Ben's shared items in Google Reader

Primal Blueprint Success Story: Former Marathoner Beating Diabetes

2009-06-20T15:00:00Z

Thanks to active forum member and fellow Primal Blueprinter, DiabetesCanKissMyButt. Let it be an inspiration to anyone who is living a similar story.

Follow DiabetesCanKissMyButt as she journals her Primal progress in the forum boards.

____________________________

I used to be a long distance runner and a vegetarian. I was the epitome of health, or so I thought. I even hired a nutritionist to help me with eating during marathon training. She had me eating mostly “good carbs” which was whole wheat everything with some vegetables and protein thrown in for good measure. My protein intake at the time was less than 50 grams a day. Fat, you ask? No way. My fat intake was negligible. That coupled with Gu, Gatorade, Cytomax, and carbo loading for energy and recovery was a sure way to go into sugar overload- which is exactly what I did. I had no clue about the dangers of low protein and fat for endurance events. I was following the advice given to me by my educated running peers, my nutritionist, and my doctor.

I made it through training by the skin of my teeth and toed the starting line with a wicked upper respiratory infection. This was the single worst idea I’ve ever had in my life. This would be the pivotal decision that would change my life forever. I finished that marathon in 6 hours and 37 minutes with bathroom breaks every few miles because I had diarrhea from the powerful antibiotics I was taking. It was only force of will, stubbornness, and sheer stupidity that kept me going. Well, it wrecked me.

My health spiraled out of control over the next two years. I continued to eat the way I had been taught, not understanding why this was happening to me - an extremely healthy and fit person. I ended up contracting some sort of ear virus that caused severe migraines and vertigo. My hearing declined and I thought I was going to go deaf. It was a labor to get through each day. Then when I thought things were going to even out a little, I got mono. Mono is not good to get when you are 38 years old. It kicked my ass and I had to take medical leave from work for 3 months. I could not get out of bed, I had to crawl to the bathroom, and my heart rate was consistently over 110 beats per minute at rest. The worst part about the whole thing was that people did not understand. Friends, family, and work colleagues thought I was exaggerating or faking it because mono is not that bad. I’m here to tell you, it’s bad. Mono is way more insidious than anyone gives it credit for. It wreaks havoc like you wouldn’t believe especially if you are a worn out vegetarian who runs alot.

I started having more complications. My tonsils were abscessed and I was in severe pain. My stupid doctor could not figure out what my problem was and I suffered for 3 months before they finally decided it would be good to take the tonsils out. Duh! I ended up having a tonsillectomy, adenoid removal, sinus surgery, and had tubes put in my ears for chronic inflammation. Maybe you are thinking this is the end of the story because surely things started getting better after this, right? Wrong!

In the midst of having mono, my blood sugar started running high. It’s a fluke, I thought. I can’t have diabetes because I’m not overweight - I was 135 at 5′6″. As the months ticked by and my blood sugar steadily increased, my doctor kept telling me I needed to go on medication. I kept refusing. I repeatedly asked my doctor how I could change it without medication - should I eat differently? The response was to just eat whole grains, lean protein, and vegetables. Exercise, of course I knew that. I couldn’t do much but take short walks because of the energy level mono and multiple surgeries had left me.

After 6 months of refusing medication, my blood sugar topped out at 250 and I accepted the fact that I had diabetes. I reluctantly started taking Metformin, 500 mg, twice a day. I started researching on my own how a diabetic is supposed to eat since my doctor was not helpful. Everything I read smacked of low carb, higher protein, and higher fat. It was blowing my mind. I figured what do I have to lose? I’ll just start experimenting with different eating styles and see what happens. I started to eat with the South Beach diet principles, restricting starches and fruits to 2 each per day. My blood sugar improved drastically. I mean I was the shining example at my doctor’s office of someone who had taken control and was turning this thing around. But it wasn’t good enough. My fasting sugars were always still in the 120’s and 130’s and the goal was to be truly in the normal range which is below 100. What else could I do? I had been slowly increasing the exercise and I was running again, although very short distances. My blood sugar stayed in this range for quite some time and I really felt like crap.

After a year back to running, I didn’t feel it was giving me the benefits I was looking for so I purchased P90X and started the program 9 weeks ago. But I still couldn’t get away from this nagging feeling in the back of my mind about grains and bread. I wondered what would happen if I cut out grains and starches altogether? Would bad things happen? I started researching higher protein again and came across Protein Power by Dr. Eades through a recommendation of a colleague at work. This took me a step further and completely changed how I thought about carbs.

Additional research and a plug by someone over on www.runnersworld.com, brought me to Mark’s Daily Apple and finally it clicked. I spent hours on Mark’s blog, pouring over all the information regarding the Primal Blueprint and finally decided I needed to give it a go. The people I have met on the forum have provided invaluable advice as I attempt to increase my protein and fat while cutting out grains and starches. The responses have been so thoughtful and respectful - I have never come across such a helpful group of people online. I’m just a couple of weeks into eating Primal and can tell you that my fasting blood sugar has been below 100 every single day. How’s that for proof that this works?! Not only has the blood sugar improved (before carb restriction I started at a 7 A1C (diabetic) and now am at 5.7 (normal person range)), but I am rid of the insulin roller coaster. No more massive hunger attacks, no more sugar or carb cravings, no more mid-afternoon crashing, no over-eating at night, no more feeling like I’m a slave to meal times. I feel like I have been freed at last! I still have “fat fear” and am still a little scared of red meat but it’s a process that I’m dedicated to because it is working when nothing else has. I am beyond excited at the possibility of getting off diabetes medication and owe a debt of gratitude to Mark and the MDA.

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

How to Render Beef Tallow

2009-06-18T16:48:02Z

As I wrote yesterday’s post, I realized that I’d never actually made my own beef tallow from scratch. I’ve collected plenty of bacon grease in my day, and I’ve made schmaltz and used beef drippings from roasts as cooking fats, but never beef tallow. In fact, I almost never hear about it, even in Primal circles. It’s either lard, duck fat, or ghee getting all the attention. Hey, those are all great, delicious fats, and they deserve their prestige, but I like sticking up for the little guy. I like an underdog. In this case, of course, the little guy comes courtesy of a big cloven-hoofed ungulate.

To render beef tallow, you need to get your hands on some raw beef fat.

It’s called suet, and the best stuff for rendering is going to be solid and firm. Most suet comes from the tissue surrounding the kidneys and the loins, but any hard beef fat will do. What I did was buy steak and roast trimmings from a butcher. It wasn’t grass-fed, unfortunately, but it was from clean, organic meat from a guy who really knew his stuff. It was also incredibly inexpensive (I paid two bucks for around three pounds) and just about the only source of raw beef fat I could find on short notice. If you can find a good butcher that deals with grass-fed meat, I’d imagine buying the fat trimmings is still fairly inexpensive and completely worth the extra effort.

I don’t know whether my batch was suet or not (I suspect there was at least a bit, judging from the thick, hard pieces that felt like cold butter when you sliced into them), and it did look a little ragged and hastily thrown together, but it was still fat. I wasn’t going to let a little uncertainty slow me down, for I was armed with the knowledge that fat can always be rendered.

I threw my motley crew of beef fat onto the cutting board, grabbed my chef’s knife, and began to cut the fat into cubes. I’d read tons of contradictory information about particle size, with some recipes calling for larger, 1-inch cubes and others claiming finely diced or shredded fat got the best yield. My experience with rendering pre-shredded buffalo kidney fat was painless and easy, so I went for shredded. I figured the more surface area, the better. As I cut more and more and trimmed more and more, however, I realized that tossing a bunch of room temperature fat cubes into the food processor was asking for a congealed mess. The solution? Freeze the cubes.

So, after trimming the fat completely and removing all attached muscle meat and bloody tissue (see pic of me holding up a speck in my fingers) (this step is crucial, because meat and blood will only burn and ruin the purity of your tallow), I threw the whole lot into the freezer for a couple hours.

You don’t want completely frozen and you don’t want completely… thawed? You want the middle. You want a texture like sorbet (mmmm, beef sorbet anyone?) or cold butter. After two hours, into the processor they went, and twenty seconds of pulsing got me the shredded (yet still intact) fat I needed.

This is where I had to make a huge decision. Was I going to do a dry-render over the stove in a high quality pot, or was I going to do a wet-render and get the potentially purest tallow by boiling and then separating fat from water? I’d read about several different ways to render fat, but I chose two that seemed to make the most sense. The wet-render sounded tempting, if a bit messy and time-consuming, but I eventually passed on it. I settled on doing the traditional dry-render over super low heat on the stove top along with an oven render at 250 degrees. For both, I used reinforced cast-iron pots (from Martha Stewart, no less!) and about a pound of shredded fat in each.

The plan was to cook it long, slow, and low while noting the differences between the two methods and ultimately choosing a “winner.” The stove top fat started rendering almost right away, even with just a tiny flicker of a flame doing the heating. After about 20 minutes, the first sign of “cracklins”began to show: light brown shriveled up pieces of (former) fat bubbling around inside the newly rendered fat. I was initially worried that I was going too fast too soon, but that wasn’t the case. The cracklins were great, and they never burned. The fat remained pure and clear.

In the oven, things were slow going. I had set the timer for two hours, and an hour into it there was a decent layer of rendered fat accruing. There were no cracklins to be seen, only soggy grayish chunks of fat. An hour and a half into it, cracklins were everywhere – almost as many as in the stovetop pot. Neither pot smoked nor burned; neither source of rendering fat gave off a foul odor (although my dog did set up camp right in front of the oven, no doubt hoping for stray splatters). I was a little worried that I’d mess it up somehow, but I didn’t. Both pots of fat fully rendered without burning. The stove top took about an hour and twenty minute to fully render (1 pound, shredded, over ultra low heat), while the oven pot took closer to two hours at 250 degrees F.

I’d also read that I might have to clarify my tallow – to remove random miniscule bits, flecks of meat, crumbled up cracklin that could mar the purity of the fat. Much to my surprise, there really wasn’t a need for clarification. I used a fine mesh strainer and it was completely sufficient. The result was pure, delicious tallow that turned white in the fridge and was easy to scoop. If you look really closely, you can see some specks at the bottom of the jars, but you’d really have to stare.

From my experience, both methods work equally well. If you like stay in the kitchen and tend to your dishes, go with the stove top method. As long as you keep an eye on it and keep the fat from sticking to the bottom, your fat will render much faster this way. If you want to go do other stuff while it renders, use the oven method. Other than keeping the heat low and occasionally popping in for a quick stir and scrape, you can pretty much set the clock and forget about the rendering.

Anyone ever use the wet-render method? Got any tips for my next batch of tallow? Let me know!

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

A Primal Primer: Animal Fats

2009-06-17T16:25:56Z

Animal fats have recently been implicated as the cause of heart disease, obesity and, in a roundabout convoluted stretch of logic, global warming. If you let health officials tell it, they’re pure evil. Reviled, shunned, and lambasted by the general public (thanks to less-then-sterling endorsements by health officials), animal fats have really gotten a bad rap.

It wasn’t always this way.

No, for hundreds of thousands of years, animal fats played a huge role in the human diet – whether it was Grok going straight for the fatty organs and tossing the lean muscle meat to the dogs, Prometheus making a meager sacrifice to the gods more appealing by draping it in swathes of fat, or Mom cooking with real butter instead of margarine. But you already knew that. I don’t have to sell you guys on the beauty of animal fat (after all, there was already quite a robust discussion taking place in the forums!), but the widespread societal backlash against animal fat means most of us don’t know everything we should about the stuff. For a lot of us, anything other than lard or butter is a mystery, and that’s a damn shame. There are tons of different varieties with many different uses, and we PBers need to be familiar with them all.

Lard

It has become part of the lexicon, used to describe the obese (“lard-ass,” “tub of lard,” “lard bucket,” etc. – we prefer “pail ‘o grains,” ourselves). For most people, merely mentioning it in a culinary context causes heart palpitations and shudders of revulsion. Fine by me: that just means more lard for us.

Lard is pig fat in both its rendered and unrendered form. The best lard is called leaf lard, and it comes from the fat deposits surrounding the kidneys and inside the loin. Leaf lard is “best” because it has little to no pork flavor, making it ideal for bakers (doesn’t really apply to us) and for general cooking. Next is fatback, which comes from the subcutaneous, thick fat deposits between the skin and the muscles of the pig. The cheapest is the soft membrane known as caul fat, which can be found wrapped around the internal organs. There’s also bacon grease, that delicious bacon-flavored lard that comes in handy when you’ve just fried up a platter of bacon and could really go for some eggs. If you’re not going to use it right away, don’t throw it out. Keep empty jars handy and just pour the hot grease in whenever you’re done. Store all your lard in the fridge, where it’ll avoid rancidity for months and be easily scoopable.

Whichever type of lard you choose, it can be used the same way you’d use butter. Stir fries, grilled steaks, fried eggs, and sautéed veggies are all delicious cooked in lard. Even if you don’t use leaf lard, the flavor is fairly mild, and the “porkiness” is minimal – if that sort of thing bothers you. Of course, the way you render your lard has an effect on the flavor. Dry-rendered lard (rendered without water, as if you were frying up bacon) tastes more porky, while wet-rendered lard (where the lard is rendered in water and skimmed off the top) is very mild.

The leaf lard from Flying Pigs Farm seems to get rave reviews online, and it can be shipped all over the country. Still, the farm’s located on the east coast, so unless you live nearby the shipping costs can get pretty prohibitive. You could just check out the local farmers’ market or the butcher shop. Pig fat is usually fairly cheap, and you can get a good amount of usable lard from a couple pounds of leaf or fatback. Don’t buy the cheap stuff in big tubs! It’s hydrogenated and full of trans-fats.

Lard is relatively stable, with good levels of saturated and monounsaturated fats.

Per 100 g (3.5 oz):

SFA: 39g
MUFA: 45g
PUFA: 11g

Poultry Fat

The holy trinity of poultry fats consists of chicken, duck, and goose. The concept of poultry fat is similar to lard; take the fatty portions of the bird and slowly render them until pure, unadulterated liquid fat is produced. Most foodies sing the praises of goose and duck fat, and for good reason: waterfowls, being relegated to the water, are generally loaded with fat for buoyancy and that makes for excellent eating. There’s more of it and what’s there is generally richer than fat rendered from a chicken. That said, there’s still a place in the kitchen for chicken fat. One popular iteration is schmaltz, which is poultry (usually chicken, but sometimes even pork) fat rendered with onions for flavor.

The public typically celebrates these fats for their potato-enhancing qualities, but I personally love using poultry fat as an incestuous accompaniment to roasted poultry. A bit rubbed on the bird before tossing it into the oven makes for crispy, delicious, fatty skin. Or if I ever do splurge on a sweet potato, I’ll usually fry it up in some poultry fat. Apples and pears are also good roasted in poultry fat; I prefer goose, but anything with wings and feathers will do.

Poultry fat is easy enough to find. I’ll sometimes ask the butcher for any extra skin he might have, and it’s usually incredibly affordable, much more so than lard. If your meat market processes skinless breast and thighs in-house, chances are they’ll have piles of poultry skin lying around too. You can probably even get organic, free-range skin for next-to-nothing. Goose and duck trimmings are far more rare and coveted, so you’ll have to pay extra for those – but believe me, it’s well worth the effort. And be sure to save the fat that naturally renders in the bottom of the pan when roasting a bird.

Store your poultry fat in the fridge for up to two months. It’s less stable than lard, but it probably won’t last long enough for you to find out.

Per 3.5 oz:

Goose fat
SFA: 28g
MUFA: 57g
PUFA: 11g

Duck fat
SFA: 33g
MUFA: 49g
PUFA: 13g

Chicken fat
SFA: 20g
MUFA: 45g
PUFA: 31g

Tallow

Tallow refers to rendered beef (and sometimes lamb) fat. It comes from suet, which is the raw, hard raw fat of cows and sheep, usually surrounding the loins and kidneys. You don’t see tallow a whole lot; it’s high in saturated fat, which makes it easily demonized. In fact, McDonald’s used to fry their fries in real beef tallow until, in the name of “better health,” they were forced to use hydrogenated oils instead. We all know how that turned out.

To make really good tallow, you have to be patient. It’s a slow process, but it’s worth it. Good tallow is solid at room temperature and incredibly stable, so if you’re dead set on deep-frying something, you’ll want to use tallow. Tallow is relatively mild in flavor, so you can use it for just about any recipe that calls for fat. It’s particularly great for browning meat for stews, curries, and chili.

You may have to special order suet, simply because there isn’t much of a demand in most areas. Farmers’ markets are good options, as are butcher shops. Just go a few days in advance and place a special order to ensure it arrives in time. Eatwild is, of course, always a good source if you can’t find it locally.

Per 3.5 oz:

SFA: 50g
MUFA: 42g
PUFA: 4g (grass fed, remember, will have a better Omega-3 profile)

Ghee

Ghee is rendered butter with all milk proteins and solids removed. It is pure fat, and it can be treated like an oil when heated. Nuttier than butter, ghee is completely stable at room temperature, provided you keep it in an airtight container. Like butter, ghee is incredibly high in stable saturated fats, making it ideal for sautéed dishes and higher heats.

I use ghee to grill steaks and as a starter for my curries. Whole Foods sells a great ghee made from organic, free-range cow’s milk. It’s a little pricey, but you can reuse the container to store your other fats. Make sure the ghee you buy comes from pure butter, and butter alone; some brands combine vegetable oil with butter to make their ghee.

Per 3.5 oz:

SFA: 65g
MUFA: 32g
PUFA: 3g

Those are the basics – the ones most of us are going to be able to have on a regular basis. Animal fat has been unjustly demonized and there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Hopefully, this cleared things up and made it a bit more accessible and understandable.

I’m interested in hearing about other types of rendered animal fat, though. If you have access to rendered moose fatback or emu kidney leaf fat, let us know about it in the comments!

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

EssG, thebittenword.com Flickr Photos (CC)

Setting the Record Straight

2009-06-16T16:18:56Z

We love it that the Primal Blueprint is garnering more public attention. We love it that research supporting the PB is becoming more common, more visible, more talked about. And we love it that people are jumping in the game, reading studies, asking questions, configuring their own Primal practices (and in doing so remaking their health!). The inevitable by-product of all this exposure, however, is an occasional misunderstanding, the every-so-often confusion about the Primal approach and what it actually suggests. These misinterpretations often find their way into our inboxes (We truly do welcome all comments and questions!), or we catch wind of them through the health blogosphere network. The remarks go something like this.

While I believe whole foods and exercise are great, I really don’t believe that it makes any sense in modern society to try to emulate exactly what cavemen did. Cavemen evolved to live long enough to reproduce and make new cavekids - they didn’t live into their eighties or nineties, which is my goal. They didn’t have indoor plumbing, either, which I’m pretty darn attached to.

Or this…

My most immediate thought is this: Though the Paleo or Primal agenda is very much in vogue right now, and with some good merit and utility behind it, I struggle with it as a concept, inasmuch as the concept itself suggests that the last 100,000 years or so of advancement in intelligence, business, agriculture, science, and technology are all for naught.

Whoa, Nelly! Hold the phone. Can we call a time out here? We know, we know…. The “Primal” name. The comical remarks from time to time about “going caveman”…. And, yes, there’s Grok himself – our fictitious but beloved icon. We get it. The fact remains, however, that some people are REALLY missing the point on a few levels here. Once and for all, let’s set the record straight.

The Primal Blueprint doesn’t require cave dwelling…

First thing’s first. Despite the Grok logo, we’re not advocating running through the streets in skins with spears. (Although if you’re into that kind of thing, far be it from us to rain on your parade.) Grok, in all his hairy, disheveled glory provides a good illustration of the PB principle, but he’s admittedly for fun as much as demonstration. In the name of literalness we could lose Grok, but – truth be told – we’d miss the guy. (And the t-shirts would make zero sense.) We’re not about dressing up as cavepeople or living their exact lifestyles. You won’t find us beating drums or spending our weekends creating cave art (although that would be cool, wouldn’t it?). We’re all literate, showered (most of the time), and fully dressed (except Mark when he really gets into an Ultimate Frisbee game). We live in furnished houses, use toilets, drive cars, attend cultural events and occasionally take in a movie. We even use computers! (Did people miss that this is a blog? How primordial could our lifestyles really be?)

In other words, the Primal Blueprint doesn’t suggest that you live like a caveman/woman in every sense or forgo all modern conveniences, technology and medical treatment. Grok’s life was hard stuff. We’re no suckers for the naturalistic fallacy. We like our pillow top mattresses, thank you very much.

The Agricultural Revolution hasn’t revolutionized basic biochemistry…

What the Primal Blueprint DOES suggest is that we simply have some vital things to learn from our primal ancestors when it comes to health. Despite our Must-See T.V. and designer shades, we’re not all that different from Grok and company when you get down to the bones of it (or genetic code of it actually). As products of the same evolution – and same genetic lines – we’re cut from the same cloth. Grok’s people evolved in adaptation to the environment. Seeds, nuts, fruits, grasses, leaves and pastured meat were in. Cheetahs, yes. Cheetos, no. Our biology hasn’t changed all that much in the evolutionary blip of 10,000 years since the Agricultural Revolution. Sure, our societies have advanced, our cultures have blossomed, our technological invention has exploded, our fashion sense has improved. (We like these developments and won’t argue for a second that we don’t benefit from them.) But our basic biochemical responses pretty much work the same. Glucose, insulin, adrenaline, epinephrine, glycogen, etc. All still present and accounted for.

In other words, Grok had it right (by necessity) in the food department. Likewise, in the fitness department, he was also spot on (again, by basic evolutionary adaptation). However, in the “I just broke my leg” department, we moderns win it hands down. In the “It’s freezing rain, and some shelter and soup sure would be nice” scenario, again Grok’s got nothing on us.

Primeval actuary tables aren’t what they’re cracked up to be.

And speaking of shelter and injury, there’s ye olde misconception about life expectancy. Grok, to set the record straight, didn’t have the lifespan of a fruit fly or die as the salmon do the moment they do their part in procreation. Though the commonly known and repeated lifespan stat revolves around the 30s, the overall picture is much more complex and varied. First off, there’s the “science” behind those conjectures. According to many scientists, including Henry Oliver Lancaster’s seminal epidemiological study, Expectations of Life, modern assumptions about early humans’ brief lifespan are based on little hard evidence but the backward “extrapolation” from contemporary groups, who he says cannot and do not serve as accurate comparison models because of significant changes in population density, disease introduction and spread, etc. And then there’s the issue of how the deed happens. Grok and his forefathers didn’t succumb to diabetes-related complications or heart disease. As Lancaster and others in the relevant fields suggest, although the average life expectancy of early humans was about 33 years of age, they generally died as a result of trauma (accident or warfare), predator attacks, natural disasters, starvation/exposure to the elements, etc. Life in Grok’s day required healthfulness up until that day. People couldn’t live for years sick or debilitated. The tribe couldn’t logistically provide long-term care for someone who couldn’t pull his/her weight, and they didn’t have the tools to offer much assistance anyway. As a result, people generally died in the peak or near peak of health (if they made it beyond infancy). Their problem wasn’t their genes. Given modern medical care, relative freedom from attack and famine, and the generally easier lifestyle of our times, the average Grok could have lived much longer. A fortunate few did in their day.

Going Primal means emulating the best of caveman nutrition, exercise and stress relief in the comfort of your own millennium.

Here’s the take home message. The PB is ultimately about reconciling our primeval genes with modern circumstances. You can optimize health by choosing biologically appropriate food and activities within a 21st century context. And, mind you, it’s a continuum. For optimum fitness, you needn’t lift or hurl boulders like our ancestors. Crossfit workouts do quite nicely. You get the same bodyweight exercise with full range of motion. On the continuum, gym machines might not provide all the same full body benefits, but they’re a respectable substitute and obviously better than couch potato mode. Grass-fed meat is better than CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), but CAFO meat still provides better nutrition than a vegan diet. Rice is preferable to wheat, but the most biologically appropriate diet includes neither. Like we said, it’s a continuum based on evolutionary principles and the physiology we inherited. To our benefit, we have the luxury of knowing how our genes respond to certain things and the price we pay (long and short term) for coloring outside the primal lines.

Still have questions? Heard other misconceptions about the Primal approach? Send ‘em on, and share your thoughts.

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Dear Mark: What is Creatine?

2009-06-15T15:28:31Z

Over the years, more than a couple readers have asked about creatine and whether or not it has a place in the Primal Blueprint. People may be tempted to lump it in with anabolic steroids or other chemical enhancers, but they would be conferring guilt by association. To clarify, creatine is a naturally occurring substance involved in ATP energy production. All vertebrates have it, and most of us get a good chunk of our creatine from eating said vertebrates. Red meat in particular – beef, lamb, and bison – contains the highest levels of dietary creatine (interestingly enough, human vegetarians – unlike their ungulate counterparts – generally have far less creatine in their muscles than meat eaters). The rest of the creatine we get is biosynthesized internally from three amino acids (some of which are also derived from diet): arginine, glycine, and methionine.

Whether it’s biosynthesized, part of a natural meaty diet, or taken as a supplement, creatine helps provide a very specific type of energy for your muscles. ATP, or adenosine triphosphate, is the fuel we use for short, intense bursts of speed or strength. It also plays a critical role in cell maintenance by regulating the assembly and disassembly of the cytoskeleton, but that’s usually not why people take creatine. They do it because it assists in ATP production. When we’re putting up large amounts of weight or going for 1 rep maximums or lifting cars off of accident victims, we are engaging our ATP energy. Our ATP is usually only good for a few moments of maximum output: fifteen seconds of all out sprinting; a few squats at 80% of our 1 rep max; or one good 100% 1 rep max overhead press. This is the stuff Grok would have engaged when making the killing blow on the mastodon. It’s survival fuel, and it depletes rather quickly, but it replenishes just as fast.

Creatine can help give that extra little burst of ATP that might get you through the set. Rather than stop at 10 reps, you might be able to push through for 12. It’s not a game changer, but it has been demonstrated to show some real – albeit minor – benefits in immediate muscle energy. Whether it increases musculature and permanent strength is unclear. The added reps it can help you pump out might confer some benefits, like signaling your genes to synthesize more protein and grow more muscle, but it gets murky when you consider that creatine supplements are cell volumizers that cause water retention in the muscles. Although bodybuilders and other athletes looking for “puffy” bulk over performance might find some use in creatine supplementation, most Primal Blueprinters who value performance over illusory size are probably getting plenty of creatine through dietary means (meat, fish, fowl, etc). The increased muscle fluid absorption can even result in muscle cramps and in dehydration for the rest of the body, so I would actually advise against too much creatine for dedicated athletes.

I’ve tried creatine before, using a six week on/eight week off cycle (so as not to get acclimated to it), and I definitely experienced the slight increase in capacity. Still, at my age, I’m not going to get a whole lot stronger, and I’m not too worried about it at any rate. One thing I can say: creatine is one of the most heavily researched training supplements out there, and it’s probably quite safe in doses less than 5 grams per day. If you’re truly interested in the pro-ATP effects, give it a shot. It won’t hurt, but don’t expect any magical results. Just be sure to stay hydrated and look for a brand without added sugar.

I’d say it works in the context of the PB. It’s not a necessary component of it, like, say, fish oil supplements, but it certainly doesn’t conflict. I’d even urge our more vegetarian-minded Blueprinters to consider creatine supplementation (or beef supplements) if they’re experiencing strength deficiencies when moving heavier weights.

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Primal Blueprint Success Story: More Like Grok

2009-06-12T15:21:22Z

For anyone that is now familiar with The Primal Blueprint, you’ll recognize both of the characters to the right. It’s our lovable Primal role model, Grok, and his modern antithesis - your average overweight and over-stressed American - Mr. Korg. (A quick aside: When I read “Grok” I hear it said in my head like “Grok On!!!” But, for some odd reason, when I read “Mr. Korg” I hear it said in the voice of Eeyore.)

In short, my goal with this site and the PB is to help people go from looking and feeling like Korg to looking and feeling like Grok. This is why I am always so thrilled to hear success stories: triumphant tales of people taking control of their health and lives.

I recently received a success story from reader Sterling. It’s the sort of response to the Primal Blueprint that makes all the effort worth it.

Check out the before and after pics and read Sterling’s personal account of transformation below.

Before

After

5’8”, 225 lbs, 42” waist, multiple asthma medications, depression medicine, blood pressure medicine, topical testosterone. That’s where I was 4 ½ years ago – a freaking wreck and a dream patient for big pharma.

June 2006: Through hormone therapy and a low-carb DIET only, I trimmed down from 225 lbs to 170 lbs. Great? Not so great. Like so many people, I was able to lose weight and that in itself is a good thing, but I did not do it the right way. How do I know? Because when I stopped the meds and went back to a ‘normal diet’, I quickly climbed the scales back to 210 lbs. I had not changed a damn thing!

June 2007: I was watching TV in the wee hours of the morning. I came across an infomercial for P90X (very Grok-like). What I saw was an incredibly tough workout with real people who had great results. It looked so difficult that I figured it had to be legitimate. So in June 2007, I began P90X. This was my first introduction to Mark Sisson as he talked about sports nutrition at the end of one of the workouts. Mark would later become a larger part of my success as I started to eat and move more like Grok (unknowingly at the time). We’ll get to Mark and Grok a little later. As I moved forward with my new workouts, little did I know a Pandora’s Box of health, extreme fitness, and a completely new way of life would engulf me and my entire family. Between June 2007 and November 2007 I would complete 2 rounds of P90X. End of story? Happy ending? Not quite. Hang with me…I’m getting somewhere.

November 2007: 2 rounds of P90X complete. I was moving more like Grok and eating more like Grok…but not completely. I had trimmed down to 178 lbs and felt worlds better than I had in a long time. But after a nagging shoulder injury, multiple business trips, the flu, and pneumonia, 3 months had quickly passed since I had exercised, at all. And when you struggle with guilt from making bad decisions…again, not only do you not take care of yourself with exercise, but proper nutrition suffers greatly. And they did for me. This is the story for so many people.

Although not the drastic weight gain of times past, I crept back up to the 190 lb range much to my dismay and frustration. That feeling of stepping out of the shower and in front of the mirror after having been in great shape just 3 months earlier…what a feeling a failure. Why did I let myself down? Why did I not start back earlier? Why did I not at least maintain proper nutrition? One sentence sums up the answer to these questions: Do it for the right reasons. I was not doing it for the right reasons. I set myself up for failure before I even started. I wanted to look good and have other people tell me I looked good. After realizing that fact, I was ready to start doing it for the right reasons.

March 2008: my life changed for good. This time I would do it for all the right reasons: physical health, mental health, gene reprogramming, & family. And this is where my story takes a dramatic, compelling, and incredible turn. My eating habits were better and I understood why I was eating the way I was; not only for results (although great results were what I wanted) but rather to feel better and feed my body the proper foods with purpose. And although I struggled with lowering my body fat to my satisfaction, a much bigger change was morphing inside my body. Underneath the skin and muscles that everyone else was seeing, my blood vessels, lungs, heart, chemical makeup, hormonal makeup, genes, brain cells and tissues were changing in dramatic and unprecedented ways. Within the next 3 months, not only did my weight get down to 170 lbs, and my waist shrink to 31.5”, but my life had changed forever. Remember the litany list of medications I mentioned before? Depression medication: Gone. Blood pressure medication: Gone. Testosterone: Gone. And for the first time in 30 years…let me say that again…for the FIRST time in 30 YEARS. Asthma medications: Gone. Done. Finished. Wow! What a concept. Proper nutrition and exercise – the best medicine available to mankind. Big Pharma and FDA beware! We are coming after your business.

How did this happen? I started to live more like Grok. I cut way back on whole grains and legumes. I was eating lots more plants and animals, whole lean proteins, fruit, and tons of veggies. I lifted heavy things often. I got 8+ hours of sleep every day and napped when I could; even if only 30 or 40 minutes.

During this time period, I discovered numerous resources online that helped me tremendously. Tom Venuto was one, especially in understanding macronutrients and calories. Mark Sisson and MarksDailyApple.com was another. Through visiting MDA and pestering Mark with neurotic emails on how to get leaner he encouraged me to do several things: eliminate grains, sprint, continue to do the things that had proven successful, and try intermittent fasting. Since that time, I have leaned down to 11% body fat, 157 lbs, and a 30” waist. Self-admittedly, I often do too much – a neurotic decision fueled by my obsession to get to single digit body fat (aka, Mark Sisson ripped), but MDA and Mark have taught me the right ways to get there. Sprinting has become a permanent part of my routine (at least 1 day/week but usually twice/week). And no sprinting routine would be complete without my Vibram Five Fingers (as close to barefoot as you’ll get with a ‘shoe’); yet another introduction that Mark is responsible for. If you don’t have any, go get them now. Your knees will feel better and you’ll feel more like Grok as he sprinted either from being killed or to kill (except he was barefoot). Intermittent Fasting (IF) is my newest ‘endeavor’ and I feel a sense of accomplishment and clarity. As I continue to eat and move more like Grok, I’ll be glad to update my accomplishments.

Lastly, as I sat at a recent sales meeting (I work for a Biotech company that sells hormone replacement therapy for diabetes – yeah I know I’m in a unique field considering my belief system regarding obesity, diabetes, and overall health and fitness), I wanted to take the stage and scream at the top of my lungs. I wanted to scream! I wanted to scream that pharmacologic intervention and the billions spent on their marketing would be completely and utterly unnecessary if companies (pharma, agra, government) and doctors would spend a fraction of their time, money, and energy preaching the truth about exercise and proper nutrition. Although, at times, I don’t think that they even know (educated ignorance I guess). Sure, they offer diet and exercise as first-line treatment for a lot of medical problems. But only to fill a ‘check-the-box’ requirement for insurance companies before they move on to drug therapy. If people truly knew the healing power of proper exercise and proper nutrition, there would be nothing to stop them. But alas, the almighty dollar and the greed that fuels companies and politicians will always trump common sense and hard work. The masses have been fed a load of crap and Big Pharma, the federal government, the FDA, and Big Agra are keeping the masses fat and (un)happy. I want to be a messenger for Grok! Will you join me?

_________________________________________________________________________

Thanks to Sterling for his inspiring story! If you have your own success story that you’d like to share or would just like to read more success stories like Sterling’s visit this page. If you are new to the Primal Blueprint and would like to learn more check out the Primal Blueprint 101 page or visit PrimalBlueprint.com to start getting Primal!

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Are Plastics Safe?

2009-06-11T16:10:36Z

It’s an emblem of the modern culture. Think that Graduate line (“I want to say one word to you. Just one word….”), the commercial a couple decades ago in which the girl drops a 2-liter soda bottle, Tupperware parties, Ziploc bags, etc. Plastics were once cutting edge, and these days they’re absolutely everywhere. They’re so ubiquitous, in fact, that a recent book (The World Without Us) hypothesizes a post-human world with an evolutionary turn toward plastic ingestion. There’s an interesting nutritional concept….

Some weeks ago we tackled the question of safe cookware. While we took on the likes of aluminum, stainless, and ceramic, we knew there was a whole other world of cookware and food storage left to explore. So, today we tackle the question of plastics. What role can/should they play in a Primal kitchen? What price do we pay for their convenience? Is there such a thing as a safe plastic for food prep and storage? What are the ones to avoid at all costs? And what’s the real harm in it anyway?

Take a look around the typical American kitchen. Besides Tupperware, you’ll likely find “disposable” pieces (Gladware, etc.) – some of which you can purportedly bake in, an assortment of leftover cottage cheese or Cool Whip (pardon us as we shudder) containers, Saran Wrap, lunch baggies, water bottles, baby bottles, countertop water jugs, lined food cans, bagged frozen veggies, etc. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Though we’re all aware of the convenience gained with plastic containers, what problems have we inherited with this expediency? (We’ll put aside issues related to manufacturing and disposal and focus solely on storage and preparation.) What is the impact of plastic on the individual consumer who is just trying to pack her lunch or cook dinner each day? Plastics, as used for food preparation and storage, have been linked to a sobering list of health conditions: hormonal imbalance, heart disease, impaired brain development, altered development of sexual organs, and various cancers. Yikes is right, but (as is usually the case) there’s more to the story.

The issue with plastic is leaching, the release of the plastic’s chemicals into food or drink and our ingestion of these chemicals over time. (Many of these chemicals can build up in the body.) Although all plastics break down and leach at some point, certain plastics are more structurally stable than others. And what you do with a plastic (e.g. heating) likewise makes a big difference. Finally, what kind of food or drink you put in it can actually be a factor as well. As always, let’s break it down….

Plastics of different types are assigned corresponding resin numbers. (If you have to separate plastics for community recycling, you’ve likely become well acquainted with the system….) The types, 1-7, look something like this.

#1 polyethylene terephthalate – aka PET/PETE – soda bottles, mouthwash bottles, bottled water, etc.
#2 high density polyethylene – aka HDPE - milk jugs, household cleaner and detergent bottles, shampoo bottles, etc.
#3 polyvinyl chloride – aka V/PVC – meat packaging, some household cleaner bottles, rigid plastic containers, household pipes, etc.
#4 low density polyethylene – aka LDPE – newspaper bags, grocery bags, sandwich bags, cling wraps, frozen food bags, etc.
#5 polypropylene – aka PP – yogurt/sour cream tubs, ketchup bottles, medicine bottles, etc.
#6 polystyrene – aka PS – coffee cups, packing peanuts, to-go containers, etc.
#7 “other” (Category assigned for mixed plastics or plastics introduced after 1987. The category includes polycarbonate, plant-based polylactide and other new hard plastics.) – baby bottles, water cooler bottles, rigid containers for food storage, lining for canned food, etc.

So, who are the good guys in this picture? Who are the villains? Which of them tend to leach the most? Although you’ll find criticism/skepticism about every category in some corners, most experts believe that better bets include #2 (HDPE), #4 (LDPE) and #5 (polypropylene) plastics because they appear to be more stable and less prone to leaching when used properly.

Of high concern are PVC (#3), polystyrene (#6) and the polycarbonate plastics (subcategory of #7). PVC contains phthalates, known endocrine disruptors and carcinogens, that present a particular risk to children. As for polystyrene, studies have linked this plastic to cancer, neurological damage and reproductive issues (PDF). And we’ve all likely heard the debate about BPA, a component of polycarbonate plastics. Although industry has fought the link tooth and nail, it’s becoming clear that BPA can seriously impact hormonal balance and reproductive function. (1, 2, 3)

Finally, some research suggests that a common plastic for water bottles, PET plastics, leach estrogenic compounds. These compounds, xenoestrogens, can disrupt hormonal balance in both men and women, although the single use of these plastics may lessen the overall leaching impact on consumers.

So, what can you do to prevent leaching? First off, there’s your own use of plastic. Use plastic containers only in accordance with their originally intended use (e.g. Don’t reheat a microwave dinner container or wash a single use water bottle and use it over and over – especially after continual washing in a hot dishwasher.) Second, avoid heating any plastic whenever possible or storing hot food/drink in plastic containers. In much of the “leaching” research, plastics are heated to high temperatures for long stretches of time, but even brief heating can be enough to allow chemical shedding of sorts. Remove plastic packaging and use a good old glass bowl or stove top pot for heating and a regular mug instead of a foam cup for your morning coffee. (And use a plain paper towel, preferably unbleached, to cover food in the microwave rather than plastic wrap.) The same goes for storage. (A liquid or moist food item has the potential to absorb more from its container than loose “dry” items.) Acidic food reacts more with the materials it comes in contact with. Keep your tomatoes and juices preferably in glass. Finally, look into alternatives to plastic bags like wax paper sandwich bags or stainless steel Bento boxes. (Just be sure to wrap those acidic foods in wax paper before storing them in stainless steel or aluminum.)

But what about the plastic you don’t choose and don’t have as much control over? We mean the packaging that stores and food manufacturers choose for us. By far the best choice is to make as much of your own food as possible. Mind you, you don’t have to grow it yourself, but simply make as many foods from the raw ingredients as possible. Squeeze your own juice rather than buy it in a plastic bottle. Buy fresh produce instead of using pre-cut/frozen vegetables and fruits. Limit use of canned and plastic-bottled items. As for the foods you can’t or don’t have time to make on your own, look for alternative packing where it’s available. Some frozen produce companies now package their products in freezer paper bags instead of plastic. Get your meat from the counter, where butcher paper instead of plastic wrap is used. Finally, when there are no alternatives, you can consider shaving or cutting off the very top layers of items that come into contact with less desirable plastics. While this might not work so well for something like pork chops, it can be a reasonable option with ground meats.

Although it’s hard to imagine a modern grocery store without plastic containers, at one time the human race existed without plastics. And you don’t have to go back to the age of Grok. For some of us, it’s simply a trip down memory lane. While we aren’t suggesting that plastic has no place in modern life, it’s safe to say it probably should play a limited role in the Primal kitchen.

Tell us what you think. Have alternative shopping and storage ideas to share? Further ideas for debate and discussion? Thanks for reading.

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Exercises You Should Be Doing: 1-Legged Barbell RDL

2009-06-19T14:59:45Z

What Is It: 1-Legged Barbell RDL (Romanian Deadlift)-red shoes optional.

Who Did I Steal It From: Apparently the Romanians

What Does It Do: If you asked me what most trainees fail to incorporate into their programming, it’s single leg work. Oftentimes, single leg work gets put-off or neglected altogether in favor of bilateral (two-legged) work such as squats, deadlifts, etc. And just for the record, single legged leg curls/leg extensions/leg presses don’t count. Nice try.

In any case, single leg work serves many purposes:

1. Helps to correct/eliminate any asymmetries and/or imbalances between one limb and the other.

2. Helps to increase overall strength. I have yet to see anyone improve their strength on single leg movements not increase the amount of weight they can lift on two legged movements.

3. They also play an important role in knee health, as well as lower back health. For starters, single leg movements force us to activate the lateral sub-system, which consists of the Adductor Complex, Glute Medius, as well as the Quadtratus Lumborum on the contra-lateral leg:

In a two-legged stance, these muscles aren’t necessarily “activated,” per se. However, in single leg stance, this same system of muscles are forced to “fire,” which then work to stabilize the hip and knee joint.

Moreover, and I say this with some reluctance since I don’t want this to be taken out of context- squats and deadlifts place much more compressive (and shear) force/torque on the spine. Consider the fact that many trainees don’t know how to squat/deadlift properly in the first place (trust me on this), given time, it’s going to catch up with them. Single leg movements allow one to train the lower body with much less of a burden on the spine.

Nevertheless, single leg training should definitely be a staple in anyone’s routine- for all the reasons listed above, and because I said so. As such, one of my favorite exercises is the one-legged barbell Romanian Deadlift- which coincidentally, is considered a single leg UN-supported variation.

Key Coaching Cues: Keeping your spine in a “neutral” position throughout the entire movement (as well as scapulae retracted and chin tucked), simply “push” the heel of your rear leg back towards the ceiling-your leg and back/neck should make a straight line. The knee of the standing leg should be slightly bent, and you should try to feel the brunt of your weight shift back into your heel (not your toes). Again, red shoes are completely optional. But for sexiness points, they’re mandatory.

On an Aside: A free container of Surge to anyone who comes up with a cool tagline for my website. I kind of like this so far: TonyGentilcore.com—–Strength and Performance Enhancement Done Right (courtesy of Lelli), but I feel like it needs a little more of my personality. Any suggestions…………

CP Goes on a Field Trip

2009-06-18T14:57:41Z

It’s often been stated that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. This was never more apparent than this past weekend, when I decided to make a cameo appearance at my old stomping grounds-The Sportsclub/LA in downtown Boston.

One of my clients still trains there during the week, and she mentioned to me that she was going to go in on Sunday morning to get a quick lift in. For shits and giggles (and for pure entertainment purposes), myself along with the First Lady of Cressey Performance, Anna, decided to tag along.

It’s been close to two years since I’ve stepped foot in SCLA, and while it was nice to catch up with some former colleagues and ex-clients (not to mention to see people destroy the back of their pants when Anna, a girl!!!, repped out 225 on the trap bar deadlift), it also reminded me why I always felt the sudden urge to throw my face into the nearest brick wall.

Not surprisingly, I wasn’t shocked to see the same people, doing the exact same routine, and looking exactly the same as they did two years ago. Of course, there was the guy reading his newspaper between sets (of tricep kickbacks). Then there was the guy who, to his credit, was getting after it on the treadmill- albeit I’ve seen one-legged crack whores look more graceful. And least I forget “hot pants” girl, who always seems to be more concerned with looking at herself in the mirror than realizing that she’s using 20 lbs on a deadlift. Cause you know, we wouldn’t want to actually lift an appreciable weight. Icky. Here’s a rule of thumb: if you can curl it, you shouldn’t be deadlifting it.

I’m currently reading Dan John’s new book, Never Let Go, which has been a fantastic read thus far. I’ve always liked Dan’s no frills writing style. For instance, here’s his his top 10 tips for athletes:

1. Use whole body lifts; rarely isolate a muscle.
2. Constantly strive to add weight to the bar, and move it faster.
3. The best anabolic is water.
4. Did you eat breakfast? If not, don’t ask me anything about nutrition.
5. If you smoke or don’t wear your seatbelt, please don’t tell me the quick lifts are dangerous.
6. Go heavy, go hard.
7. Keep it simple. Less is more.
8. You have to put the bar over your head.
9. Put the bar on the floor and pick it up a bunch of different ways.
10. Know and love the roots of your sport.

Simple, easy, not much to debate.

So this got me thinking- what would be my top 10 tips for people who train at a commercial gym?

1. You’re there to train, not to watch tv.

2. If you don’t know why you’re doing a particular exercise, or what purpose it serves- don’t do it.

3. There’s a reason why all the ellipticals and treadmills are being used. They’re easy! Conversely, there’s a reason why Airdyne bikes and squat racks are never used (for their intended purpose. Curling in the squat rack doesn’t count). They’re hard! Guess which ones yield the best results?

4. A 60 minute Yoga class doesn’t warrant a post-workout shake. Just sayin…..

5. If you can hold an entire conversation while you’re doing your “cardio” (and I use that term lightly), you’re not working nearly hard enough.

6. The world won’t collapse if you don’t bench three times per week.

7. Smith machines suck. So do leg curls, leg extensions, and leg presses for that matter. Yep, I just went there.

8. Okay, I get it….you have fake boobs. You’re still not that hot. Okay, maybe a little. I love you.

9. I have to stop there. A little piece of my soul is dying with each number I write- you guys can finish the list off if you want- I need to go lift some heavy things.

Let Them Eat Twinkies!!!! A Clarification

2009-06-16T19:10:27Z

Last week, I welcomed everyone into my fridge (in case you were wondering, it’s still clean!). Predictably, a few people got their panties all up in a bunch when I stated that one of the keys to getting (and staying) lean is to make an effort to eat “clean” food. Specifically, I mentioned how I felt it was a good idea for people to fill their fridge and cupboards with more nutritious foods like lean meats, fruits, veggies, yogurt, sprouted grains, rolled oats, etc- as opposed to Ho-ho’s, potato chips, and Twinkies. The logic being: if the “bad” food isn’t there to eat, the likelihood you’ll eat it is zero, cause it’s not there! That’s what I like to call math people. Try it sometime.

For the sake of brevity, and to avoid the shit-storm that will invariably follow (let them eat Twinkies!!!!!!!), I’ll be the first to admit my lack of clarity. It was erroneous of me to suggest that one can’t eat Ho-ho’s or Spaghetti O’s to get lean. Obviously, that’s not the case. In the context of basic human physiology (and the Law of Thermodynamics), it most certainly comes down to calories in vs. calories out. Provide a large enough caloric deficit, lift heavy things, and good stuff will happen.

I like to think of myself as a “middle ground” kind of guy, and like everyone else, I too enjoy my pizza and ice-cream on occasion. Heck, I’ve even had a Skittle or two (bags) from time to time- I’d be a hypocrite to suggest that I never indulge in such foods. However, I don’t really see what the uproar is about. Is it really that big of a deal to advocate people try to make a more conscious effort to eat “cleaner,” more nutritious foods, while limiting industrialized fat, sugar, and other highly processed foods from their diet? I mean, it’s not like I’m suggesting that everyone go out and club a baby seal- or worse, wear white after Labor Day. All I’m suggesting is to, you know, stop eating shit every single day.

Besides, it really comes down to structure. The same people who tell me they’re able to get lean eating Oreos tend to be following a very strict diet which allows for structured refeeds and/or cheat meals. These meals serve a physiological purpose when dieting- increasing leptin levels, decreasing gherlin levels, boosting T3-T4 levels, etc. It takes a fairly disciplined individual to be able to follow such a diet. Unfortunately, the average American doesn’t have this same discipline, and the only physiological purpose eating a bag of Doritos serves is to stave off their boredom.

Again, my bad for using such a blanket statement to begin with. I DO realize it’s about calories in vs. calories out. But when I see people saying stuff like, “Tony you’re stupid. Look at me. I eat all the stuff you’re not supposed to, and I got lean,” I have to laugh. Sorry, but their n=1 study doesn’t mount to much. All it really tells me is that they like to argue semantics- not to mention are pretty naive in regards to what it’s like to actually coach people not over the interwebz.

Exercises You Should Be Doing: Elbow Touches and Some Other Exercise That Has a Long Name That I Don’t Want To Include Here Because Then It Will Make the Title of This Blog Post Too Long

2009-06-12T15:15:29Z

I have like 30 minutes to pack all my food for the day, brush my teeth, get dressed, and catch up on a few e-mails before I head to work. So here’s a quick post containing not one, but two exercises you should be doing. Enjoy…….

What Is It: My arms look jacked Elbow Touches

Who Did I Steal It From: I’m pretty sure I thought of this bad boy all by myself.

What Does It Do: This is another great exercise that helps to “engage” the core musculature, as well as help promote proper lumbo-pelvic stability. As well, indirectly, you’re also going to get a lot of serratus anterior activation on the supporting side of each repetition.

Key Coaching Cues:

1. The wider the base of support, the easier the exercise is.

2. Think: tight abs, tight glutes.

3. While there will be some slight movement alternating side to side, the trainee should be cognizant of staying as stable as possible throughout the duration of the set. I.e. the lumbar spine and hips should barely move

4. Make sure your chin is tucked and that you maintain the natural curve of your spine (stay “neutral”).

5. Simple alternate hand to hand, touching the opposite elbow as you go. I like to go for a set time with this exercise- typically 2-3 sets of 20-30 seconds.

What Is It: Walking Spiderman w/Reach +Hip Lift

Who Did I Steal It From: Eric Cressey mentioned the walking spiderman w/reach in a recent blog post, but I went a head and made it even sexier by adding in the in-step (which I stole from Mark Verstegen).

What Does It Do: As Eric noted, you’ll get thoracic spine extension and rotation from the reach, and hip flexor and adductor length in the lower body from the lunge angle. Additionally with the in-step, you’ll get a bit of a hammie stretch as well. And just to cover my bases, I realize that by adding the in-step, there’s some slight flexion involved- albeit un-loaded flexion. For those trainees with lumbar spine issues, I’d probably nix the in-step; however for everyone else, it’s a great added benefit.

Key Coaching Cues: Goddamit, I just burnt my eggs. I’m so late……. where are my pants?

50 pounds of weight loss

2009-06-17T20:42:00Z

Glenn Yoder of The Boston Globe wrote a piece in today's newspaper how he made simple changes in his life and now he's down 50 pounds. It's continued evidence that small changes implemented systematically over time can go a long way. Click the link below to read the full story:

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/food/articles/2009/06/17/bostoncoms_glenn_yoder_details_his_50_pound_weight_loss/

Water, milk, sports drinks- what's the best choice?

2009-06-15T15:16:00Z

The American College of Sports Medicine had a roundtable on Hydration and Physical and Activity I wanted to share: http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Past_Roundtables&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2729

Let me know what you think. My approach is simple: if you're working out hard for over 60 minutes, consider the implementation of a sports drink. Milk has also proven effective post-workout.

The Fitness Industry: We Train People

2009-06-20T05:25:38Z

Eric Cressey had an interesting tidbit in his newsletter recently: to the throngs of athletes, pro and weekend, who besiege him daily with questions about whether this or that fitness protocol is useful, healthy, or effective, he says, essentially, "it always depends."

Cressey and his charges approach fitness programming rather like a physicians working with patients: not with blanket recommendations but with highly individuated plans tailored entirely to each person who walks in their door. So virtually no fitness protocol is applied uncritically to everyone.

The main lesson here is that the rules--such as they are--are highly changeable and highly context-specific. Ask three trainers the best way to lose weight, for example, and you'll get three answers--not because any of those trainers is dumb or ill-informed, but because many systems are effective and the science--the hard data--about what works best is sparse and diffuse.

But perhaps the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of a given fitness system for any single person is the human one. A few weeks ago I wrote about the results of a study conducted by Alwyn Cosgrove and John Berardi comparing the relative benefits of a strength-training protocol combined with either a steady-state cardio protocol, an interval protocol, or a suspension-training protocol.

The dropout rate was astronomical for the steady-state group (around 80%), fair to middling for the interval-training group (50% or so), and relatively small for the suspension-training group (30% or so).

In the real world, then, the effectiveness of these programs would, to a large extent, be determined not by calories burned per hour or by elevated BMR rates, but simply by the taste of the participants: how FUN did they find the program? If four out of five people who embark on a steady-state cardio program can't stick to it for a measly eight weeks, even when they're being monitored by two of the top fitness pros in the business, well, that probably tells us all we need to know about steady-state cardio: most people can't stomach it. So even if it's proven effective--which the study results bore out--the human factor says that it's probably not the right choice. The best program in the world only works if you--you know--DO it.

As much as I love knowing the best this and that for this and that training effect, I'm therefore willing to accept a little inefficiency, and even take on a little risk, if a client loves a given exercise or activity, rather than tell them they shouldn't be doing it and try to substitute in my own methods that might be maximally efficient but dead boring to someone who's wired for something else.

Feedback in Fitness

2009-06-19T01:11:11Z

Quick word about something essential to fitness training, as I'm running late today: feedback.

What in the Sam Hill do I mean by feedback?

Kind of just what it sounds like: information coming back to you about your fitness and training efforts. It can take, quite literally, a zillion forms. Perhaps more, like closer to a jillion forms.

How many times have you heard this one? "I didn't realize how overweight I really was until I saw the pictures of myself wearing the banana hammock during our Summer Sales Extravaganza in St. Croix!" Those photos constitute an unexpected--and jarring--form of feedback. Equally, someone might say "I didn't realize how well my acai-berry-and-vinegar diet was working until Marjorie in Personnel told me how fetching I looked in my new Bermuda shorts!" That's good feedback.

(Fetching.)

If you're smart, you don't wait for Marjorie or the banana hammock photos to give you your feedback; you're actively feedback pretty regularly. Yes, it's useful to fly a little bit blind now and then, jogging or cycling or even lifting a bit free-wheeling-ly in the gym so as not to become obsessive-compulsive, but from where I'm sitting, most people are a little too lax about closing the feedback loop. They don't keep track of times or distances or weight lifted or inches or pounds lost. They just exercise or diet and vaguely hope they will suddenly find themselves sporting a six-pack.

If you're completely happy with where you are in your fitness program--this doesn't really apply. But for everyone except you, Mr. Pitt, it's essential to get feedback often. It's one of the proven elements to reaching your goals: measuring, recording, trial-and-error-ing. My first triathlon season I wrote down what I did for every workout--how fast I was, how I felt, the structure of my workouts, etc. It worked wonders. I've had clients weigh themselves every morning and keep a measurement graph every week. A bit extreme, but this guy lost 60 pounds in about 6 months, so you can't argue with progress. It's a great tool.

You know, to see if you're getting anywhere.

All for now--happy Thursday.

Andrew

Rest and Recovery: The Yin and Yang of Fitness

2009-06-17T18:09:15Z

How is it that a professional athlete can be vigorously active for eight hours a day and manage to recover and improve, and average Joes struggle to recover from that many exercise-hours in a week?

Genetics certainly plays a role--resistance to injury, and resilience after injury, are among the least-discussed keys to athletic greatness (go re-watch the great documentary Hoop Dreams for proof). But a large part of it is the close attention that pros pay to recovery.

For many years, I was of the "go hard all the time" school, rationalizing that my weekly workout hours were limited, and that I should maximize my workouts by redlining from the moment I set foot in the gym to the time I hit the shower. I'd do the same for my clients.

While some people--maybe a lot of people--need to learn the "intensity" lesson (it's certainly a topic that generates lots of ink and pixel-space), an equal number need to learn to balance their intense sessions with smart recovery practices. It's the ol' yin-yang of working out: as smart and hard as you exercise, you've got to arrange your life to recover from those sessions as well, or your efforts will go for nothing.

Here's a recent article on sleep--and new, drug-free tactics for getting a good night's worth. The author discusses sleep "nutrients"--specific benefits derived from each particular phase of sleep.

There's also an interesting discussion of the sleep-inducing benefits of 'micro-movements'--tiny, sometime almost imperceptible muscle actions:

Fold your hands in your lap, lacing the fingers and thumbs. Then straighten your index fingers, so the pads of the two fingers rest against each other. Sit quietly like that for five to ten minutes. A huge amount of real estate in the brain is devoted to the hands. When you’re awake and active, the hands are very busy, and so is your brain. When you stabilize your hands like that, your brain slows down, and you become calm and tranquil. That’s one reason why Christians fold their hands when they pray...Large, vigorous, powerful movements are stimulating to the brain. Slow, soft, infrequent movements are tranquilizing. When you make very small movements—as small as you can, so small they’re barely perceptible—they quiet the body and mind.

I tried this; it does work, pretty much instantly. This exercise reminds me of the kinds of things we sometimes did in acting class; it's not hard, for instance, to manufacture the feeling of anger; simply pound your fist on a table--you'll naturally start to feel it, no matter how sunny your disposition. This exercise suggests that assuming the attitude of tranquility actually creates a state of tranquility. Fake it, in other words, and you WILL make it.

Another point:

Most people with insomnia exhibit symptoms of hyper-arousal—a chronic over-activation of the body’s innate stress-response mechanism. It’s like being in fight-or-flight, emergency-response mode non-stop. You can’t just switch that off at bedtime. If you want to get a handle on insomnia, you need to do something about hyper-arousal not just at bedtime, but during the day, too.

A body-worker friend of mine recently pointed out that fear is a fairly ubiquitous state in nature: out in the wild, after all, there's always the chance you'll be taken out by a maverick grizzly bear or great-white. But most animals don't appear tense or nervous; they aren't jittery and covered in flop-sweat like you or I before the big PowerPoint presentation; they just seem alert--aware of the dangers around them but not overwhelmed by them. If animals can do this in the wild, with predators at every turn, surely you and I can chill out a little, even though our kid wasn't accepted into Tiger Tots Golf Camp and Janine got Employee of the Month again?

Another good article on recovery was in Outside back in February. The author is attempting to build up to a half-marathon with job, wife, kids, mortgage, the whole slam. After seeing an expert coach, the message was clear: he was pushing himself too hard:

Based on [treadmill test] results, Henderson said I should do the bulk of my training at a low intensity. This was easy on the body—when I stuck to Henderson's recommended workout intensities I could do long runs without feeling very tired afterwards—but tough on the ego. I was consistently passed by people twice my age, people pushing strollers, people wearing cotton.

Other workouts consisted of easy runs punctuated by three-minute high-intensity intervals. Henderson hounded me about the importance of recovery between those intervals—slowing down so that my body would be prepared for the next effort. As for pre- and post-workout routines, it turns out that a proper warm-up and cooldown are far more important than the half-assed stretching I'd grown accustomed to.

As a guy who's always impatient with the recovery time between my interval efforts, this was a good reminder to take the time it takes for the body to wind down before ramping up again.

Stairs, Swimming, and Asthma: MPF Health News Round-Up!

2009-06-16T17:54:25Z

•If stairs were prettier and more accessible, would more people climb them? Some people seem to think so. There's a new trend towards putting stairs right in the middle of things in new buildings and generally making them more attractive and enticing so that people will use them.

Will it work? I don't know: as we know from the example of the guy who spends 20 minutes circling the gym parking lot so that he doesn't have to walk too far to the front door, people will go to great lengths to avoid work. For some people, stair-climbing remains an annoying chore. And in airports? When there's an escalator right next to the stairs? I usually...take the escalator. Wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to all these new buildings with the huge, ornate, fancy staircases. People will think, "What great stairs!" followed quickly by, "Where's the elevator?"

(I'm inspired...to look for an escalator.)

•Swimming's good for you, but aqua-style exercise--complete with underwater dumbbells and the like--is, apparently, great for you. So much more fun than swimming laps, the aqua equivalent of a hamster wheel, according to the article. One man's meat, I say; laps can be great when you do them on the clock, and water aerobics--well, I've never tried a class, but I've rarely seen a more bored and disengaged group of elderly folks than the ones doing a billion desultory dumbbell lifts in aqua aerobics class while I'm a couple of lanes over, pushing myself to the brink of pukedom as they curl and press the underwater dumbbells that basically do the curling and pressing for you.

There are are actually some great suggestions for water workouts at the above link. But effective water training always depends on how hard and fast you move, so you may have to work with a little more focus and deliberate intensity in the water to really create a training effect. Unlike, say, lifting a weight, or running on the clock, it can be tough to gauge how hard you're working.

Feedback should be the topic of a future post. Every exercise program needs it in some form.

(Warning: Too much water aerobics causes webbed-finger growth.)

•One possible key to chronic asthma has been identified, a mere 36 years too late to benefit me: a little bugger called SERCA2 is responsible in part for helping muscles in the lungs relax; without it, lung cells start to act up and develop asthma-like symptoms. I remember back in the stone age I took a Child's Living With Asthma Fun-and-Breathing-Rite course, and they taught us about 'belly breathing' and progressive relaxation, techniques that would take about 45 minutes to 'talk down' a serious asthma attack. SERCA2 offers the promise of addressing the problem at the gene level--which seems like a rather more efficient method than keeling over in gym class, as I occasionally did back in the day.

Coaching Speed and Reflexes: Gentlemen, We Can Rebuild Him

2009-06-13T00:55:13Z

In the latest Beautiful Aim entry, Arton stops in to see a sports-vision specialist. Here's the episode...

What I find interesting is the blurring between seeing and responding; the tests aren't simply diagnosing whether the eyes function in a mechanical sense, in a way that might be tested on a standard eye chart--but how quickly and how accurately the information is getting in and then how quickly and accurately Arton can react to it.

In his comments at the end of the video, Arton mentions that, prior to visiting Black & Lazar's, he'd believed that his reaction time wasn't trainable, and now, having improved it already in one session, he believed that it was. As Lonnie Lowery mentions in this T-muscle article, the legendary strength and conditioning coach Vern Gambetta believes the same thing about athletic speed: that it, too is a coachable skill. As the man says, you can't coach seven feet, but if Vern is right, perhaps you can coach 4.3 seconds.

One of the main draws of strength training to me back in the day was that it's an athletic leveler: it make the weak strong, the small imposing, the meek powerful. And it was democratic: anyone with access to a few rusty barbells and a bench could do it. It gave the lie to the notion that strength and fitness were only the domain of the athletically gifted: given enough time and effort, anyone could get strong and fit (Is it any wonder that immigrants Weider and Schwarzenegger were so drawn bodybuilding, the very apotheosis of American self-made manhood?).

Still, like Arton, I've always believed that certain athletic traits were teachable--like strength and size--and others--like speed and reflexes--were not. The new advances in the sports sciences are getting us closer to being able to build an athlete from the ground up. Which is good news for my six-month-old son. If I start his training soon, I'm thinking starting wide receiver, New England Patriots, circa 2031.

Vindicating Steady-State Cardio

2009-06-11T22:50:48Z

A few weeks ago over at Precision Nutrition, a couple of hacks named "John Berardi" and "Alwyn Cosgrove" put together an impromtu study of about 60 exercisers; their intention was to compare the weight-loss/performace-enhancement effects achievable through three different training protocols: strength training plus steady-state cardio; strength training plus sprint intervals, and strength training plus suspension training ("TRX") circuits.

(No fat on this cat.)

The strength-training routine performed by all three groups was the same: twice a week, full-body workouts consisting of the heavy-hitter moves dones in the strength/hypertrophy rep range. Standard-issue, road-tested, and effective. The conditioning workouts varied, however: two additional days a week, one group did steady-state cardio, another did sprints, another more TRX work. You can read about their results here.

Subjects were tested at the beginning and again at the end of the study in a maximum push-up test, an inverted row, test, a standing broad jump test, and the V-max, and T-max tests on a treadmill, both indicators of aerobic and anaerobic fitness. Their weight was also recorded.

At the end of the study there was very little difference among the three groups in the tests of strength and power (push-ups, inverted rows, and standing broad jump). The steady-state cardio group, however, had a significant edge on the T-max test (which is performed on a treadmill and described at the link above), and the TRX group had a big edge on the 'attrition' category: something like 80% of the steady-staters weren't steady enough, and 55% of the sprinters turned tail and ran, but only 35% of the TRX'ers suspended their involvment, so to speak.

One clear--perhaps unintended--lesson is that no one wants to do steady-state cardio, and that, conversely, people like working on the suspension trainer. That might not seem important, but there's something to be said for that: I mean, anyone can lose weight by doing hard labor all day and eating nothing but cranberries for six weeks, but the program will suck so much that you won't want to do it, and you'll drop out. So it's no small thing to find a system that a majority of people will stick with, and Berardi is right to point that out.

If you'd asked me eight weeks ago how these results would shake out, though, I probably would have wagered that the TRX folks would improve the most on the body-weight training tests, the sprinters would do the best on the tests of aerobic and anaerobic fitness, and the steady-staters would have little improvement across the board due to the "interference effect" of adding steady-state cardio to strength training.

So I'm surprised that the TRX folks DIDN'T get better push-up, inverted row, and broad jump results over the eight weeks, even though they were doing much more body-weight style training than the other groups; I'm surprised that the sprinters didn't do the best on the V- and T-tests, and I'm surprised that the steady-staters not only kept pace with the other groups in all the performance indicators, but bested the other groups by a slight (statistically insignificant, but extant) margin across the board and by a truly significant margin on the T-test.

Perhaps there's a limit to how fast one can get stronger and more powerful, and that two full-body training sessions per week just about does it for most people, so the addition of more body-weight style training sessions didn't ultimately contribute to improved performance.

Finally, though--to keep with this week's theme of Don't Give Up on Old Ideas, the stud suggests that perhaps we've been too hard on that old standby, steady-state cardio. Most people agree that it's boring and uninteresting, but seeing these study results, we've pretty much all got to admit that, as much as we're loathe to admit it, if you can stomach it, it's still effective.

Your Right to Choose Healthy Food is at Stake … Again

2009-06-19T10:00:39Z

The politicians are at it again and have drafted another piece of so called food safety legislation that threatens the future of organically and sustainably produced food.

Bill H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, proclaims to “amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes.” Despite the seemingly good intention of this bill, the regulations that it aims to put into place are not the type of measures that would truly improve the safety of our food supply. Unfortunately, they’re much more likely to worsen it.

A Flawed Approach to Food Safety

In regard to food safety, the government seems to have adapted the symptom chasing mentality of our medical system. Similar to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), H.R. 2749 suggests that food safety is more about disaster recovery than prevention.

Infection of crops and livestock is an example of a common concern among farmers, but instead of identifying and addressing it’s cause, food safety bills such as H.R. 2749 are designed to react to the problem after it’s occurred. Large industrialized farming operations often sacrifice quality for quantity and provide an inadequate environment for crops and livestock that leads to an increased susceptibility to infection and disease. This is the true threat to food safety, and by ignoring this issue, bill H.R. 2749 is effectively legitimizing the unhealthy and unsustainable practices of most large and industrialized farms.

As long as industrial farmers continue to employ these unnatural practices, regulation and intervention will never truly solve the problem. In addition, the increased regulation will make it harder for the small farmers who raise healthy crops and livestock to stay in business.

What Food Safety Should Be About

As with humans, healthy plants and animals are resistant to infection and disease. By addressing the aspects of industrial farming that compromise the health of crops and livestock, infection and disease would naturally decline and there would be much less need for strict food safety regulations.

Many large farming operations feed their animals an unnatural and poor quality diet and cram them into tight and unsanitary living quarters where they’re deprived of movement and sunlight. To compensate for the poor health that such an environment promotes, these animals are regularly treated with drugs to prevent illness.

Industrialized crop farming isn’t much better. Crops are heavily sprayed with chemicals to fight off predators and are farmed in an accelerated manner that depletes the soil that they’re grown in. Each season, the soil becomes more depleted and results in weaker crops that require more synthetic fertilizer and more chemicals. Predators eventually become resistant to the chemicals which increases their need even more.

Bill H.R. 2749 would make much more sense if it proposed to correct these flawed practices of industrial farming instead of only compensating for them. At the least, responsible farmers who are producing high quality food in a sustainable and safe manner should be excluded from the regulations that industrial farming has created the need for. Instead, bill H.R. 2749 will likely overwhelm many of these farmers and ironically force them to deviate from the safe and sustainable practices that they employ.

Who Really Benefits From “Food Safety”

The symptom driven approach to food safety that’s proposed by bill H.R. 2749 legitimizes the regular use of chemicals and other industrialized farming products. It also creates the potential for the use of such products to be mandated. This means that your favorite local organic farmers could potentially be forced into using pesticides, antibiotics, and other chemicals against their will and in the name of food safety.

Just as the drug industry thrives on chronically ill people who never correct the cause of their problems, large agricultural companies feed off of the flawed industrialized approach that has encouraged farmers to rely on pesticides, antibiotics, and other unnatural products. As such, large agricultural corporations have a significant financial interest in promoting the growth of industrialized farming and often use their political influence to their advantage.

Companies like Monsanto put forth a tremendous effort to show that their products promote sustainability and increase crop yield. Such claims suggest that they’ve found a way to outsmart and outperform nature which clearly isn’t the case. Monsanto has already caused enough trouble with their prior production of outlawed toxins such as DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange and their current production of agricultural chemicals and genetically modified seeds. They already have a significant amount of control over the food supply and food safety bills like H.R. 2749 will potentially give them even more.

Specifics About Food Safety Bill H.R. 2749

The following are what I consider to be the most significant and problematic aspects of bill H.R. 2749. It proposes to:

Grant the FDA the ability to establish agricultural practices that all farmers must follow.
Increase the FDA’s power in a vague manner.
Give the FDA the authority to quarantine entire geographic areas.
Impose extreme financial penalties for non compliance.
Require excessively detailed traceability of food production.

Although this type of regulation may be needed for industrial farmers, it will likely be a significant problem for smaller farmers who use natural methods to raise healthy crops and livestock. When we go out of our way to buy from such a farmer, we’re choosing to do so based on our alignment with their practices, standards, and ethics. Allowing the FDA to dictate how these farmers operate will likely eliminate this choice and make it easier for corporate interests such as Monsanto to influence the standards that all farmers would be forced to follow. Furthermore, the overhead imposed by such regulation will make it more challenging for smaller farmers to even stay in business.

If you’d like more detail about H.R. 2749, you can read the detailed analysis provided by the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. If you’d like even more detail, you can read bill H.R. 2749 in it’s entirety.

Protect Your Choice and Take Action!

The FDA approves the use of many unhealthy food additives such as artificial sweeteners, food coloring, preservatives, and flavor enhancers. Despite piles of evidence that have shown additives such as aspartame and MSG to be highly dangerous, the FDA still approves their use. Are you comfortable with the prospect of such an organization having the authority to mandate how your food is produced?

I’m certainly not and I hope you’ll join me and voice your opposition by signing the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund’s petition against H.R. 2749.

This article is part of Fight Back Fridays.

If you enjoyed this material, please consider bookmarking it on: Twitter, StumbleUpon , Digg or Del.icio.us.

Ben's shared items in Google Reader

Primal Blueprint Success Story: Former Marathoner Beating Diabetes

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

How to Render Beef Tallow

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

A Primal Primer: Animal Fats

Lard

Poultry Fat

Tallow

Ghee

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

EssG, thebittenword.com Flickr Photos (CC)

Setting the Record Straight

The Primal Blueprint doesn’t require cave dwelling…

The Agricultural Revolution hasn’t revolutionized basic biochemistry…

Primeval actuary tables aren’t what they’re cracked up to be.

Going Primal means emulating the best of caveman nutrition, exercise and stress relief in the comfort of your own millennium.

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Dear Mark: What is Creatine?

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Primal Blueprint Success Story: More Like Grok

Before

After

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Are Plastics Safe?

Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

Exercises You Should Be Doing: 1-Legged Barbell RDL

CP Goes on a Field Trip

Let Them Eat Twinkies!!!! A Clarification

Exercises You Should Be Doing: Elbow Touches and Some Other Exercise That Has a Long Name That I Don’t Want To Include Here Because Then It Will Make the Title of This Blog Post Too Long

50 pounds of weight loss

Water, milk, sports drinks- what's the best choice?

The Fitness Industry: We Train People

Feedback in Fitness

Rest and Recovery: The Yin and Yang of Fitness

Stairs, Swimming, and Asthma: MPF Health News Round-Up!

Coaching Speed and Reflexes: Gentlemen, We Can Rebuild Him

Vindicating Steady-State Cardio

Your Right to Choose Healthy Food is at Stake … Again

Related Articles