Pages

Subscribe:

Labels

Saturday, 4 January 2014

Good and Bad, the Little Things Add Up in Fitness





Getty Images


The past year in fitness has been alternately inspiring, vexing and diverting, as my revisiting of all of the Phys Ed columns published in 2012 makes clear. Taken as a whole, the latest exercise-related science tells us that the right types and amounts of exercise will almost certainly lengthen your life, strengthen your brain, affect your waistline and even clear debris from inside your body’s cells. But too much exercise, other 2012 science intimates, might have undesirable effects on your heart, while popping painkillersdonning stilettos and sitting and reading this column likewise have their costs.

With New Year’s exercise resolutions still fresh and hopefully unbroken on this, day two of 2013, it now seems like the perfect time to review these and other lessons of the past year in fitness science.
First, since I am habitually both overscheduled and indolent, I was delighted to report, as I did in June, that the “sweet sport” for health benefits seems to come from jogging or moderately working out for only a brief period a few times a week.
Specifically, an encouraging 2012 study of 52,656 American adults found that those who ran 1 to 20 miles per week at an average pace of about 10 or 11 minutes per mile — my leisurely jogging speed, in fact — lived longer, on average, than sedentary adults. They also lived longer than the group (admittedly small) who ran more than 20 miles per week.
“These data certainly support the idea that more running is not needed to produce extra health and mortality benefits,” Dr. Carl J. Lavie, a cardiologist in New Orleans and co-author of the study told me. “If anything,” he said, “it appears that less running is associated with the best protection from mortality risk.”
Similarly, in a study from Denmark that I wrote about in September, a group of pudgy young men lost more weight after 13 weeks of exercising moderately for about 30 minutes several times a week than a separate group who worked out twice as much.
The men who exercised the most, the study authors discovered, also subsequently ate more than the moderate exercisers.
Even more striking, however, the vigorous exercisers subsequently sat around more each day than did the men who had exercised less, motion sensors worn by all of the volunteers showed.
“They were fatigued,” said Mads Rosenkilde, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Copenhagen and the study’s co-author.
Meanwhile, the men who had worked out for only about 30 minutes seemed to be energized by their new routines. They stood up, walked, stretched and even bounced in place more than they once had. “It looks like they were taking the stairs now, not the elevators, and just moving around more,” Mr. Rosenkilde said. “It was little things, but they add up.”
And that idea was, in fact, perhaps the most dominant exercise-science theme of 2012: that little things add up, with both positive and pernicious effects. Another of my favorite studies of 2012 found that a mere 10 minutes of daily physical activity increased life spans in adults by almost two years, even if the adults remained significantly overweight.
But the inverse of that finding proved to be equally true: not fitting periods of activity into a person’s daily life also affected life span. Perhaps the most chilling sentence that I wrote all year reported that, according to a large study of Western adults, “Every single hour of television watched after the age of 25 reduces the viewer’s life expectancy by 21.8 minutes.”
I am watching much less television these days.
But not all of the new fitness science I covered this year was quite so sobering or, to be honest, consequential. Some of the more practical studies simply validated common sense, including reports that to succeed in ball sports, keep your eye on the ball; during hot-weather exercise, pour cold water over your head; and, finally, on the day before a marathon, eat a lot.
But when I think about the science that has most affected how I plan my life, I return again and again to those studies showing that physical activity alters how long and how well we live. My days of heedless youth are behind me. So I won’t soon forget the study I wrote about in September detailing how moderate, frequent physical activity in midlife can delay the onset of illness and frailty in old age. Exercise won’t prevent you from aging, of course. Only death does that. But this study and others from this year underscore that staying active, even in moderate doses, dramatically improves how your aging body feels and responds.
Aging also inspired my favorite reader comment of 2012, which was posted in response to a research scientist’s name. “‘Dr. Head,’” the reader wrote. “That shall be the name of my all-senior-citizen metal band,” which, if its members gyrate and vigorously bound about like Mick Jagger on his recent tour, should ensure themselves decades in which to robustly perform.

Thursday, 2 January 2014

5 myths and facts about holiday weight gain

  • obese skinny women

    ISTOCK
It’s still prime indulging season, the time of year when you may feel tempted to give into lots of treats, and worry about the consequences in January. But are some of the things you believe about holiday weight gain actually old wives tales? Here are five falsehoods and truths about how the holidays really affect your weight.
MYTH: Most people gain a full size
A study from Texas Tech University followed 48 men and 100 women between the ages of 18 and 65 for the six weeks between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day. At the beginning and end of the study, researchers measured the subjects’ weights and body fat percentages. On average, the volunteers gained one and a half pounds (men about two pounds each, and about a pound for the women), far less than the 7 to 10 pounds often cited this time of year.

FACT: Bloating isn’t the same as fat weight
One of the reasons you may feel like you’ve packed on more weight than you have is because many holiday foods trigger bloating and water retention. For example, any time you eat more carbs than usual, you store the leftovers as glycogen, the “piggy bank” reserve of carbohydrate that gets socked away in your muscle tissue. 

Holding onto more glycogen than you usually do can cause you to feel sluggish, and make your jeans tighter, but as soon as you go back to your usual eating pattern, you’ll shed the surplus. Also, high sodium foods, like breads and baked goods, which don’t seem “salty” but are sodium-rich, will cause your body to hang onto excess fluid. While neither of these body shifts are fat weight, they can create a bloated look, and make you feel heavy.
MYTH: Exercise staves off holiday pounds
In the Texas Tech study, half of the subjects were inactive and the other half worked out roughly five hours a week, yet both groups gained the same amount of weight. This isn’t the first study to show that avid exercise may not lead to weight control, but I’m not suggesting that you should ditch your workouts. There are numerous benefits to working out that have nothing to do with weight, including lowering stress and improving sleep, so keep on keeping on, just don’t count on it as a way to cancel out your indulgences.

MYTH: I’ll lose it in January
Gaining just a pound or two of fat may seem miniscule, but to put just one pound in perspective, think about tacking 16 ounces of shortening or four sticks of butter onto your frame. Plus, other studies show that most of us never lose that holiday padding, possibly because after abandoning New Year’s resolutions, many people gain back all (or more) of the weight they lose. This “weight creep” is what leads to most Americans packing on about 10-20 pounds per decade.

FACT: It’s not too late to ward off some holiday poundage
If that last myth left you feeling discouraged, don’t give up! I’ve seen countless success stories that fly in the face of average statistics. To defy the odds starting today, commit to just two simple goals between now and January 1st – “budget” your carbs, and drink more water. 


This time of year, carbs are easy to overdo, and while I don’t advocate cutting them out altogether, I do think it’s smart to corral them. For example, if you packed a slice of mom’s banana nut bread in your lunch, opt for a salad topped with lean protein instead of a carb-heavy sandwich or wrap, and if you’re having potatoes with dinner, ditch the other can-live-without starches, things you won’t feel deprived forgoing. 
Strategy number two, reaching for more water, is not only important for staying hydrated (especially if you’ll be imbibing in some cocktails); it’s also a smart weight control strategy. One study found that adults who downed two cups of water before meals shed 40% more weight over a 12-week period, and another found that drinking water before meals naturally led to eating less. And drinking H2O will help you steer clear of both the sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, which may both interfere with controlling your weight.  
Cynthia Sass is a registered dietitian with master’s degrees in both nutrition science and public health. Frequently seen on national TV, she’s Health’s contributing nutrition editor, and privately counsels clients in New York, Los Angeles, and long distance. Cynthia is currently the sports nutrition consultant to the New York Rangers NHL team and the Tampa Bay Rays MLB team, and is board certified as a specialist in sports dietetics. Her latest New York Times best seller is S.A.S.S! Yourself Slim: Conquer Cravings, Drop Pounds and Lose Inches.

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Holick about Vitamin D

Sunday, 15 December 2013

How to Build a Core of Steel


By Christian Finn


How to build a core of steel
You’ve read a lot about how important it is to have a strong core.

But you’ve come across plenty of different opinions about the best way to get one.
Some say that squats and deadlifts build all the core strength you’ll ever need.
Others will tell you that the best way to strengthen your core is to spend time on a Swiss ball, BOSU ball or other “unstable” surface.
The term “core” causes a lot of confusion, mainly because everyone seems to have a different opinion about what it is.
For most people, the core is just another name for the abdominals. But the term actually refers to a much larger collection of muscles that stabilize the spine. These muscles work together to keep the spine as close to neutral – its naturally curved state – as possible.
Neutral spine isn’t a single position that your spine never moves from. Think of it as a neutral zone, or a range that your spine can move within while remaining relatively healthy. A lack of spinal stability can lead to movement outside of this zone, which in turn increases the risk of pain and/or tissue damage.
“When we talk about stability, what we really mean is that we want the lower back – the lumbar spine – to move as little as possible when it faces a challenge,” explains Lou Schuler in The New Rules of Lifting for Abs. “This small range of movement is called the neutral zone. The smaller and tighter it is, the more stability you have.”
When muscles contract, they create stiffness. Not only does muscular stiffness stabilize the spine and reduce the risk of tissue damage, it’s also a requirement as far as optimal athletic performance is concerned.
In the video below, Professor Stuart McGill, an expert in spine function at the University of Waterloo in Canada, explains why a “stiff” core is so important in sports that rely on strength, speed and power.
When the core is mentioned in this context (i.e. as a way of transmitting power) it usually refers to the muscles of the trunk and hips — basically, anything that isn’t the head, arms or legs.
It’s a lot more than just the abdominals and lower back, and extends from your shoulders all the way down to biceps femoris, which is the hamstring muscle that crosses the hip [2, 9].
Does exercise on an unstable surface lead to greater activation of the core muscles?
Performing an exercise on an unstable surface, such as sitting on a Swiss ball or standing on a BOSU ball, is supposed to place greater emphasis on some of the muscles in your core, helping to improve core stability, protect against back pain, improve athletic performance, and so on.
Such exercises often appear a lot harder than their more stable counterparts. That’s mainly because you’re working so hard to stay balanced. And because of their high novelty factor, they often create the impression that they’re superior to their more stable counterparts.
There is research out there to show that an exercise performed on an unstable surface leads to higher levels of core muscle activity than that same exercise performed on the ground [2].
Squatting with a light weight on a couple of inflatable discs, for example, leads to greater activation of muscles in the torso than squatting with that same weight on the floor [1].
The big limitation with many of these studies is that they involve the use of relatively light weights. Which is a problem, because most people can lift a much heavier weight when they’re standing on the floor than they can while wobbling about on an unstable surface.
What happens when you compare differences in muscle activity using loads that take into account the fact that you can lift more weight on a stable rather than an unstable surface?
That’s exactly what researchers from Eastern Illinois University wanted to find out [7]. They looked at muscle activation in a group of 12 trained men who performed four different exercises – the deadlift, squat, overhead press, and barbell curl – at two intensities (50% of 1-RM and 75% of 1-RM) while standing on both a stable and unstable surface (BOSU ball).
Muscle activity in the abdominals and lower back was not significantly different when subjects performed the deadlift, squat, overhead press, and barbell curl using a light weight while standing on a BOSU ball rather than on the floor.
What’s more, there was no significant difference in muscle activity between the stable 75% of 1-RM and unstable 50% of 1-RM conditions for the external obliques and lower back across all four lifts.
But when the overhead press was done on a stable surface using a heavier weight, rectus abdominis (the six-pack muscle) was worked a lot harder than it was during the same exercise on a BOSU ball using a lighter weight.
Performed on a stable surface, the overhead press and barbell curl also delivered a decent level of stimulation (40-50% of their maximal voluntary contraction, or MVC for short) to the deeper abdominal muscles.
There is a time and a place for instability. Some of the exercises in the video below, for example, use instability to place greater emphasis on the core musculature.
And physical therapists have been using unstable exercise devices (e.g. Wobble boards and Rocker boards) for years to help with the rehabilitation of knee and ankle injuries [10].
But with few exceptions, training with a light weight on an unstable surface isn’t going to work the core muscles any harder than the exact same exercise done with a heavier weight on a stable surface.
Are squats and deadlifts all you need to train your core?
Squats and deadlifts render all direct abdominal work completely redundant, as both exercises provide all the stimulation your abs will ever need.
That’s the theory, anyway. But the research paints a very different picture.
Squats and deadlifts do work many of the core muscles. But it’s mainly the ones in your back, especially the spinal erectors – those cable-like muscles that run up either side of your spine.
In fact, squats and deadlifts do a better job at working the spinal erectors than the quadrupedpelvic thrustside bridge and back extension exercises performed on a Swiss ball [3, 6].
During the deadlift in particular, they work very hard to keep your spine in its naturally arched position. Powerlifters have such well-developed spinal erectors mainly because of all the work those muscles do to prevent the spine from bending.
Squats and deadlifts are just fine for developing the posterior aspects of the core. Quadratus lumborum, a small but important muscle in the lower back that helps to stabilize the spine, is also heavily involved during the deadlift [4].
However, neither exercise does much for the anterior core, which is currently the trendy way to refer to the abs.
The figure below comes from Dr. Jeffrey McBride, a Professor in Biomechanics at Appalachian State University. He measured muscle activation in the abdominal muscles of trained lifters performing a number of different exercises.
squats-deadlifts-rectus-abdominis
As you can see, squats and deadlifts – even when you’re using a heavy weight that’s 80-90% of your 1-RM – don’t hit rectus abdominis particularly hard.
In fact, the overhead press triggers greater rectus abdominis activity than both the deadlift and squat [7]. But it’s still relatively low (around 10% of its MVC) compared to exercises like the rollout or even the curl-up.
Someone who can perform a standing overhead press with their bodyweight and deadlift twice their bodyweight will have developed a very high level of core strength simply by focusing on getting stronger in both exercises.
But for complete core development, squats, deadlifts and presses aren’t enough, and you’ll need exercises that work the abs directly. I’ve listed some of my favorite ones here.
While I’m on the subject of core training, I want to briefly mention the issue of spinal rotation.
Probably the most popular “spinal rotation” exercise is the broom handle twist, which is without doubt one of the most pointless exercises ever invented.
That’s not to say there’s no need to train the muscles that twist the torso. But there are far better ways to do it than twisting from side to side with a broom handle on your back.
Rather than rotation, think resisted rotation. And by resisted rotation, I’m talking about exercises that require you to resist forces trying to pull your torso around to the left or the right.
You’re still training the muscles involved in spinal rotation, but you’re doing so in a way that poses less risk to the spine.
Let’s take the Single Arm Dumbbell Row as an example. Although this is primarily an exercise to work the muscles in your back, the external obliques (the muscles on the side of your waist) are also involved. That’s because they’re actively preventing your torso from twisting.
Remember, many of the muscles in the torso can be trained very effectively bypreventing movement rather than producing it. An exercise doesn’t have to involve an actual twist to work the twisting muscles.
The Long Lever Plank Shoulder Tap, demonstrated in the video below by Ben Bruno, is another good example of what I mean.
In the starting position, you’re resisting spinal extension (arching your back), which makes this a particularly effective exercise for working rectus abdominis. Removing one of the contact points (your hand) from the floor introduces an element of instability, which then requires your body to resist rotation.
If you find this exercise too difficult, keep your hands under your shoulders in a push-up position rather than out in front of your body.
Exercises that involve resisted rotation are a far better choice than those involving actual rotation, such as the Russian Twist or Windshield Wiper, both of which make me cringe every time I see someone doing them.
If you have a history of back injury, or even if you have a healthy, pain-free back and want it to stay that way, I’d highly recommend that you steer clear of any exercise that involves this type of movement.
That doesn’t mean you should avoid rotation altogether. But make sure the movement comes from the hip, and allow the hip and back to move together at the same time, almost as if they were fused together. Watch the video below to see exactly what I mean.
Building a core of steel doesn’t need to be complicated, time consuming or boring. Nor does it require exercising on a Swiss ball, BOSU ball or any other surface that isn’t the floor.
In fact, many of the muscles in your core work very hard to prevent spinal movement during exercises like squats, deadlifts, single-arm rows, rollouts/walkouts, and standing presses. These movements build not just core strength but whole-body strength as well.
SHAMELESS PLUG: Muscle Evo wraps up all my best ideas and advice into a complete science-based training program that you can use to build muscle, burn fat and get strong. Click here for more.

About Christian Finn

Christian Finn
Christian Finn holds a master's degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer and has been featured on BBC TV and radio, as well as in Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Fit Pro, Zest, and Perfect Body magazine. Connect with Christian onFacebookTwitter or Google+.
References
1. Anderson K, Behm DG. (2005). Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat movements. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology30, 33-45
2. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM, Cowley PM. (2010). The use of instability to train the core musculature. Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism35, 91-108
3. Hamlyn N, Behm DG, Young WB. (2007). Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight-training exercises and isometric instability activities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research21, 1108-1112
4. McGill SM. (1997). Distribution of tissue loads in the low back during a variety of daily and rehabilitation tasks. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development34, 448-458
5. McGill S, Juker D, Kropf P. (1996). Quantitative intramuscular myoelectric activity of quadratus lumborum during a wide variety of tasks. Clinical Biomechanics11, 170-172
6. Nuzzo JL, McCaulley GO, Cormie P, Cavill MJ, McBride JM. (2008). Trunk muscle activity during stability ball and free weight exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research22, 95-102
7. Willardson JM, Fontana FE, Bressel E. (2009). Effect of surface stability on core muscle activity for dynamic resistance exercises. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance4, 97-109
8. McGill SM, McDermott A, Fenwick CM. (2009). Comparison of different strongman events: trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine motion, load, and stiffness. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research23, 1148-1161
9. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM, Cowley PM. (2010). Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology position stand: The use of instability to train the core in athletic and nonathletic conditioning. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism35, 109-112
10. Behm D, Colado JC. (2012). The effectiveness of resistance training using unstable surfaces and devices for rehabilitation. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy7, 226-241


 
Blogger Templates