Modern medical science has finally caught on to the reality that muscle tissue is much more then just something that attaches to your skeleton to help you move your body or carry your groceries. It’s an essential part of your health, intimately connected to immunity as well as a long list of other benefits. A perfect example of that was found in a recent report called “Men with big muscles cut cancer risk by 40 per cent” which covered an interesting study. From the media report:

“In recent years, experts have recommended a healthy diet and lifestyle - including regular aerobic exercise such as jogging or cycling to reduce the risks of the disease. But the latest study, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, suggests it may be just as important to build up muscle strength. A team of experts, led by scientists from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, tracked the lifestyles of 8,677 men aged between 20 and 82 for more than two decades.”

So far so good, and as the reader can see, a large study that ran a long time. The study found those men who regularly worked out showed significantly lower rates of cancer, and most interesting was the effect was constant “…Even among volunteers who had excess tummy fat or a high body mass index, regular weight training seemed to have a protective effect.”

However, and as one should expect, these researchers stressed keeping a healthy weight was still an essential part of avoiding various diseases. The researchers recommend regular weight training in light of these findings. But then, that odd anti muscle bias seems to creep in. Ergo, a spokesman for Cancer Research UK Health information officer Jessica Harris is quoted as saying “There’s no need to become a body builder. Just 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week that leaves you warm and slightly out of breath can have a positive effect.”

There’s so many things wrong with the above, it’s hard to know where to start, but here’s some thoughts:

• There’s a looooooooooong way, time, and effort, between being a “bodybuilder” and “30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week that leaves you warm and slightly out of breath.”

• As anyone who has spent any time in a gym knows (and we all know that eliminates most scientists but I digress…) building muscle is not easy, so “30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week that leaves you warm and slightly out of breath” is not going to do jack you-know-what for actually increasing muscle mass. In fact, it may not even prevent the loss of muscle mass that happens with age, a condition known as sarcopenia. People interested in learning more about sarcopenia, can read my article on the topic here: Sarcopenia, the undiagnosed epidemic

• No doubt, 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week “that leaves you warm and slightly out of breath” is far more then most people get now, and would improve their health, but as it relates specifically to the findings of this study, the advice totally misses the mark in my view. The fact is, if a person is looking to actually have any real impact on muscle mass, they need to work with a minimum of 60% 1RM for beginners, and 80% 1RM for anything beyond beginners, on a regular basis. The data is quite clear on that fact, so some low intensity exercise that leaves one “warm and slightly out of breath” done for 30 minutes is advice that smacks of typical anti muscle bias found in much of the science/medical community and the media. It’s either bias, flat out ignorance, or both…God forbid, they may lift some heavy weights and end up looking like a bodybuilder!

• I’m sure the medical/scientific community does not want to scare people away from resistance exercise (e.g., weight training) by actually admitting they will have to work hard in the gym to actually see any effects on muscle mass and strength, but giving people faulty advice that will not lead to the results they want does not seem like a productive way to accomplish anything other then to confuse people.

• I know hard work is a four letter word these days, but there’s no free lunch, there’s no Santa, no Easter Bunny, and getting the known health benefits of muscle mass (not to mention the aesthetic benefits!) does in fact take dedication, a bit of thought and planning, and - sorry to say- hard work with loads/weights heavy enough to kick your a$$. Lifting a beer to my mouth a hundred times will leave some “warm and slightly out of breath” but it aint going to build any muscles!

See you in the gym!

Tweet Post 

Staying nutrition and fitness oriented, I have heard many claim how difficult it is to eat well on cruises and such. That is a BS excuse honestly. I have had no problems eating well and staying active on cruises. It’s easy to eat well on a cruise, but as usual, you have to make choices. For example, a typical days eating on this cruise was:

Breakfast was an Egg white and vege omelette with a little cheese and oatmeal and coffee
lunch was usually some baked chicken, salad, and maybe a cookie!
mid day I would have a snack in the room, which for me was a protein drink using fresh fruit I took back to my room from the lunch buffet.
Dinner was usually fish of some kind, salad, either a small desert or a few glasses of wine.

I walked every day around the ship (4 laps was 1.5 miles) and hit the gym and or the pool a few times.

If anything, I lost a few lbs! It’s not rocket science. It’s about the usual issues: making the right choices even when stuff you know you should not eat is right under your nose. Sure, I few nights I ate some “junk” ’cause I was on vacation, but I didn’t use that as an excuse as a free ride to eat like crap for 7 days either.

If I can do it, so can you!

See my full vacation album here!

Tweet Post 

One: The Subtle Nuances Of Temperature Regulation

Sometimes I feel a little like a cold-blooded reptile during my workouts (how’s that for an opening teaser?)

I’m simply referring to the ongoing (and usually subconscious) effort to regulate temperature during my training sessions. After all, your performance will suffer if you’re running too hot or too cold. Being too hot is fatiguing, distracting, and may also result in excessive perspiration, which, aside from being annoying, can actually be a safety hazard. And obviously, if you allow yourself to cool off too much, your performance suffers as your soft tissues lose their pliability. Here are a few of the things I catch myself doing as I try to maintain a happy thermic medium:

• Toweling off (prevents cooling due to sweat evaporation)
• Not toweling off (accelerates cooling due to sweat evaporation)
• Drinking water (decreases core temperature)
• Not drinking water (maintains core temperature)
• Resting longer between sets (allows cooling)
• Shorter rests between sets (prevents cooling)
• Pacing between sets (prevents cooling)
• Sitting between sets (accelerates cooling)
• Putting on more clothing (prevents cooling)
• Taking off clothing (accelerates cooling)
• Standing under A/C vent (accelerates cooling)
• Moving away from A/C vent (prevents cooling)

As if I haven’t over-analyzed this sufficiently, one more important thought about temperature regulation: if you’re not already doing so, you should consider using some of the truly great sweat-wicking fabrics that are available today (most notably Under Armor, but also the fabrics used by Adidas, Nike, and Russell, just to name a few). Cotton clothing, especially if you sweat a lot and/or live in a hot/humid climate, is terrible at wicking sweat which means you’ll have a hard time maintaining a consistently-ideal body temperature.

Two: The Load-Speed-Technique Continuum

Recently I’ve been cranking out some (for me) big snatches, and right in the middle of a heavy double the other day, it occurred to me that for some time now, my head has been so wrapped around technical issues that I’ve forgotten about the value of speed, which is arguably one of the most critical facets of successful lifting. After all, it doesn’t matter if you’re squatting, benching, flipping a tire, or chinning yourself, moving the load faster has an amazing way of ensuring success.

And technique, by the way, is velocity-specific: just because you can execute a slow lift properly doesn’t mean you can execute a fast lift properly. As I work my way through my warm-up sets, I’ll typically perform the first rep slowly and the second rep faster, trying to maintain technical consistency over both reps. Then, as I hit my top sets, I’ll try to maintain that technical model with limit and near-limit weights.

Three: Technique VS Speed

You might be surprised to learn that I think slow lifts are valuable. Note that I didn’t way “purposefully slow.” I’m just referring to heavy lifts that are slow for the simple reason that you can’t move them any faster. I’ve been thinking about this lately because I’ve been focusing more on heavier squats and deadlifts, and after watching videos like this one from last week

I’m amazed too see how fast I’m actually moving weights that actually feel quite slow. This is probably due to the fact that I spend most of my time moving weights very quickly. I’m better off (and you would be too) using a variety of lifting speeds, ranging from accelerative to grinding— this helps to fill out your sensory portfolio, and you’ll be less likely to miss a new PR opportunity when 85% feels like 100%.

Tweet Post 

The Efficacy Of Statins…

One of the most important talks at this conference looked at the efficacy of statins and was given by a Dr. Kastelein from the Netherlands. There are currently seven versions of this drug available for clinical use: atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pitavastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin. Although controversial, the bulk of the data to date finds these drugs can be of clinical value in some populations. According to Dr. Kastelein “Statin treatment markedly improves outcomes of hypercholesterolemia and dyslipidemia patients by lowering their plasma levels of low-density lipid cholesterol (LDL-C), thereby reducing the frequency of primary and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events.”

However he also made it clear that “…despite coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality being significantly reduced following treatment with these drugs, it is not eliminated completely.”

Therefore, it’s clear that statin drugs are not a cure-all for this disease, and unless combined with lifestyle changes, such as nutrition and exercise – and possibly nutritional supplementation – these and other drugs may not prevent cardio vascular disease when used alone. Of course, for many, making those needed changes in lifestyle will eliminate the need for a statin drug in the first place, but that is not true in all cases as some people have a genetic predisposition to dyslipidemia and or cardio vascular disease.

Dr. Kastelein outlined a large body of data that examined the efficacy of the statin drugs using various meta analysis reviews, and summed it up that even the best outcomes of these drugs still left a high prevalence of disease: “It has been repeatedly shown that achieving a 25–35% reduction in LDL-C with statin therapy decreases CV risk by approximately one-third, leaving two thirds remaining.”

Thus, It’s clear that as a mono therapy (i.e., used as the only therapy), statin drugs are not the answer to the number one killer of people in industrialized nations, but as part of a combined approach, in certain populations, are potentially useful drugs.

Nutritional Supplements…

It was encouraging to see at this conference a focus on both lifestyle and nutritional supplements, either alone or in combination with the statin drugs, as potentially effective treatments for cardio vascular disease (CVD).

This conference had an impressive amount of research presented on the many benefits of omega-3 fatty acids either alone, or in combination with various statin drugs. Large amounts of data concluded that omega 3 fatty acids were effective at improving risk factors for CVD, and when combined with statins, more effective then statins alone.

This conference saw a large number of studies looking at the effects of CoQ10 either alone or in conjunction with statin drugs. Most of the focus was on CoQ10’s ability to counter the well-established drop in CoQ10 tissue levels in those taking statin drugs. One study presented was of particular importance in that it showed the addition of CoQ10 can greatly reduce statin-associated myopathy, which can include pain, weakness, and tiredness as well as other symptoms in those using statin drugs.

Another nutrient to get a great deal of attention at this conference - either alone or in conjunction with statin drug therapy - was the vitamin Niacin (vitamin B3). This conference further confirmed niacin as a therapy for preventing CVD. Several studies presented showed both alone and in combination with statin drugs, niacin raises HDL, lowers plasma triglyceride (TG) levels, as well as having other beneficial effects on CVD risk factors.

As with any large conference, the above is truly the tip of the proverbial iceberg regarding the large amount of research and information presented at this important conference. Many other nutrients, such as garlic, green tea, various polyphenols, plant sterols, L-arginine, and many others, were shown to be of potential benefit to reducing the risk of CVD - and or as an adjunct therapy to drugs such as the statins - as well as others.

Stay tuned for more information and research from this conference….

Tweet Post 

Only applied knowledge is power, so don’t just read, but apply!

Front Loading

Efficient people instinctively try to get the majority of their work done early in the day (this also applies to week or month). The rationale is simple: you have more energy early in the day than you do later on.

Therefore, when I create training programs for my clients, I rarely indicate a standard amount of rest between each set. Instead, I’ll indicate a time-frame for all sets to be completed in (for example, 8 sets of 3 repetitions to be performed in 15 minutes - you might recognize Escalating Density Training parameters in this example!).

In this way, my client will instinctively attempt to get a “head start” by taking shorter rests between the initial sets, which will permit longer rest intervals for later sets.

Since fatigue accumulates over the duration of a workout, front loading is far more efficient than using standard rest intervals between sets, which is how 99% of all people organize their workouts. Interested in joining the one-percent club? Apply this concept to your workouts starting today— the rewards will be significant and immediate.

Use Antagonistic Pairings

Every muscle in your body has a “partner” (called the antagonist) which is capable of opposing it’s contractile forces. For example, when you perform a biceps curl, the biceps muscle would be termed the “agonist” and the tricep would be the “antagonist.” (the easy way to remember these terms is to think that the agonist is the one that is in agony because it’s performing the work).

As you curl the weight, the motor cortex of your brain signals the triceps to relax in order to allow the biceps to contract. This phenomenon is called Sherrington’s Law of Reciprocal Inhibition. Here’s how we can take advantage of this phenomenon in a very practical way:

You first perform a set of barbell curls, and then rest perhaps 1-2 minutes. For set two, you perform a set of lying dumbbell triceps extensions. As you do so, the biceps muscles are “inhibited.”

The triceps contraction actually forces the biceps to de-activate, which simply means they will recover faster as a result of having performed the set of triceps extensions. You then rest, go back to the curls, and back and forth until all sets for both exercises are completed.

There are three additional benefits to the use of antagonistic pairings:

If you perform (for example) 5 sets of biceps curls one after the other using two minutes of rest between each set, you obviously get two minutes of rest between each set. However, if you perform a set of curls, then rest two minutes, then perform a set of triceps extensions, rest two minutes, etc., you now achieve more than four minutes of rest between two sets of the same exercise, even though the total workout duration remains the same.   

Training muscles in antagonistic pairs ensures equal (or at least similar) strength development around both sides of the joint. This is very important for overall size and strength gains, because if the strength ratio between agonist and antagonist is significantly disparate, the brain will reduce your strength levels in an effort to protect your joints.   

In the preceding example, as you perform your biceps curls, you are keeping the involved joint warm for your next set of triceps extensions. Over time, this can be very meaningful in terms of joint integrity and health.

Here are a few examples of muscle pairings which correspond to the principles I’ve just discussed:

Lats & Pecs

Biceps & Triceps

Quads & Hamstrings

Abdominals and Low Back Musculature

Lats & Triceps (biceps are usually heavily involved during most lat exercises)

Pecs & Biceps (triceps are usually heavily involved during most pec exercises)

Use Submaximal Accelerative Efforts

If your best bench press for one rep is 300 pounds, then obviously the most amount of tension you can place on the targeted muscles will be just slightly more than 300 pounds.

However, Soviet force-plate research has shown that a load corresponding to 65% of your maximum capability (195 pounds in this example) can also result in 300 pounds worth of tension, provided that the weight is maximally accelerated. You might argue that there is no advantage either way, since both methods produce approximately the same amount of force.

However, there are distinct advantages to using “submaximal accelerative efforts” as opposed to the maximal weights method:

Using the above example, if you use 300 pounds, you can only perform one rep, and then you’re done. If you use 195 pounds for sets of three using maximum acceleration, you can perform multiple sets— usually between 8 and 12 sets can be performed before there is a significant decline in lifting speed. This allows far more total volume within a session.   

When using submaximal accelerative efforts as described above, you’ll always have several reps in reserve on any given set, which means you can dramatically reduce the need for a spotter (although using a competent spotter is still a good idea when using unfamiliar exercises).   

Our bodies are essentially hard-wired to accelerate whenever performing difficult motor tasks such as running, lifting, or jumping. In fact, people have to be taught to move slowly, since it is far more efficient (and instinctive) to take advantage of momentum when performing motor tasks such as lifting heavy weights.

If these ideas seem unusual to you, let me stress that the most successful people in life are open-minded.

Have you ever adopted a new habit that ended up having a significant positive impact on your life? The three concepts I’ve presented here have had that effect on my own training, and on the results I’ve achieved for my clients. I’m confident they’ll produce similar results for you as well.

Tweet Post 

You may still not agree but it might just change your ideas on how your abs should be trained.

This is Part 1 - keep your eyes peeled for Part 2, coming soon!

1. Using A Belt Makes Your Abs Stronger, Not Weaker.

This is perhaps on of the most pervasive myths that people hold about abdominal training, and about training in general. Let’s apply some simple common sense to the issue: if you can lift more weight with a belt than without (and virtually all people can), are your abs “asleep” as many people who have you believe? Or, are they working harder than they would be without a belt?

The reason you’re stronger with a belt is that it gives your abs something to contract against. Imagine you want to train your legs and all you have is two primitive options:

1) You can “leg press” a heavy box by pushing against it with your feet while sitting on a slick floor. Or…

2) You “leg press” a heavy box by pushing it with your feet while sitting on the floor with your back against a solid wall.

Which option do you think will result in more tension for your leg muscles? Obviously the second option is far preferable, because by wedging yourself between an immovable object and a heavy moveable object, you can create a high level of tension on the muscle’s you’re trying to train.

Using a belt during heavy squats, deadlifts, or Olympic lifts works the same way- by giving your abs something to push against, they can create greater intra-abdominal pressure, allowing you to 1) lift more and 2) lift more with less chance of spinal injury.

Just having a belt however, doesn’t ensure success- you’ve gotta use it properly. The three key things to remember are:

1) Wear the belt high enough so your abs can exert pressure against it- many people wear a belt too low and rob themselves of the potential benefit

2) Don’t wear the belt too tight- a looser fit allows your abs to get better leverage against the belt. And finally…

3) Get a high quality belt- some nylon/Velcro belts won’t stand up to heavy use. Case in point: I recently purchased such a belt from my local Sports Authority and broke the buckle the first time I used it (must be my weakened abs from excessive belt use). Thinking it was a fluke, I returned the belt for a new one, and once again, broke it the first time I used it.
2. Having A 6-Pack Is About Diet, Not Training

You can train abs, all abs, nothing but abs, all the time, and still not have a six pack UNLESS- and here’s the kicker- unless you’re below 10% bodyfat. And probably you’ll need to be below 8% bodyfat. The truth is you already have abs- you just can’t see them. Since this isn’t a nutrition article, I won’t elaborate on how you should eat, so if you need help in that area, you might consider an expert nutrition consultation.

Now of course, you can drop bodyfat through training as well, but not “ab training per se:” instead, focus your efforts on challenging the largest possible muscle groups. My favorites include heavy weight circuits including a mix of Olympic lifts, power lifts, and strongman lifts.
3. The Main Function Of Your Abs Is Not Force Production

Although the abdominal muscles can and do function to flex and rotate the trunk, I’d argue that their primary function is to prevent unwanted motion. Specifically, strong abs help to protect the spine in two ways:

1) They create intra-abdominal pressure which helps to counteract compressive forces resulting from axial loading (e.g., squats, deadlifts)

2) They help to prevent forces that take the spine out of its preferred neutral position. More on this in the second installment next time….
Stay Tuned For Part 2!

Tweet Post 

Tweet Post 

The forums below range from mostly young men (e.g., Muscular Development) to mostly young women (e.g., Oxygen) and the results are fairly consistent.

If you combine the answers from question 2 and 3 (which are in essence the same question in terms of purchase decisions) you get a clear picture; the majority of people in this demographic cares much more about taste and cost ( though cost was not in the poll that was a common response on the forums themselves…) then “natural” vs. synthetics.

The poll question I asked were:

• I strictly use products with natural sweeteners/flavors
• I prefer natural to synthetic, but it’s not a deal breaker
• I don’t pay attention to how they do it, as long as it tastes good!
• I prefer protein powders with no flavors of any kind/flavor myself

Results from my BodyBuilding Revealed Forums:

I strictly use products with natural sweeteners/flavors 20.59%
I prefer natural to synthetic, but it’s not a deal breaker 50.00%
I don’t pay attention to how they do it, as long as it tastes good! 14.71%
I prefer protein powders with no flavors of any kind/flavor myself 14.71%

Results from Muscular Development Forums:

I strictly use products with natural sweeteners/flavors 8.82%
I prefer natural to synthetic, but it’s not a deal breaker 29.41%
I don’t pay attention to how they do it, as long as it tastes good! 58.82%
I prefer protein powders with no flavors of any kind/flavor myself 2.94%

Iron Magazine forums:

I strictly use products with natural sweeteners/flavors 36.36%
I prefer natural to synthetic, but it’s not a deal breaker 18.18%
I don’t pay attention to how they do it, as long as it tastes good! 45.45%
I prefer protein powders with no flavors of any kind/flavor myself 0

Siouxcountry.com

I strictly use products with natural sweeteners/flavors 5.41%
I prefer natural to synthetic, but it’s not a deal breaker 43.24%
I don’t pay attention to how they do it, as long as it tastes good! 45.95%
I prefer protein powders with no flavors of any kind/flavor myself 5.41%

Oxygen Magazine Forums:

I strictly use products with natural sweeteners/flavors 32.26%
I prefer natural to synthetic, but it’s not a deal breaker 29.03%
I don’t pay attention to how they do it, as long as it tastes good! 32.26%
I prefer protein powders with no flavors of any kind/flavor myself 6.45%

Sample sizes were not huge, but pretty consistent….

Tweet Post 

But sometimes his references to supposedly unhealthy products and practices take on a vaguely sinister tone, as if there is a secret conspiracy designed to ruin civilization as we know it. Someone forwarded to me just such a Mercola article earlier this week, and the introductory copy had this person concerned about a product that she uses: erythritol.

“Exactly What is The New Sweetener Erythritol?” was the teaser headline in the e-mail. Continuing this allusion to possibly nefarious substances, the next line warned, “This is not the only ingredient that makes VitaminWater a poor nutritional choice.” The first paragraph of the article even referred to this polyol as “a mysterious product called Erythritol”. To my correspondent, this sounded fairly ominous, yet she couldn’t figure out after reading the article exactly what Mercola’s problem is with erythritol.

Well, after reading the article, neither could I. Why? Because once the inflammatory intro is finished, the word “erythritol” appears exactly once in the entire article. That’s it.
Mercola’s real beef seems to be that Coca-Cola has the audacity to market sweetened water as a health drink, but that isn’t very attention-getting, of course, partly because sugary drinks have been around for a century, and mostly because Mercola has railed against this kind of thing so much in the past that even his fan base doesn’t listen anymore. Thus he needs to find some other avenue of attack, something that sounds, well, “mysterious”, so that he can instruct us all in the unhealthy realities of the product and gain our commercial thanks for saving us.

Apparently, Mercola believes that his readers will be impressed by his being ahead of the curve on erythritol, even though the substance is actually older than I am. Hardly news-breaking, but then Mercola obviously was hard-pressed for fresh material for his routine. His article does mention possible absorption problems with significant consumptions of other polyols, and by implication we are supposed to assume that erythritol is equally causative, but Mercola does not exactly write that, which is proper, because erythritol is the best absorbed of the polyols.
When I e-mailed back my correspondent with the additional data that erythritol has a glycæmic index of 0 and only 0.2 kcals per gram, she decided that the fact that she had used the sweetener for years without problems was more informative than Mercola’s missive.

Personally, I’m hoping that from now on he delivers more headlines like “Sunlight Can Cut Your Risk of Death in Half”. That, at least, was pretty funny.

Tweet Post 

A new study performed on mice shows that the Curcumin (found in the spice turmeric) may cut body fat and weight gain.

The study showed that curcumin, the natural pigment that gives the spice turmeric its yellow colour, may prevent or reduce body weight gain.

Mice fed a high-fat diet and supplemented with curcumin were found to have reduced body weight gain, as well as lowering blood cholesterol levels, according to findings published in the Journal of Nutrition.

The study attributed the suppression of angiogenesis as the mechanism by which curcumin works. “The curcumin suppression of angiogenesis in adipose tissue together with its effect on lipid metabolism in adipocytes (fat cells) may contribute to lower body fat and body weight gain,” wrote the authors, led by Asma Ejaz from the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University.

If the study can be repeated in studies with humans, it could see curcumin added to the burgeoning weight loss and management market.

Study details

Ejaz and her co-workers performed in vitro and in vivo experiments. The effects of different doses of curcumin on the growth (differentiation) of 3T3-L1 fat cells (adipocytes) showed a suppression of differentiation and an increase in programmed cell death (apoptosis).

The in vivo experiments involved feeding mice a high-fat diet (22 per cent) and supplementing the animals with 500 mg of curcumin per kg of diet for 12 weeks. The pigment was found to reduce body weight gain and fat mass, without affecting the levels of food intake, wrote the researchers.

Note: In human terms, that amount to about 45 grams of curcumini per day, which is A LOT! But… perhaps the next step will be to identify the active ingredients in curcumin that are responsible for this effect.

Also of interest…. a reduction was noted in the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), one of a number of genes associated with angiogenesis (blood vessel formation that is necessary for the growth of fat tissue).

Curcumin was also associated with significantly lower cholesterol levels and a reduction in the expression of peroxisome proliferators-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma), a protein that plays a role in metabolic functions.

Source: Journal of Nutrition
Volume 139, Pages 919-925, doi:10.3945/jn.108.100966
“Curcumin Inhibits Adipogenesis in 3T3-L1 Adipocytes and Angiogenesis and Obesity in C57/BL Mice”
Authors: A. Ejaz, D. Wu, P. Kwan, M. Meydani

Tweet Post