Health & Fitness News

More Magic Fitness Nonsense: Part I

Standard

I love this stuff!  From somewhat questionable vitamins, to goofy “health” food, to the out-and-out fantasy Cookie Diet, we continue to search for a way around eating right and exercising.  The latest magic potion to come out of Fantasy Fitness Land is a pill which has been developed by General Nutrition Centers (GNC) and tested by Oklahoma University.  (I’m glad the Sooners took on this strange project instead of the University of Texas.)  You can read all about it at Science Daily in an article titled Weight-loss supplement has potential to burn fair amount of calories. 

It seems this substance contains three things: black pepper, caffeine, and capsaicin–the stuff that makes hot peppers hot. 

(Now, as it turns out, I actually created this combination some years ago and I’ve been consuming it roughly once a week in the form of a morning meal known as breakfast.  I eat an omlette, sprinkle on some black pepper, splash on some hot sauce, and drink two cups of coffee.  Too bad I didn’t patent the whole process. )

The article is fairly brief and doesn’t give much information but I can forsee this new weight loss pill flying off the shelves into the hands of people who desperately want to lose weight but who refuse to take on the tried-and-true guaranteed methods to healthy weight loss–that is eating right most of the time and working hard often.  I’ll post more information on this type of snake oil.

Share
Tweet
Share

News on Barefoot Running: Part III

Standard

To this point we’ve looked a couple of aspects of the human foot and running.  In Part I we looked at research showing the unshod or minimally shod foot worked quite well at running for the vast majority of human history.  In Part II we looked at the following: 1) research linking knee osteoarthritis to high loading forces on the knees, 2) higher loading forces were associated with stability shoes, and 3) lower loading forces were associated with shoes such as flip-flops that allow a more natural foot movement.  Thus we can conclude that in order to avoid ailments such as knee osteoarthritis (and I might guess the same for hip, ankle, and low back arthritis) we should do whatever we can to allow our feet to move unencumbered.

[Researchers] concluded that running shoes exerted more stress on these joints compared to running barefoot or walking in high-heeled shoes.

So here are the lastest findings on this issue.  Running Shoes May Cause Damage to Hips, Knees and Ankles, New Study Suggests details the findings of a study published in the December 2009 PM & R, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  (Here’s the abstract, and the full text.)  Researchers studied 68 healthy adult runners as they ran on a treadmill both in modern running shoes and while barefoot.  Significantly higher torque forces were observed in the subjects when they were in running shoes.  The study reports “An average 54% increase in the hip internal rotation torque, a 36% increase in knee flexion torque, and a 38% increase in knee varus (inward) torque were measured when running in running shoes compared with barefoot.”

Those are significant forces!  And why do most people wear running shoes?  To protect the feet, provide stability, to be comfortable…  Very interesting that these shoes actually increase the forces which we’re looking to minimize.  In closing, the researchers say,

“Reducing joint torques with footwear completely to that of barefoot running, while providing meaningful footwear functions, especially compliance, should be the goal of new footwear designs.”

So with that statement in mind, I’ve recently purchased a pair of Vibram 5-Fingers model KSO.  I’ve worn them the past couple of days at work and they’re quite interesting.  I plan on wearing them exclusively when I weight train, and I plan on running in them fairly soon.  (There’s a little too much snow on the ground here in Denver right now.)  I’ll probably try some running on the grass first and then try short runs on pavement.  We’ll see what happens…

Share
Tweet
Share

News on Barefoot Running: Part II

Standard

Previously I discussed how wearing shoes alters the human running stride.  For millennia, our feet functioned well enough to get us to the 1970s when we put them into running shoes.  The result seems to be our adopting a running stride (heel strike) that may be more stressful and injurious than an unshod stride (forefoot strike).  I want to continue the discussion by looking at a few more studies of our feet and the effect of shoes.

The original ATV...

I’ll go back to a Science Daily article from November of 2007 called Your Knees Want to Take you Shoe Shopping.  The research was originally presented in 2007 at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Scientific Meeting.  Researchers analyzed the effects of various footwear on patients with knee osteoarthritis.  Specifically, they looked at loading of the knees.

The first point the researchers make is this:

“In knee osteoarthritis, there is abundant evidence that patients with abnormally high loading knees (high amounts of stress on part or all of the knee joint) are at increased risk of both injury and disease progression.”

Now, the important research findings were these:

“Researchers found that clogs and stability shoes were associated with significantly higher loading of the knees, while the walking shoes and flip-flops resulted in lower knee loads similar to those occurring when walking barefoot. Therefore, shoes that allowed natural foot motion and flexibility appeared to be more beneficial in terms of knee loading.”

That final statement goes to the point that a natural stride, unaffected by modern high-tech footwear seems to be more healthy for us.  Here’s more supporting information.  Footwear Alters Normal Form and Function of the Foot is a 2009 Science Daily article that profiles a study on barefoot walking.  Specifically the researchers studied people who’d never worn shoes.  The researchers wanted to observe the biologically normal function of the foot which had evolved for millions of years without the influence of shoes.  They indeed saw habitually unshod feet moved performed differently from shod feet.  The article notes:

“Barefooters have a relatively wide forefoot and manage at better distributing pressures over the entire surface of the foot sole, resulting in lower (and most likely favourable) peak pressures. As such, the fundamental scientific results are also important for clinicians and for the design of quality footwear, which should not hamper the foot’s biologically normal function.”

In Part III of this series I’ll discuss new research that demonstrates running shoes actually contribute to greater stress at the ankles, knees and hips.

Share
Tweet
Share

News on Barefoot Running: Part I

Standard

The cutting edge of running technology!

First of all, a disclaimer: I am NOT telling everyone to throw out their running shoes/inserts/orthotics and go barefoot to run all the time forever.  If you’re having success then keep doing what you’re doing.  I do however suggest reconsidering what you think you know about the human foot and the shoes we put on them.  If you’re in pain then you MIGHT consider changing from a highly structured foot environment to something less structured.  Alright, on to the important stuff.

The case against running shoes (or maybe FOR going barefoot from time to time) seems to be mounting. What we’ve got here is more evidence that for running, the human foot all by itself is likely the most highly advanced instrument for the job.

I’ve posted previously on the issue of running and human evolution, and the issue of running shoes vs. barefoot running.  Research continues on the issue.  An article in Science Daily titled Barefoot Running: How Humans Ran Comfortably and Safely Before the Invention of Shoes tells us of research on three groups of people: those who had always run barefoot, those who had always worn shoes, and those who had converted to barefoot running from shod running.  (This analysis of different types of runners is one strong point of the study.) Runners in Kenya and the U.S. were subjects.  The project was a joint effort between Harvard, University of Glasgow, and Moi University.  The full article can be accessed for a fee in the journal Nature.

The researchers observed very different patterns during barefoot running vs. shod running.  Barefoot runners land on the mid-foot or the forefoot whereas running in shoes tends to promote a heel strike.  Barefoot running results in a more spring-like step by utilizing the arch of the foot rather than driving the heel into the ground.

“Our feet were made in part for running,” Daniel Lieberman (researcher) says. But as he and his co-authors write in Nature: “Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning.“

The researchers suggest than in fact barefoot running may be less injurious than running in modern running shoes.  They caution that running barefoot or in minimal footwear must be a gradual process if one has been running in shoes for a long time.  Lieberman delves further into the biomechanics of barefoot running on his web page called (surprise!) Barefoot Running.  I haven’t read this site yet but I’m planning on digging into it ASAP.  Looks very interesting.

From what I’ve learned as a personal trainer I recognize the immense importance of properly functioning feet.  If you take a look at your feet and how much movement is available to those things you may be surprised.  There’s a lot of potential movement there!  Proper foot movement brings on proper knee movement which brings on proper hip movement which makes the trunk and the shoulders move properly.  Liberman observes that humans have been using their feet for far longer than the modern running shoe has been around.  In our modern age we’ve decided that much like our food, we’re going to out think nature and “improve” on something that’s worked well for a very long time.  But what happens when we put our feet in running shoes?  We start to take away movement.  We put a big piece of foam between us and the ground so that we desensitize our feet.  (Compare this to going to a movie in sunglasses or listening to music with earplugs in.)  In other words, we seriously alter something that’s been working pretty well for thousands of years.  This alteration in function is made even more dramatic if we use orthotics.  So it seems entirely likely to me that many cases of knee pain, hip pain, even shoulder and neck pain may well be rooted in what we’ve done to our feet.  At the very least, I think it’s worth examining the issue.  I’ll discuss more on the issues around barefoot vs. shod running in upcoming posts.

Share
Tweet
Share

Recovery & Restoration Methods for Endurance Athletes Part III: Caffeine

Standard

“We’ve shown that caffeine reduces pain reliably, consistently during cycling, across different intensities, across different people, different characteristics.”

To this point I’ve discussed nutritional strategies and cold water immersion as recovery methods for endurance athletes.  Now, the quest to relieve sore muscles, malaise and fatigue continues with a look at caffeine.  While caffeine could’ve been discussed as part of nutrition, its role is quite different from the role that food plays.

Science Daily does it for us again.  Two articles profile caffeiene’s benefits.  The first, Caffeine Cuts Post-Workout Pain by 50 Percent, Study Finds, discusses caffeine’s post-workout role.

The article profiles a study from the University of Georgia where caffeine’s effects were studied in nine female college students.  The subjects engaged in a workout that induced mild post-workout soreness.  One and two days later they performed one of two different thigh exercises with some subject having taken caffeine and others taking a placebo.  One caffeine-consuming group reported a 48 % reduction in pain compared to the placebo group.  The other group experienced a 26% reduction in pain compared to placebo.

The authors concede several weaknesses in the study.  First, there was a small sample size.  Second, the subjects were all female.  Finally, they were not regular consumers of caffeine.  So we don’t know if the effect will be seen in the public at large, among men and/or among people who regularly ingest caffeine.  That said, the findings may be of interest to endurance athletes looking to recover from strenuous workouts.

Move over Gatorade...

Move over Gatorade...

The second article, Caffiene Reduces Pain During Exercise, Study Shows looks at caffeine as a pain reducer when taken pre-workout.  This study was performed by former competitive cyclist and University of Illinois kinesiology and community health professor Robert Motl.  He and his friends had long consumed caffeine prior to tough rides.  He eventually decided to study the substance.

Motl wanted to examine the effects of caffeine on muscle pain during high-intensity exercise as a function of habitual caffeine use.  He examined two groups: one made up of habitual caffeine users, the other made up of non-caffeine users.  He found both groups had similar reductions in muscle pain during exercise after caffeine consumption.

Motl says, “We’ve shown that caffeine reduces pain reliably, consistently during cycling, across different intensities, across different people, different characteristics.”

So what are the practical implications?  Motl explains that caffeine and its pain-reducing effects should help you push harder and thus go faster and/or longer during your workout or race.  Or perhaps you could do your same workout but more comfortably.

Share
Tweet
Share

Lots of Stuff to Read: Sports drinks with protein, Negative phys. ed teachers, Running shoes and knee damage, Why crunches don’t work, Science of weight loss

Standard

Wow!  There’s a lot of good reading out there on the health & fitness front.  I can’t comment on all of it but I’ll refer you to several articles that may pique your interest.  I’ll get back to recovery strategies for endurance athletes later.

Share
Tweet
Share

NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part III

Standard

In Part I discussed Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT).  The biochemistry of hunger and the possible benefits of hunger were the issues in Part II.  I ended by posing the question of whether or not consuming several small meals per day was more or less conducive to losing weight than the popular admonition to eat up to six small meals per day.  It seems the verdict is very much out.  The answer is: It depends…

To start with, here’s an article by registered dietitian Kristine Clark writing for the IDEA Health & Fitness Association.  Clark first offers wise observations on the exact nature of hunger and satiety.  Hunger being the main reason we should eat at all and satiety being the signal to stop.  She writes,

“‘Unfortunately, many people are out of touch with the feeling of satiety.”  Marion Nestle—researcher, author and professor of nutrition at New York University—says, ‘You can’t teach satiety.  People have to learn it themselves.’  The bottom line is that recognition of both hunger and satiety is key to appropriate eating.

Anyone seeking weight loss must take that statement to heart.

Clark then refers to the research from the 1960s and ’70s that associated several small meals with a leaner physique.  I won’t go into the details of the studies (references are found at the end of Clark’s article) but both studies show weaknesses worth considering.  The small sample sizes and the use of a 24-hr diet recall interview in one study make me question to what degree we should hold to the implications of these studies.  I’m not the only one thinking this.  For further reading on the strength or lack thereof of nutritional studies, look here and here.  (And remember these sorts of weaknesses the next time a news anchor tells you that some study shows This causes That. Odds are the cause and effect aren’t that strongly linked.)

Most importantly, Clark interviews Dr. Barbara Rolls of the Penn St. Nutritional Science Department.  Essentially she says that meal frequency isn’t the key issue–It’s how much you eat!

“As long as people hold their calorie intake constant—as long as they eat less than what they normally eat, whether in six or three increments —they will lose weight, regardless of the frequency.”
– Barbara Rolls, PhD

So it should be obvious.  The key issue is energy intake vs. energy expenditure.  This is no revelation.  Whether it’s three, four, five or six meals per day, if we eat too much then we get fat.  (I’ll add my own opinion to this equation and say that the quality and the nature of our food–real food vs. food-like substances–is of tremendous importance to physique goals as well.)

I’m surprised by the fairly weak correlation between the several-small-meals strategy and successful weight loss.  I’ve been saying this to clients as if it were a settled subject.  I will say though I believe the first time I ever heard the suggestion to eat many times throughout the day was as advice to bodybuilders who were trying to gain weight, not lose it.  Bodybuilders need the raw materials to add body mass so loading up on food several times a day is about the only way to do it.  In contrast, the general public doesn’t have that need, and it stands to reason that by many among us may easily eat too much if we’re eating up to six times a day.

No second helping for me, thanks.

No second helping for me, thanks.

Finally, I didn’t know exactly where to put this, but General Stanley McChrystal, the current commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, eats one meal per day!  This man is a dedicated runner with a Special Forces background.  One meal per day…

Share
Tweet
Share

NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part II

Standard

Previously we looked at the deliterious health effects of our seated, sedentary modern lifestyle; and we saw remarkable value of NEAT, or Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis.  Essentially, sitting a lot correlates to early death while moving around a lot makes you healthy–even if this movement isn’t what you might call “exercise.”

Part II of the discussion revolves around the article Movement comes with appetite, found on Science Daily.  We’re told of findings by a Swiss research team, whose study is found in the journal Nature.  (The full study can be accessed here for a fee.)  The science here is fairly complicated so I’m going to try and avoid the overly complex details.  Essentially, the star of the study is a molecule found in the liver and hypothalmus called Foxa2.  Foxa2 is found in humans and other animals.  Here we go with an attempt at explaining why Foxa2 is important.

Foxa2 found in the liver affects fat burning.  It’s also found in the hypothalmus which affects daily rhythm, sleep, intake of food and sexual behavior.  Researchers also observed that Foxa2 helps form two proteins (MCH and orexin) which trigger both the intake of food and spontaneous movement.  Foxa2 is blocked by insulin which is released when we eat.  In a fasted state–between meals for instance–insulin is absent and Foxa2 is active.  Thus animals tend to be more active while hungry.

If mammals are hungry, they are more alert and physically active. In short, they hunt and look for food. “If you watch a cat or a dog before feeding it, you can see this very clearly,” Markus Stoffel, a professor from the Institute of Molecular Systems Biology at ETH Zurich.

Researchers found a Foxa2 disorder in obese mice.  High levels of insulin blunted Foxa2 which in turn reduced production of the two proteins that triggered hunger and movement.  To prove this, the researchers bred mice with ultra-active Foxa2 production and the result were mice with high production of the two proteins.  These mice lost fatty tissue and formed larger muscles. Their sugar and fat metabolism increased considerably.

The practical suggestion from Stoffel is that we should be hungry sometimes.  “The body needs fasting periods to stay healthy.”  Hunger promotes movement and thus all the benefits we expect from an active lifestyle.  Both the study’s evidence and the suggestions from this researcher are contrary to much of the popular nutrition advice.

The suggestion that one should eat small frequent meals throughout the day (aka grazing) is standard advice found on almost any list (look here, here, here, here and here for starters) of healthy eating tips.  I’ve told clients this many times and I’ve followed this bit of common knowledge for years.  The reasoning behind the several-small-meals tactic is 1) eating throughout the day keeps the metabolism up, and 2) if we become too hungry then we tend to overeat at mealtime.  Is it possible we’ve been doing it wrong?  Could three meals a day in fact make us leaner and healthier?  I think the answer to that question is the same answer  to most questions: It depends.  I’ll discuss it more in Part III.

Share
Tweet
Share

The Dangers of Sitting; NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part I

Standard

The longer you spend sitting each day, the more likely you are to die an early death — no matter how fit you are.

Right around Thanksgiving I discussed some of the science behind obesity and eating.  Now, the tremors of holiday gorging have started, and an eruption of Christmas binging is close at hand.  It’s cold outside and here in Colorado we’ve got several inches of snow on the ground.  This seems the ideal backdrop to look at obesity again, this time with an eye toward energy expenditure.

Two articles present slightly different information on the same general issue, that is the relationship between movement and obesity.  I’ll discuss the first article here and the second in part II of this post.  Your Body’s big enemy?  You’re sitting on it comes from MSNBC.com.  The article has two main topics.  First, we’re told of the consequences of our modern, mostly seated lifestyle.  We sit at our jobs.  We sit getting to our jobs.  We sit for entertainment.  And our many electronic tools allow us to live our lives while expending very little energy, especially when compared to the bulk of human history which featured far more physical labor than we currently experience.  Specifically we’re told about the biochemistry of too much sitting:

“When you sit for an extended period of time, your body starts to shut down at the metabolic level, says Marc Hamilton, Ph.D., associate professor of biomedical sciences at the University of Missouri. When muscles — especially the big ones meant for movement, like those in your legs — are immobile, your circulation slows and you burn fewer calories. Key flab-burning enzymes responsible for breaking down triglycerides (a type of fat) simply start switching off. Sit for a full day and those fat burners plummet by 50 percent, Levine says.”

Sitting increases our risk of diabetes and heart disease and it may even increase our risk for depression.  It’s also none too good for our spinal health and posture.  A bottom-line assessment of sitting was observed by Canadian researchers: The longer you spend sitting each day, the more likely you are to die an early death — no matter how fit you are.  (The article stated this finding but I’m not sure exactly where or by whom this research was done.)

The second topic is NEAT, or Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis.  (Read more on NEAT from the Mayo Clinic.)  Examples of NEAT include tapping our toes, gesturing with our hands while talking, doing house work or yard work, standing while working or any sort of fidgeting–even chewing gum.  According to Mayo Clinic research, NEAT has a big impact.  A study found that after 10 days, lean participants moved an average of 150 minutes more per day than overweight participants  That translates to 350 calories, or about one cheeseburger.  Take that out to one month and that’s 10, 500 calories (3 lbs. of fat).  In one year NEAT may burn up to 127, 750 calories or almost 37 lbs. of fat!

What can we do with this information?  Well it goes to a discussion I’ve had with many of my personal training clients who are trying to lose weight.  Find a way to move around somehow.  An hour or a half-hour a day in a gym doesn’t add up to much by the end of the week.  We’ve got to find ways to move around a lot more than that.  Your body needs to move throughout the day.  Here are some ideas:

  • Stand up while talking on the phone.
  • Set the meeting timer on your Microsoft Outlook (or similar e-mail system) for every half-hour with this message: GET UP.  WALK AROUND.
  • Use the stairs.  Avoid elevators and escalators.
  • Wash dishes by hand.
  • Quit looking for the parking space closest to the mall or grocery store entrance.  Park way back in the back and walk to the entrance.

The bottom line is this: Sitting is death by a thousand keystrokes.  Moving yourself about the planet under your own power has tremendous health benefits.  Your body doesn’t care if you do it in a gym or whether or not you call it “exercise.”

Alright, you’re done reading.  GET ON YOUR FEET AND GO DO SOMETHING!

Share
Tweet
Share

Cardio Health Correlates to Smarts

Standard

A strong link between cardiovascular fitness in adolescence and cognitive ability in adulthood has been demonstrated in by American and Swedish researchers.  The study is discussed in Science Daily and it focuses on 1.2 million Swedish men born between 1950 and 1976 who enlisted for mandatory military service at the age of 18.  On several assessments of cognitive function test scores increased along with aerobic fitness levels.  (That’s pretty cool.)  On the other hand, intelligence scores didn’t not track with muscle strength.  (That’s sort of a bummer.)  We’re told that the rapidly changing adolescent brain seems particularly sensitive to fitness levels, and that being fit during these years is quite important to brain power in adulthood.  Researchers admit that this fitness/intelligence effect is poorly understood.

“In every measure of cognitive functioning they analyzed — from verbal ability to logical performance to geometric perception to mechanical skills — average test scores increased according to aerobic fitness.”

Though I haven’t read the entire study, we should take note of several strong points.  First, the sample size of 1.2 million is fairly large.  Second, subjects were studied for several years.  Finally, the study even looked at pairs of twins.  Fit twins were smarter than their unfit siblings.  This suggests that fitness is indeed the cause of greater intelligence rather than a genetic influence.  The study’s main weak point is that it was conducted on Swedish men only.

I’ve got a several opinions.  First, this study should be mandatory reading for every public official, every principal, every teacher and every grade-schooler in the country.  For years physical education has been cut from schools in favor of more classroom time spent sitting and “learning.”  If this study is sound then clearly we need to add a fourth R to the equation: Readin’, Ritin’, ‘Rithmatic & Runnin’ Around.

Can we see a little further here?  Can we see a way not only to very nearly fix our creaking health care system–but also to regain America’s status as the most inventive, creative nation on earth?  As an incentive for more kids to be more physically active, I’d like to see an optional physical fitness equivalent of the SATs.  Colleges could offer tuition breaks for students with good scores.

Finally, why is cardiovascular fitness is tied so strongly to intelligence but not strength?  More specifically I’d like to know where the line is drawn–because in fact there is no line as I see it but rather a gradient.  From the shot put to the marathon, our heart, lungs, and muscles must work to accomplish the task; and it’s all driven by our nervous system.  It’s not like we turn off our lungs in order to throw a fastball, or shut down our muscles to run or bike for several hours.

To parse it a bit more, are ultra-marathoners smarter than 10k runners?  Are Ironman triathletes smarter than track cyclists?  Are 100 meter sprinters the least intelligent of the cardiovascularly fit among us?  What about rowers, basketball players, boxers, wrestlers, hockey players, tennis players, soccer players, rugby players, volleyball players and rock climbers?  Those sports require  you to be aerobically fit and strong.  This is a fascinating study and I hope someone expands on it.

Share
Tweet
Share