The Bad News on Fruits & Vegetables

It may not be a huge surprise that most of us in this country don’t eat a healthy diet. Now the data is in and according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2009, 67.5 percent of adults ate fruit less than two times daily and 73.7 percent ate vegetables less than three times per day. This information comes from an article in Business Week.

These numbers are in contrast to the goals of Healthy People 2010, a comprehensive set of health objectives set by the government. The goals of Healthy People 2010 were for 75 percent of people to eat at least two servings of fruit and 50 percent to eat at least three servings of vegetables every day. Despite these noble efforts, over the past decade there has been a two percent decrease in fruit consumption and no change in the vegetable consumption, researchers found. This program is failing. Why?

It’s hard to imagine that ignorance is driving our avoidance of produce. Who among us doesn’t know that fruits and vegetables are good for us? One issue is that low-income Americans are less likely to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables at affordable prices compared to affluent Americans. (For more on this issue, read about food deserts.)

Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St Louis discusses the affordability of fresh produce:

“Another factor that seems to impact purchasing fresh produce that is not clear in this report is the cost of fresh produce,” Diekman said. “With economic changes the last several years, the slight differences in consumption based on household income might be an important factor for health-care providers to address.”

(I find it tragically laughable that fresh produce–food that’s plucked right off a tree or a vine; or pulled right out of the ground–can cost more per calorie than a highly complex, laboratory engineered food such as a Twinkie, frozen pizza, or a sugary soda. This is what our farm subsidies are doing to us.)

Most interesting to me are the neurological factors behind what we eat, and why even though we know what’s healthy and unhealthy we still make unhealthy choices. Samantha Heller, a dietitian, nutritionist, exercise physiologist and clinical nutrition coordinator at the Center for Cancer Care at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut says the following:

“It is easy to fill up on fast food, junk foods, sweets and sugar-sweetened beverages. In addition, by eating these highly palatable foods — those high in fat, sugar and sodium — we alter our taste and mental expectations about how a food is ‘supposed’ to taste.”

“We end up craving these foods and the healthier fare is ignored. Thus, a sweet ripe peach does not taste very sweet to someone who just chugged a 20-ounce soda or ate a bowl of ice cream. The same with vegetables. The delicious taste of many vegetable pales in comparison with high-fat, high-sodium cheese burgers and french fries.”

This is a tremendous uphill battle we face as a nation. It’s this very issue that’s at the heart and core of our health care system. We’ve had heated debate on what form of health care we’ll have and how to fund the system. Yet we avoid the most significant factor in our health care, that is what we chose to eat or not eat. It’s too tough an issue for politicians to discuss as pointing out our failings at personal responsibility tend to anger voters. (In contrast, Michelle Obama has done a very admirable job of bringing attention to the issue of nutrition and obesity.) No number of doctors, drugs, or high-tech medical devices can offset our personal habits. I’m not sure that there’s a light at the end of this tunnel.

More News & Questions on Stretching

Stretching–and whether or not to do it–is one of the most debated issues in health and fitness. What’s the final verdict? (I’ve given my opinions a few times already here, here, and here.) Does Stretching Before Running Prevent Injuries comes from the New York Times and it’s the latest comment on the issue. The article discusses a study from USA Track & Field that involved about 3000 runners over the course of three months. These subjects were split into two groups: one group followed a pre-run stretching routine, the other group did not stretch. (From the description, the stretching group engaged in static isolated stretching, or what many of us would recognize as stretching: bend over and stretch the hamstrings for 20-30 seconds for example.) Both groups followed the same running program. The result? Both groups experienced the same injury rate. Thus, pre-run static stretching does not appear to help guard against injuries. There is an exception though.

The study states:

“If runners who normally stretch prior to running were assigned to stretch, they had a low risk of injury but if they were assigned not to stretch, the injury risk was double those who kept stretching. It’s this result that most startlingly exhibits why people consider stretching to prevent injury. This study shows that those who are comfortable with their pre-run stretching routine should maintain it. They risk injury if they discontinue their pre-run stretching. For runners comfortable without pre-run stretching, they don’t necessarily improve their injury protection by starting a pre-run stretching routine.”

As I see it, the broad point to take from this observation is that any changes to your program should be undertaken slowly. That goes for adding speed work, hill work, more mileage or engaging in barefoot running. Sudden dramatic changes may leave you sidelined.

Train to Failure or Train to Success? Part I

Nike says “Just Do It.” The people in Gatorade commercials look like they’ve worked within an inch of their lives. The Crossfit mascot is a character called Pukie the Clown. “I want you to push me,” is something trainers hear all the time from clients and potential clients. Classes known as “boot camps” are have been very popular the past few years, complete with yelling, hollering and foot-dragging exhaustion. We want to “test our limits.” What’s the observation here? If some exercise is good for us–then a whole helluva lot must be extra super awesome!!! That’s how we do it in America right? Some = Good. LOTS = GREAT!!! This type of thinking sells but does it actually result in greater physical ability?

I’m reading a great book in Pavel Tsatsouline’s Power to the People!. It’s very much making me rethink the way I train my clients as well as myself. The book is all about heavy strength training–not bodybuilding mind you. We’re talking strength not size. Interestingly, I’ve noticed some parallels to advice given in the classic running book by Tim Noakes, Lore of Running. How could it be that training for the expression of brief maximal strength might share anything at all with endurance running?

Key points of advice given in both texts amount to this: Train to the point of success, not to exhaustive failure. As Noakes puts it:

The single most important reason most runners are prone to overtraining is, I believe, that we lack the ability to make an objective assessment of our ultimate performance capabilities. We simply will not accept that we are mortal and that we have a built-in performance range beyond which training and other interventions cannot take us. We believe that the harder we train, the faster we will run, and we ignore the evidence that indicates that this is blatantly untrue. Thus we train harder and run worse. And then, in the ultimate act of stupidity, we interpret our poor races as an indication that we have undertrained. Consequently we go out and train even harder.

Similarly, Pavel states:

“From Eugene Sandow to Yuri Vlasov, the strongest men and women in the world have never trained to failure! Cut the ‘do or die’ rhetoric, take a long hard look at yourself, and tell me what are your odds of becoming another exception? If ‘training to failure and beyond’ is so hot, how come your bench has been stuck at 185 lbs. since Arnold’s first movie?”

Also from Pavel:

“Ed Coan squats 875 lbs. x 3 and calls it a day although he knows he could’ve fived that weight. Heavy training not to failure sure worked for Coan who has set nearly eighty world records.”

Is this surprising information? Maybe not if we consider the nervous system and the SAID (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand) principle. Simply stated, our nervous system always adapts to exactly what we ask of it.

If we swim a lot then we tend to be able to swim. If we ride a bike frequently then we adapt to bike riding. If we lift heavy weights then we tend to get stronger. (Also, if we sit hunched over a desk for enough of our life, we tend to be hunched.) To the point of this post, if we train the nervous system to move our bodies successfully in clean, efficient form be it running, lifting, rock climbing, getting groceries–whatever–then we are training to succeed. If however we spend enough time going to failure–that is to the point where our technique becomes sloppy and inefficient–then the nervous system says, “You want to practice doing this exercise in poor, sloppy form? Okay. I’ll adapt to that.” Thus we develop poor, sloppy movement patterns. The result of prolonged poor movement may be tendonitis/tendonosis, bursitis, arthritis–all sorts of itis-es: pain, in other words.

So what does success feel like? We’ll find out in Part II of this post.

MRIs & Docs May Not Have All the Answers

We’d like to think that our modern medical technology and treatment methods can diagnose and heal any problem. PET scans, CAT scans, MRIs and X-Rays allow us to peer inside the body and examine tissues and organs. Our MDs and surgeons are the beneficiaries of hundreds of years of evolving medical education. But guess what! Not every ache and pain has an obvious cause and many docs are as mystified by our ailments as we are.

New Study Finds 70 Percent of Able-Bodied Hockey Players Have Abnormal Hip and Pelvis MRIs comes from Science Daily. The piece explains the findings of a study conducted by the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine. The study used the MRIs of the pelvis and hips of 39 collegiate and professional hockey players. Seventy percent of the images showed abnormalities yet only two players reported pain. In other words, most of the players had what we might identify as “injuries” yet only two of them were “hurt.” So this goes to the issue of just how valuable are these sorts of diagnostic tools.

Matthew Silvis, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Orthopedics at Hershey Medical Center at Penn State University College of Medicine stated,

“Unexpectedly, the majority of players had some abnormality in their MRI, but it didn’t limit their playing ability. The study raises many questions, but its value to surgeons is to recognize that imaging doesn’t replace good clinical judgment, which includes a detailed history and complete physical exam. This study might make you hesitate to read too much into an MRI.”

A lot of us probably assume the MRI is very precise and can show us exactly why our back, knee or shoulder is in pain. Yet we may need to think about whether or not we’re looking at chickens or eggs here. Do these abnormalities cause pain, or are they simply coincidental to pain?

Obviously the only reason anyone gets an MRI outside of a study like this is because we’re in pain and we need to know why. (I have yet to meet anyone who had an MRI simply out of curiosity about what they look like on the inside.) So automatically we have a self-selected group to study. If this study is any indication then in fact it’s entirely likely that people who feel healthy may indeed appear to be injured according to their MRI. Thus what is seen on an MRI and attributed to our pain–bone spurs, a torn labrum, or a herniated disks for instance–may or may not be the cause of our pain. Perhaps the source of our pain is something else entirely. The point is the MRI is not always as precise as we’d like to believe.

I’ve had personal experience with this sort of situation. Several years ago I was performing a barbell snatch and I felt a pop followed by very sharp pain in my left shoulder. A cortisone shot helped only temporarily. I underwent an MRI and according to the image there was no serious injury. It wasn’t until a surgeon had a look inside my shoulder and saw that my supraspinatus tendon was about 90% detached. After he reattached the tendon he later explained how MRIs can be helpful but they’re not always very precise.

On a simiar theme, a recent New York Times story examines to what degree doctors sought medical attention for their aches and pains. You might be surprised to learn that docs who were interviewed rarely visted other docs when they’re hurting. (The Times story also references the MRI story mentioned above.) Doctor-athlete, Paul D. Thompson, a marathon runner and a cardiologist at Hartford Hospital in Hartford said the following:

“I think most folks should not go, because most general doctors don’t know a lot about running injuries,” he said, adding, “Most docs, often even the good sports docs, then will just tell you to stop running anyway, so the first thing is to stop running yourself.”

So all-and-all, as much as we’d love to believe that the modern mainstream medical profession has all the answers–or at least the tools to find all the answers, it simply ain’t so in a lot of cases. The fact of the matter is most MDs don’t fully understand human movement and how all the parts of the body–bones, muscles, organs, and most importantly the nervous system–act together in a 3-D world governed by gravity. Just look at how many specialists there are around us. There are podiatrists for the feet, spine specialists, knee specialists, shoulder specialists, low-back doctors, etc. There are surgeons that specialize in opening us up and tinkering about. There are docs to analyze blood, the eyes, reproductive organs, the heart, our minds…. But guess what, we’re all one big system! If we or the people who are assessing us believe that we’re just a bunch of separate parts then we’re way off the mark. And if your doc just wants to feed you pain medicine–definitely go get another opinion. (As one acquaintance put it, “Your pain wasn’t caused by an ibuprofen deficiency.”)

(BTW, please don’t take this as my hating on the entire medical profession. If I’m in a car crash and I’ve got a piece of steel stuck in me, please go get me a surgeon and not a massage therapist or chiro.)

Recognize that the arms and neck are highly affected by the feet. Weak eye muscles can cause bad posture and thus neck pain. Medication for our high cholesterol may cause low-back pain. Shoulder pain may be rooted in poor wrist and hand mechanics. Even if the tissue of a years-old injury has healed, the ability to move and control the limb may not have been restored–and that may be causing pain in any number of areas. The bad mood you’re in may be driving that aggravating hip pain.

The body and the nervous system is tremendously complex and all its parts are highly interactive at all times. Always keep this in mind if you’re in pain and looking for relief.

Counterpoints to Barefoot Running

I think it’s important to analyze any trend or issue from several viewpoints. In the world of fitness and nutrition we see all sorts of fads come and go. Today barefoot running is gaining in popularity. I’ve posted recently on some of the research that suggests barefoot running may be healthier for the joints than shod running. So, I believe it’s worth considering doing some barefoot work whether it be gym work such as weight training or agility work; or perhaps very short runs on a soft surface such as grass. It may in fact be beneficial to work toward a full transition from shod running to barefoot running. That said, it’s vital to consider other views.

First, the Science of Sport gives us Barefoot running – new evidence, same debate. One notable point the writers make is this:

“I guarantee that the media are going to be all over this and they are going to tell you that you should be running barefoot or in Vibrams. You will hear how science has proven that being barefoot will prevent injuries, and that those of you who are injured should blame your shoes as you lob them into the garbage bin.

(This sort of observation can go for just about every new study that’s reported in the press.) I think it’s entirely likely that runners may latch on to barefoot running thinking that it’s an instant magic cure for whatever is bothering them and the results may be disastrous. (Then what will the press, physical therapists, and podiatrists say? “Barefoot running is the worst thing in the world! No one should do it ever! Then we’ll have discarded a potentially helpful tool from our toolbox.)

The article goes on to give an example of what happens when the pendulum swings too far and runners adopt something very new and very different into their training:

“And I will illustrate this with our own insight into footstrike and injury. When the Pose research was done in Cape Town, athletes basically had their footstrike patterns changed through 2 weeks of training in the new method. The biomechanical analysis found lower impact forces (sound familiar? Same as the Nature paper), and even less work on the knee joint. This was hailed as a breakthrough against running injuries, because lower impact plus lower work on the knee meant less chance of injury. Jump ahead 2 weeks, and 19 out of 20 runners had broken down injured. Why? Because their calves and ankles were murdered by the sudden change. And the science showed this – the work on the ANKLE was significantly INCREASED during the forefoot landing.”

Thus we get the very clear point that barefoot work must be added gradually into your routine. A rapid switch in running technique is probably a very bad idea. DO NOT move rapidly to replace all your shod miles with barefoot miles.

Over at the Running World According to Dean you can read Another Barefoot Running Story. He seems a bit skeptical on the issue of barefoot running. Owen Anderson at Educated Runner has presented two posts on barefoot running: Barefoot, Nearly Barefoot and Bearfoot Running; and Barefoot Running: What the Harvard Study Really Said. Both articles are again somewhat skeptical of barefoot running and running in Vibrams. Anderson’s second post is most valuable I believe in that he points out some of the limitations of the study “Foot Strike Patterns and Collision Forces in Habitually Barefoot versus Shod Runners” that appeared recently in the journal Nature.

Anderson makes this point: “The Nature investigation did disclose some interesting information about the effective mass of the foot and shank (which we won’t discuss here), but it offered no other information about the potential links between barefoot running and either injury or performance.”

He’s correct. This study was not a long term study. The study indeed showed lower impact forces at the ankle, knee and hip during barefoot running when compared to shod running, however the runners were not observed over the long term. Thus we only know what happened during the short duration of the study. This situation is indicative of most barefoot running studies. Nor did the study investigate which method–barefoot or shod–results in the fastest performances.

Further studies should be conduced looking at several points. First, long-term studies should look at injury rates of shod runners compared to barefoot or minimally shod runners. Second, we need to move beyond injury issues and look at racing performance. In other words can we run faster barefoot/minimally shod or in shoes? Third, it might be interesting to see how many people have tried to convert from running shoes to barefoot running but were unsucessful. What happened to these people?

From my point of view, none of these other posts or viewpoints have changed my thinking that some degree of barefoot work is very likely healthy for a fair number of people. It’s not necessary for anyone to permanently discard their running shoes for bare feet, but perhaps it would be valuable to consider taking the shoes off from time to time and letting the feet behave like feet.

NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part III

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.

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…

NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part II

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.

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!

Cardio Health Correlates to Smarts

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.

A Look at Massage Therapy

Monday’s New York Times Fitness & Nutrition section recently featured an article titled Athletes take massage into their own hands. The article discusses the benefits to athletes of massage but more specifically we learn about self-massage methods and the tools for the job. The article states that ideally hard training athletes should get a massage once a week or every other week. For many athletes (pros or the wealthy among us) massage is as integral to their preparation as their time in the gym, on the bike, in the pool or on the court. However for many of us the price is somewhat prohibitive. Enter self-massage. We’re told tools such as foam rollers (available here, here, and here), golf balls, tennis balls as well as your own hands are useful in addressing tight, stiff muscles. DVDs on self-massage techniques are available and there are many demonstrations of these techniques on Youtube.

Over recent months, I’ve come to believe that these massage techniques are beneficial to athletes and everyone else who exercises. But on what do I base my evidence? Well, it’s just about all anecdotal. Massage seems to be beneficial (i.e. it feels good), various experts recommend it, and many athletes swear by it. What does science tell us? Much like everything in the world of science, the value of massage, and the mechanism(s) by which it works is debatable.

To that point, there are three articles on Science Daily that discuss different massage studies. Massaging Muscles Facilitates Recovery After Exercise profiles a study by the National Institutes of Health and Ohio St. University. The study suggests that massage indeed does facilitate recovery from strenuous exercise. The study was done on rabbits though, and both the “exercise” and “massage” was performed by machines which moved the rabbits’ limbs and performed the massage. This study may well indicate the recuperative value of massage, however we can’t be entirely certain that the same effects occur in humans.

In contrast, Massage After Exercise Myth Busted refutes some of the claimed effects of massage, namely that massage improves circulation and that it speeds removal of lactic acid. (Not to run away on a very different issue, but the common knowledge on lactic acid and its role and effects on muscle is inaccurate. Read about lactic acid, lactate and muscular fatigue here.) I don’t have full access to the Queen’s University study but apparently researches found that neither circulation nor lactic acid removal was facilitated by massage. Does this then mean that massage is not beneficial in aiding recovery from strenuous exercise? No. It simply means that in this study neither circulation was increased (it was actually decreased) nor was lactic acid removed any faster than without massage. It’s entirely likely that massage promotes recovery by other means. Perhaps the reduced circulation somehow aids in recovery. It’s also possible that another different study may find conflicting information.

The third piece, Massage Therapy May Have Immediate Positive Effect On Pain And Mood For Advanced Cancer Patients, tells of a National Institutes of Health study of 380 advanced cancer patients in which both pain and mood was improved through massage therapy. The article states:

“Researchers think that massage may interrupt the cycle of distress, offering brief physical and psychological benefits. Physically, massage may decrease inflammation and edema, increase blood and lymphatic circulation, and relax muscle spasms. Psychologically, massage may promote relaxation, release endorphins, and create a positive experience that distracts temporarily from pain and depression.”

So what conclusions should we draw? First, we can say that the mechanisms of massage are not fully understood. Far more study must be undertaken to determine the hows and the whys of massage. Second we might take note that there’s very little out there suggesting that massage is unhealthy or harmful. (The unskilled massage therapist may however pose harm. Further, there is probably a right and wrong time to employ a specific massage technique–relaxation vs. deep tissue for instance.) Though massage’s proposed mechanisms–increased blood flow as an example–may be in question the fact that it has been used effectively by so many for so long suggests strongly that there is something good to be had from massage.

Next, I’ll post three self-massage techniques you can use.

Denver Fitness Journal

All Things Health and Fitness by Kyle Norman, MS, CSCS, FMS, RRCA Running Coach

Observations