's slowly adding to his girth, his heart condition, and his blood pressure. why make matters worse on something already overpriced and easily replaced on a long list of enjoyable but unhealthy foods?

but salt is the topic today and worth noting for a couple reasons. one, we all have full control of the shaker, but not once we buy pre-prepared foods or restaurant food. so we would have to be diligent and insistent if we are really watching our salt intake. two, our nation's obesity and related health care problems can be exacerbated by maintaining high salt intake...or significantly reduced by lowering it. and, three, we don't need it. as this article reports, lowering sodium in our diets is good for our personal health as well as the nation's health. what it does not report is that increasing salt in our diet is good for the food industry, health care industry, national debt, political discord, and declining american power.

now, about that salt shaker.....http://www.healthcanal.com/blood,-heart-and-circulation/5132.html

ski safely

2010-01-18T19:06:00.000-08:00

dear blog-readers:

it's full blown winter now, esp in the high country. that means ski season is up and running. it also means for those who don't live up there that that annual visit portends great risk, esp as the years pass and the body rusts.

here's an article that reviews the myths of ski injuries. some will shock you; some you may already know; and some will relieve your anxieties. all, however, point to the same three elements of ski safety that have always existed: proper equipment, proper training, and proper conditioning. and the latter is my brief topic today.

how to condition against ski injuries is a three-sided coin, if there were such a thing. first, endurance - most non-altitude livers will feel tired those first several days up high, esp with trying to get in as many runs as possible before you run out of time for your vacation. so build endurance - cardiovascular and muscular. the cardio is easy - but don't expect it to acclimate you to altitude. even superbly fit runners will experience the low oxygen of hi altitude, and some may even get so sick as to have to retreat to lower levels for a couple days. but muscle endurance is more about reps and time - like isometric wall sits - than how heavy a squat you can do. so do reps....

second is hamstring function, not just strength. why hams? because they protect the knee against ACL injuries. here's where squats, lunges, dead lifts, one leg squats, and what i call "norwegians" - kneel with feet firmly braced under the bed, dumbbell rack, or someone's hands; with the body in perfect alignment, tip forward SLOWLY from the knees til you feel the hams catch; come back up before you cramp...or tear a muscle. add reps, not distance of tilt. this is one of the few exercises studied that has proven itself valuable in reducing athletic ACL tears, and maybe even hamstring tears.

finally proprioception - what some call joint position sense. here's where balance drills - not on a ball but on the ground, or balance boards, foam rollers, or Bosu's - can make a difference. they teach the body to stabilize the lower extremity joints. it's best if you can do these with movements, like squats and lunges, but even semi-static will help...in theory. there are many ways to include these into a regimen but for now, gradually progress from two to one leg on any drills where you're standing- even biceps curls or lateral raises.

so read the article and have fun, safe fun, this ski season:
http://www.healthcanal.com/surgery-and-rehabilitation/5044.html

Get your Butt going

2010-01-15T10:36:00.000-08:00

this just in from Exercise ETC's FitBits, a monthly on line newsletter full of exercise facts. it's an article discussing gluteal exercises, esp those of the gluteus medius, the one on the outside of the hip, the one considered most dysfunctional in folks who develop or incur certain knee problems - ACLs, patellofemoral pain syndrome, etc. so here's my comments: the study is sound, and results are what one might expect: standing on one leg, or doing a one leg squat, gets it more than two legged exercises. what's interesting is the fact that standing on a foam pad - Airex pad - does not significantly alter the muscle actions around the joint. now, that may or may not be the case. what i know of EMGs is that they do not give direct feedback as to how hard a contraction is and that they can tell you when a contraction occurs. depending on the way the data is filtered, it may actually have notable differences in the medius's function but was not part of the study's intent; only the gross percentage difference of activation signals. so, it is still possible that the foam pad may enhance activation of the medius...but even if not, are there other benefits of doing exercise on the pad? answer is from another ACSM journal article late last year: proprioceptive training works at the ankle, maybe at the knee, but not so much at the hip. bummer- as most trainers are still touting the value of these exercises all the way to the lumbar spine. bottom line: maybe it do, maybe it don't, but just because it's a more challenging exercise does not mean it's a more valuable one. a good trainer should be able to justify - with data/facts - why he's doing the exercise. maybe you can get results from doing exercise, but it may not be any specific exercise that does it, so don't risk falling just because a trainer thinks it actually works to be off balance:

Fire Up Those Glutes

Over the past few years, industry leaders have emphasized preparatory activation of the gluteal muscles to enhance both injury prevention and training effects. Awareness was heightened as a result of research which determined poor gluteal recruitment subsequent to lower extremity injury, and from the teachings of the late Vladimir Janda who suggested the gluteus maximus is reciprocally inhibited by a tight psoas as is found in the anterior pelvic posture distortion. Although this is not revolutionary information, it has yet to be integrated into the fitness culture on a broad scale as pieces of the puzzle are still coming together. For example, researchers have yet to determine the most effective movements and loading characteristics through which to optimize glute muscle recruitment. The most recent study looked at the effectiveness of closed-chain exercise in recruiting gluteus medius (GM)

Researchers from the Mayo Clinic measured EMG in the GM in five closed-chain weight-bearing exercises to determine which is most effective. The GM is both an abductor and adductor of the hip, giving it a primary role in stabilization when standing on one leg. Recent evidence links poor GM function to ACL injuries, IT Band syndromes, and patellofemoral pain, the most common form of chronic knee pain in adults.

Twenty healthy young men and women with no history of lower extremity injury participated in the study. Researcher collected EMG readings from the GM during 5 activities: bilateral standing, single leg standing on a stable base and on an Airex pad, and a single leg squat both on stable footing and on the Airex pad.

As expected there was greater GM activity when the individual moved from a bilateral to single leg stance. However, the EMG recordings for both squatting and standing on the stable and unstable surfaces were similar. Although the authors reported a trend towards greater activation on the Airex pad it may not be appropriate to speculate that an unstable surface is any better than a properly loaded single leg squat to improve hip stability. Regardless, this is the first study to report the GM EMG during dynamic functional movement patterns.

Previous studies have determined isometric closed-chain activities to be more effective in activating GM when compared to open-chain exercises (i.e. side lying leg lifts, or standing hip abduction). Based on this information, fitness professionals should include more single leg exercises if they wish to improve hip stability.

Krause, D.A., et al (2009) Electromyographic Analysis of the Gluteus Medius in Five Weight-Bearing Exercises. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 23(9): 2689-2694.

praise the lard, pass the butter

2010-01-13T15:39:00.000-08:00

the bad news: 68% of americans are overwt or obese. the good news: the numbers are holding steady enough that some think we've topped out. the bad news: while maybe fewer will get fatter, it's likely the fat people will simply get fattier - and that means more risk of disease and disability. some suggest that obesity, like tobacco use, has a limit, lower and upper. over the past 40 yrs, fewer people still smoke. one reason, of course, is that the generations who started before it became taboo have nearly passed on - maybe due to smoking, maybe just due to aging. however, some stats show that people are smoking in greater numbers, esp among the young. so, at the bottom, it can only go up. likewise with obesity, except nothing's really changed- - people still eat poorly and our lives are becoming more sedentary in general. therefore, while the numbers of overwt/obese may have plateaued, the risk that others will join the multitude remains; and the likelihood that those who are there will run into the same problems that those who have tried for eons to not get there will only increase in weight. what's the solution: hate to say it but, eat less, move more. everything else is window dressing....

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/health/14obese.html?ref=health

BMR and you

2010-01-12T15:34:00.000-08:00

BMR - basal metabolic rate - is one of those numbers we love to know....right? you say no; why not? don't you know that if you know this number, you know how much to eat, or not to eat, to manage your weight? don't you know that, if you know this number, you'll know why you're not losing, or why you're gaining, weight? and don't you know that, if you do the math, you'll automatically and remarkably if not magically be able to lose those last 5 lbs just by following the yellow brick road?

my answer is no way! in a NSCA article on line - http://www.nsca-lift.org/Perform/articles/080603.pdf - the author promotes the value of calculating with medical equipment or estimating with the formulae included in the text your BMR. she gives reasons, very rational ones, as to why and how this number is useful. and to the extent you're working with motivated athletes, or health-challenged patients, this number is very useful. it allows the trainer the ability to more closely supervise caloric intake based on needs, be they athletic or simple existence. but for the majority of people, this number is insignificant if not a pain in the rear. here's why.

once you calculate your BMR, you know how many calories you need to lie in bed and stay the same weight. if you intend to do that, or are sick and can't do your usual activities, this may be useful. but you will lose muscle mass, or lean body mass - LBM. so, at the same weight, a week or two later, your LBM is down, your FM - fat mass - is up, and your weight is close to the same. of course, studies show a very hi protein diet will modulate these changes but that's not why you want to know this number. the reason you want it is so you can then add calories based on your daily activities: baseline eating, sitting at a desk, driving to work, and going to the bathroom, plus other ADL's, may add up to another 300 cals/day (more if you weigh a lot, or move a lot, less otherwise). then your fitness activities or any other physical activities - do you park far from the store or close? - have to be factored in, and adjusted for gender. let's just say it's another 400 cals/day. so now you add BMR + 300 + 400 = daily caloric needs. great - but now you have to accurately add up all the calories you currently eat and start adding all the calories you need to eat to meet this magic number. this is good for a 3-day food record but a daily version of this and, guess what? you'll be sitting too long to burn calories.

my simple advice: if you've been gaining weight, take each dish/plate/bowl of food you've been eating, and toss out a fourth or third; save it for another meal or trash it. it's likely you've started adding excess calories to your life in a variety of forms, some of which may be simply good, real food. so, be it a coke, a wine glass, or a salmon salad, if you're eating too much such that you're gaining weight, then cut down on what you eat and drink but have 2/3rd or 3/4ths so you are eating what you like. if you're still gaining, after a few weeks- it may take the body time to adjust - then cut again. most likely, you will start the long, slow weight loss that may not satisfy the upcoming wedding or reunion but will get you where you need to be to be healthy and fitter.

one caveat: if you are having trouble with this simple advice, see a professional - not an exercise or diet pro, but a mental health professional. you are eating more than you think and having too hard a time controlling impulses, and its for reasons other than those we exercise and most diet professionals are qualified to deal with. BMR may be part of the investigation process but won't be much help in the behavior change process.