Two Steps Forward, One Step Back.

Do you know what the trouble is with looking solely at performance as a method of gauging results?  It’s easy to underestimate the beneficial impact of change.

Imagine, for example, that you’re a professional-level golfer.  Your coach tells you to switch your hand position because it will help to prevent that nasty habit you have of breaking left on wedge shots.   How do you think your swing will be for the next few days/weeks/months?  Yet, if you stick through the learning curve, you’ll likely do better at this year’s Masters.

I’m not talking about variety for variety’s sake, of course.  What I’m alluding to are small changes that cause a slight, immediate dip in performance but pay off big in the end.  It’s probably worth it, for example, for you to learn to pull sumo instead of conventional if you’ve got short legs, even if you’ve been pulling conventional for years.  Similarly, while there’s nothing wrong with keeping the same routine as long as it works, why not try rearranging your workout schedule or exercise order to see if you derive any additional benefit?

How do you optimize results while avoiding the trap of the constant tinkerer?  Make one small change at a time, and give it time to work.

With anything involving a change in technique or skill, do yourself a favor and reduce the weight considerably.  Give yourself two weeks or so to allow the technique to “groove in” and to build back up to an appropriate poundage.  Accept that your results may be a little less than stellar while you work out the kinks and press on.

Of course, if anything hurts, abandon ship.

Are you sticking with the path of foolish consistency?  Or tweaking your workout so often your workout log looks like a map of Middle Earth?  Or neither?   Leave me a comment; I’d like to know.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It! Digg It!
    www.sajithmr.com

Getting Fit Fast and Crunches.

Gretchen Reynolds recently had a couple of interesting stories in the NY Times:

Can You Get Fit in Six Minutes a Week?

Is Your Ab Workout Hurting Your Back?

Re: Getting Fit in Six Minutes a Week:

The take-home message is that researchers found that higher intensity (read: effort) yet short duration exercise bouts conferred equal endurance benefits as exercising at a lower intensity nearly 50 times longer.  In other words, by working your tail off for a few minutes, you’d receive the same physiological benefit as someone who spent 5000% more time at the gym but merely plodded along.

That, I’d say, is significant.  Work hard, kiddies.

With regards to the ab story, all I have to say is:

1. Most of Dr. McGill’s research (neat as it is) was done on spines from human cadavers.  Cadaverous tissue, being dead, doesn’t respond the same way as tissue in a live (read: warm) human body - it is much less elastic and pliable.  So much of the high force data McGill obtained is tainted by the inherent rigidity of cadaverous tissue (since you’ll register higher forces on a more rigid object).

2. Those who advocated “sucking in the abs” as opposed to “bracing” confused contraction with stability.  In the same vein, tightening your shoulder muscles doesn’t mean “pull your shoulders up to your ears.”

3. Unless you’ve got a specific spinal problem you’re working on (with a qualified professional, I hope), you’ll be well served by working the basic exercises with a heavy (for you) weight.  Performing multi-joint exercises that require abdominal stability will adequately work your core.  Am I saying don’t do side bridges or bird dogs?  No.  But what I am saying is if you’re crunched for time, get your squats in first.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It! Digg It!
    www.sajithmr.com

I Can’t Perform This Exercise.

One of my young wards has an algebra final today that he has been dreading for the better part of the last two weeks.  The obvious reason: He’s “not so good in math.”  Now, mind you, he’s a thoughtful, insightful kid to whom most things (in school, anyways) come easy.

Often, when undergoing the learning process, clients will complain to me, “I can’t do this exercise! I’m not a natural athlete.”  Well, that may be true at the moment - “yet…”

What does it mean to be a “natural?”  To the observer, the natural athlete moves with a grace and fluidity that the average person doesn’t possess.  The natural makes everything look easy.

That level of performance can be a function of natural talent and latent ability, but more often, performance is an indicator of the amount of practice put into an endeavor.  One of the more interesting notions tossed around in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” is the idea that there is a quantifiable amount of practice that is required for skill mastery, irrespective of latent talent.  In other words, if you put in the time, you can end up performing at the highest levels, despite not having so-called “natural talent”.  In fact, it’s likely that you’ll surpass those so-called “natural athletes” - unless, of course, they put in more practice time than you do (and there’s evidence that they do just that - making them look like “natural athletes”).

What does this mean for you and your exercise?  That it’s ok if you can’t squat without falling over, or that your shoulders keep popping up when you press overhead.  You just need more practice; that’s all.  Take the time to perfect your form; allow yourself the opportunity to adjust to resistances before you pile the weight on; keep at it, no matter how awkward you feel.  Eventually, not only will you look like a pro, you’ll get the results you’re looking for as well.

So what did I end up doing for Max?  You guessed it: I did my best to help him understand the concepts and made him do practice problems until his arm fell off.  Practice might not make you perfect, but it sure as heck makes you better.

Edited (6/23/09):  In case you were wondering, Max got a 92 on his algebra final.  He’s a natural.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It! Digg It!
    www.sajithmr.com

The Restaurant Analogy.

Often I’m asked why I disagree that fat loss is “merely a game of calories in vs. calories out” and maintain that it’s a function of hormonal tone.  Gary Taubes makes an interesting analogy:

If you owned a restaurant and hired me as a consultant to help you figure out why business is down, and I came back and told you, “Oh, it’s because you have fewer people going into your restaurant than going out of your restaurant”, you’d probably slug me.  Of course you’ve got fewer people going in than coming out; that’s not the point.  The question you need to look at is:  Why?

Why indeed.  What’s implied by the statement “you’re fat because you eat too many calories” is that it’s all your fault, you dreadful pig.  There are starving children in rural China; how dare you.  I would argue that they are compelled to eat by virtue of what they eat.

Now this isn’t to absolve the overweight of personal responsibility.  ‘Tis true, no one held a gun to your head and forced you to eat all the wrong things.  But what it does do is to help you identify what those wrong things are, so you can stop eating them.

When you raise insulin levels (particularly easy to do if you overconsume refined carbohydrates), you do two things:

1.  You shift your cells from energy utilization to energy storage.  In other words, you turn on the ‘fat storage’ switch.

2.  You increase hunger.  There’s a reason “Betcha can’t eat just one” is the slogan for Lay’s Potato Chips and not Land O’ Lakes Butter.

Here’s an intellectual exercise:

Get together 8000 Calories’ worth of sweet potatoes, avocados, chicken, eggs, and leafy greens. Put it in a big pile in front of you, set a timer to 24 hours, and make that pile disappear before the timer goes off.  Good luck.

Now, put 8000 Calories’ worth of soda, pasta, pizza, and chips in front of you.  Set timer to 24 hours.  Go to town.  Again, best of luck.

I don’t think you’ll disagree with me that completing the task in scenario two (carbs) is far, far, far, far more feasible than completing scenario one.  But you don’t need to take it from me.  Just ask Michael Phelps how he managed to keep his dietary intake at 8000-10000 Calories/day while training for the Beijing Olympics:

I’m eating a lot of pasta and pizza. I’m eating a lot of carbs.

To repeat:  Eating carbs makes you store fat.  And it makes you hungry.

</end rant>

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It! Digg It!
    www.sajithmr.com

Priorities: Part 2, or Nutrition in 5 Easy Questions.

In Part 1 of this mini-series, I proposed that creating an algorithm can help you minimize confusion and help you to wade through the muck of needlessly complex training systems out there.  I proposed a general method of cataloging “valid” exercise systems based on emphasis on strength, progression, and recovery.  Part of why it’s difficult to generate specific questions on training systems is because the

Not so with nutrition.  The science isn’t crystal clear, but it certainly points you in a specific direction.  And so, instead of the general principles of the previous post, here is an algorithm for sound nutrition (arranged in 5 easy questions, for your convenience):

1) Does my diet emphasize real food? ‘Real food’ is easy to recognize but surprisingly difficult to describe.  It’s minimally processed.  It probably was alive at some point.  And chances are (although this isn’t always the case) a little light cooking is all the ‘processing’ you need in order to eat it.  A quick and dirty rule: If it comes in a box or brightly colored wrapper, it probably isn’t real food.  You could take every supplement available and still not obtain the complete spectrum of nutrition contained in whole foods (such as enzymes and yet to be discovered phytonutrients).  At the risk of sounding like a naive naturalist, it’s hard to improve upon what Mother Nature has already provided for us.

2) Does my diet deliver enough protein for my needs? There’s a great deal of needless controversy regarding what the optimal amount of protein you should eat in a day.  Despite what some authorities would tell you, there’s no danger of damaging your kidneys by eating too much protein, unless you’re diabetic and have already sustained kidney damage (and new research shows that this may not even be the case).  On the flip side, there seems to be no overt benefit in overconsuming protein either.  So let’s shoot down the middle with this one and say that if you’re exercising, then you should shoot for 0.7 to 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight (see the work of Jeff Volek and Peter Lemon for the hard science on this).

3) Does my diet limit grain consumption? Aside from being a concentrated source of carbohydrates (see #4), grain consumption is associated with a whole host of health problems.  By far the best reference on this is Loren Cordain’s exhaustive review of cereal grains (PDF file, opens in new window).  The Reader’s Digest version:  Grains inhibit nutrient absorption because they contain antinutrients, such as plant lectins and phytic acid.  They also are highly inflammation-causing.

4) Does my diet limit insulin? What’s the biggest factor in determining whether or not you’re burning fat?  Your insulin levels.  Chronic high levels of insulin (as in, say, someone who overconsumes carbohydrate) flip the metabolic switch in your cells from energy utilization to energy storage.  In other words, high insulin = what you eat is stored as fat.  And the converse is true as well - low insulin = more fat oxidation (read: fat burning) is taking place.  Not to mention that chronic high levels of insulin are associated with all sorts of unsavory disease processes, like high blood pressure and heart disease.  What can you do to prevent high insulin levels?  Minimize your intake of foods that significantly raise insulin - namely, carbohydrates.  The obvious ones:  Sugar, soda, bagels; and the non-obvious ones: Whole wheat bread, brown rice, tortillas.

5) Can I eat this? Let’s make one point clear: If you don’t like it, you ain’t gonna eat it.  My foster daughter doesn’t like pork and in the event of a zombie apocalypse she would rather starve to death than munch on Wilbur leftovers.  No matter how many times I harp upon the necessity of bioavailable vitamin B12, my sempai Andrius won’t be splitting a Ruth’s Chris porterhouse with me (he’s a vegetarian).  Simply put, to make dietary choices work for you, you’ve got to choose things you like (or can learn to enjoy).  The caveat:  If all you like are Jolly Ranchers and Fruit By The Foot, then change is a-gonna have to come to you.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It! Digg It!
    www.sajithmr.com