The other day I had a great conversation with Dr. Warden about the perils of teaching exercises to clients. Specifically, we talked about the hazards of teaching a hang clean to a person who, shall we put it, is “coordination-challenged.”

While he detailed his difficulty in conveying the particulars of this challenging movement to his client, I had a thought, and asked him,

“Incidentally, why did you have your client doing hang cleans anyway?”

…meaning, did you do it because hang cleans are a metabolically challenging movement? (This was it, BTW)
Was it to train the “triple extension?”
Was it to strengthen the muscles of the hips and posterior chain?
Was it to improve “explosiveness” or coordination?
Was it for posture purposes?

In other words, which one of your client’s goals is this meant to support?

This is not splitting hairs - this is a main reason that trainees get paltry results from their exercise programs. If your programs or exercises do not support achievement of your goals, then how do you reasonably expect to ever achieve your goals?

More importantly, why are you continuing to do them?

Before choosing an exercise for inclusion in your program, perform a quick self-audit:

• Which of my fitness goals is this exercise meant to help me achieve?
• Is this exercise better than one I am already doing?
• Is this exercise safer than one I am already doing?
• Is there any reason as to why doing this exercise would be more beneficial than not doing it?

I’m certain that if you do this before “mixing it up”, you’ll get more in the way of results in less time than if you hadn’t. As Brian Tracy says, “Action without planning is the cause of all failure. Action with planning is the cause of all success.”

Then again, Brian Tracy also says, “Eat That Frog!” (which is questional nutritional advice, since a serving of frog’s legs delivers about 15 grams of protein along with 16 grams of carbs…)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfOBmNLCH0g]

Above: Although I’m not a big believer in “power lifts”, I will say that if I had to choose anyone to teach a hang clean, it’d be Dr. Warden. Some great hang clean instruction from coach Mark Rippetoe.

Now this is a great idea. Can’t say I agree with their execution (more FDA approved food pyramid crap again), but the concept is right on.

Most people looking to lose weight have no idea as to the size of proper portions (that’s another reason, BTW, I believe in “lifestyle” approaches like a low-carb approach or Nina Planck’s approach - they automatically prevent overconsumption through hormonal manipulation and food volume). A resource like MyPhotoDiet.com is just the thing for those who unwittingly have no clue as to how much they are consuming.

Today, a client, lamenting that he wasn’t losing weight, remarked to me that he really didn’t eat much (hard for me to believe since he took me out for dinner once). He began to list off his daily consumption, starting with breakfast: a bagel, juice, cereal, etc.

Aside from the fact that he wasn’t listening to any of my dietary suggestions, there’s a serious flaw in this kind of thinking:

You ate a bagel? How big was it? Was it a typical New York deli bagel, a cool 680 calories (with nothing on it)? How much juice, one 12 oz glass, or more likely, a 20 oz glass (260 calories)? That’s already almost 1000 calories - for just a bagel and OJ!

Learning portion sizes isn’t a must for someone looking to decrease body fat, but it sure helps. Some simple estimates are:

• A single serving (3 oz) of meat is about the size of your palm.
• One serving of fruit is about the size of a baseball.
• A single serving of nuts (1/4 cup) is about the size of a golf ball.
• If you’re going to eat grains, a serving will fit in your cupped hand (just one).

Portioning is most useful if you’re the analytical type that likes tracking calories, macronutrient breakdowns, etc., but anyone who’s looking to lose weight should acquaint themselves with the “true” sizes of food portions to ensure they’re being judicious with their choices.

Above: Portioning and serving sizes go completely out the window after snowboarding.

In a previous post regarding Lance Armstrong’s marathon performance, I explored the heretical idea that there exists no general “conditioning” attribute; that aerobic capacity was activity-specific. With apologies to Greg Glassman, I’ll now explore the idea that the conventional idea of “cardio” simply doesn’t fly.

Forget about the layperson; speak to any doctor, personal trainer, exercise physiologist, or other health/medical professional and ask them to describe the concept of “cardio” to you. What they are likely to tell you is this:

“Cardio is short for cardiovascular exercise. It’s basically any type of activity that gets your heart moving, but for real benefit you’ve got to get your heart rate above 65% of its maximum. Most authorities like the AMA and ACSM say that you’ve got to do some cardio (at least 30 minutes) everyday. It strengthens your heart and lungs, and helps you lose weight.”

While well-intentioned, these are not true statements. here’s why:

1.) Cardio is not required for health.
What all the epidemiological studies (in particular, longitudinal ones like the Harvard Nurses Study, MRFIT, and the Blair study) on exercise and mortality show is that people who were moderately active lived the longest. What they don’t indicate is what “being active” means (aside from saying expended 2000 calories per week). You can “be active” by regularly strength training - the AHA says so. You can “be active” by walking to work in the morning, gardening on the weekends, playing with your kids in the evening - it doesn’t have to be 30 minutes on the treadmill.

Additionally, the people who “exercised” in those landmark studies did so because they chose to. Does that mean that they may have also engaged in other activities that prolonged their lives (such as eating healthfully, minimizing stress, etc.)? Likely. And there’s no way of separating this effect from their activities. So it’s possible (and probable) that these people lived longer because they led healthier lifestyles as a whole, not just because of the “exercise.”

2.) Cardio doesn’t strengthen your heart and lungs all that much.
Physiologists measure cardiovascular power by looking at VO2 max - the maximal ability of your body to utilize oxygen for aerobic metabolism (i.e., to perform work). The stark reality of VO2 max? It’s not that modifiable. Meaning, you can’t increase it much (less than 10%). Why?

Answer: Because in most healthy individuals, your cardiovascular system is already running at 100%. Your heart already is pumping at its optimal output (increasing heart size via training may not be the best idea for long-term health). Your lungs are already absorbing and transporting 100% of the oxygen molecules that they can into the bloodstream.

So how do you account for dramatic increases in performance?

Answer: Your muscles improve in their ability to take in and utilize oxygen in the bloodstream. The issue of “conditioning” is a muscular issue, not a cardiovascular one.

3.) Cardio doesn’t help you lose weight.
It simply doesn’t, if diet is ignored. Here’s my tired analogy:

Running 5 miles requires an output of roughly 500 calories. It takes a fit person roughly 45 minutes to run 5 miles.

By contrast, eating 500 calories can take less than 30 seconds, for any human being. In fact, my college buddies could probably chug 500 calories in less than one second.

If you don’t control for diet, there’s no amount of cardio that will help. Period.

BTW, at the low intensities most people exercise at, they’re likely burning just under 175-200 calories a shot. Just enough for a handful of almonds.

Don’t forget that cardio has a negative flipside:

1.) Prolonged exercise can actually damage the heart.
2.) Too much cardio causes muscle wasting and deleterious hormonal changes that increase likelihood of obesity.
3.) Too much cardio causes wearing away of joints and connective tissue, increasing likelihood of injury.

Now, if you’re a person who enjoys doing cardio, go right on ahead. I’m not telling you to stop running or kickboxing or biking. I myself live an active (overactive?) life - Brazilian Jiujitsu, snowboarding, mountain biking, general mayhem, etc. But I do all these things because I love doing them, not because I have to fulfill my “cardio requirement” for the day. My message is for those who thought it was a requirement for life. Believe me, if you stop doing cardio tomorrow, you won’t drop dead prematurely.

Well, to be honest, if cardio is the only exercise you’re doing, then maybe you will. Better start strength training instead - it’s safer and better for you in the long run.

Even the originator of “aerobics”, Dr. Kenneth Cooper has culled his recommendations somewhat, placing more emphasis on strength training and less emphasis on aerobics for health. Maybe one day he’ll even admit that saturated fat is good for you.

Bottom line: If you’re doing cardio because you think you have to for health or fat loss, you can stop now. It’s ok, you have my permission.

What’s the secret behind the runaway success of Curves? Why, if the training program is so bad, is the franchise such a moneymaker?

My colleague Mike Collins suggests that it is because Curves encourages consistency and fosters a nurturing, peer-oriented environment. It’s marketed towards women, who tend to thrive on group-based endeavors. A Curves circuit isn’t like the impersonality and relative anonymity of a group exercise class, rather, it’s like one big mass personal training session (without the personal trainer).

In other words, Curves provides a safe context for you and your other overweight friends to work out in.

Cynic that I am, I think there’s a (slightly) darker subtext afoot.

Perhaps what draws women in initially is the safe training environment, but what keeps them coming back is the opportunity to lose more fat than their friends.

Humans are naturally competitive. But this isn’t a bad thing - competition can often spur us on to greater heights than we may have pushed ourselves to. Competition isn’t an unhealthy thing if viewed as a way to elevate ourselves as opposed to “beating someone else down.” And by helps our competition grow as well, since they consequently raise their own game.

If you are pursuing a fitness goal, like fat loss, try pursuing it with a like-minded friend or family member. Make a friendly competition out of it; see who can be the most disciplined with their diet for 6 weeks. Or who is logging more consistent exercise (*cough strength training) . You may find that it makes the process of achieving your goals that much more enjoyable.

…I lost my first match in NAGA this past weekend. To add injury to insult, I sustained a pretty bad ankle sprain in the process, so I had to bow out of my other match as well.

To make things even worse, my opponent tapped me with a toehold, which I had on him earlier in the match but didn’t finish (read: crank) for fear of hurting him. That’s a mistake I’ll never make in competition ever again.

At least I was told my fight was one of the more exciting ones of the day. I’ll post photos later on when I get a chance.

Great way to start off the 2007 Ranked season.