Smoke out weakness

So here’s an idea. Let’s use all sorts of movement patterns, all sorts of loads (volume, weight, speed, range of motion) and see where we start to break down–expose the weakness in other words. Then find some way to correct the weakness. In this way we should truly raise the ceiling on how strong we can be.

How do we do expose our weaknesses? First, I think it’s extremely important to have someone watch you or find a way to video yourself. Very often we may be moving poorly yet we don’t know it and it helps to have another set of eyes on the problem. Then, we need to work to the point of some sort of exertion in order to draw out the poor movement pattern. That is, we need to a) do enough reps, b) lift enough weight, c) move fast enough, or d) move far enough into a particular range of motion such that we cause a movement fault to appear. By the way, the load that’s needed to cause this movement fault may not be very severe. We may see a movement fault with just one half-range body-weight squat for example.

Squat

Pullups

Pushups

Interesting and Informative Information: Fat Isn’t So Bad, Skimpy Research on Injury Prevention in Runners

Read this! Learn things!

What if bad fat isn’t so bad?

“Ronald Krauss, M.D., won’t say saturated fats are good for you. ‘But,’ he concedes, ‘we don’t have convincing evidence that they’re bad, either.'”

I’ve written here that I’ve been persuaded that not only is fat good for us, that “bad” saturated fat is also at the very least not as bad for us as we’ve been led to believe. I found another article to further support my thoughts. What if fat isn’t so bad? is a 2007 article from NBC News. In it, we get a good dissection of the various flawed studies by which we’ve arrived at the idea that fat–particularly saturated fat–is pure evil.

The article discusses among other things Ancel Keys’s landmark Seven-Countries Study from 1970. This study did more to advance the fat/cholesterol/heart disease link than anything else around. This study went on to frame our current low-fat guidelines. Seems the conclusions that were drawn were quite inaccurate. From the article (emphasis is mine):

“The first scientific indictment of saturated fat came in 1953. That’s the year a physiologist named Ancel Keys, Ph.D., published a highly influential paper titled “Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health.” Keys wrote that while the total death rate in the United States was declining, the number of deaths due to heart disease was steadily climbing. And to explain why, he presented a comparison of fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Italy, and Japan.

The Americans ate the most fat and had the greatest number of deaths from heart disease; the Japanese ate the least fat and had the fewest deaths from heart disease. The other countries fell neatly in between. The higher the fat intake, according to national diet surveys, the higher the rate of heart disease. And vice versa. Keys called this correlation a “remarkable relationship” and began to publicly hypothesize that consumption of fat causes heart disease. This became known as the diet-heart hypothesis.

At the time, plenty of scientists were skeptical of Keys’s assertions. One such critic was Jacob Yerushalmy, Ph.D., founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley. In a 1957 paper, Yerushalmy pointed out that while data from the six countries Keys examined seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. And when all 22 were analyzed, the apparent link between fat consumption and heart disease disappeared. For example, the death rate from heart disease in Finland was 24 times that of Mexico, even though fat-consumption rates in the two nations were similar.”

The large-scale Women’s Health Initiative is discussed:

“We’ve spent billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the diet-heart hypothesis. Yet study after study has failed to provide definitive evidence that saturated-fat intake leads to heart disease. The most recent example is the Women’s Health Initiative, the government’s largest and most expensive ($725 million) diet study yet. The results, published last year, show that a diet low in total fat and saturated fat had no impact in reducing heart-disease and stroke rates in some 20,000 women who had adhered to the regimen for an average of 8 years.”

Several other studies are discussed. The comment from the article on these studies is this:

“These four studies, even though they have serious flaws and are tiny compared with the Women’s Health Initiative, are often cited as definitive proof that saturated fats cause heart disease. Many other more recent trials cast doubt on the diet-heart hypothesis. These studies should be considered in the context of all the other research.”

The article goes on to discuss the subtle differences between the types of LDL or “bad” cholesterol. Seems that all LDLs aren’t created equally:

“But there’s more to this story: In 1980, Dr. Krauss and his colleagues discovered that LDL cholesterol is far from the simple “bad” particle it’s commonly thought to be. It actually comes in a series of different sizes, known as subfractions. Some LDL subfractions are large and fluffy. Others are small and dense. This distinction is important.

A decade ago, Canadian researchers reported that men with the highest number of small, dense LDL subfractions had four times the risk of developing clogged arteries than those with the fewest. Yet they found no such association for the large, fluffy particles. These findings were confirmed in subsequent studies.

Link to heart disease
Now here’s the saturated-fat connection: Dr. Krauss found that when people replace the carbohydrates in their diet with fat — saturated or unsaturated — the number of small, dense LDL particles decreases. This leads to the highly counterintuitive notion that replacing your breakfast cereal with eggs and bacon could actually reduce your risk of heart disease.”

In much of the medical community, this talk of fat being healthy (or at least not un-healthy) is heresy. There seems to be a strong bias against openly discussing evidence to the contrary.:

“Take, for example, a 2004 Harvard University study of older women with heart disease. Researchers found that the more saturated fat these women consumed, the less likely it was their condition would worsen. Lead study author Dariush Mozaffarian, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Harvard’s school of public health, recalls that before the paper was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, he encountered formidable politics from other journals.

“‘In the nutrition field, it’s very difficult to get something published that goes against established dogma,’ says Mozaffarian. ‘The dogma says that saturated fat is harmful, but that is not based, to me, on unequivocal evidence.’ Mozaffarian says he believes it’s critical that scientists remain open minded. ‘Our finding was surprising to us. And when there’s a discovery that goes against what’s established, it shouldn’t be suppressed but rather disseminated and explored as much as possible.'”

Go here to read the full article.

Injury prevention in runners – “skimpy research”

The smart people at Running-Physio have done a good job of summarizing a research review of studies looking into injury prevention in runners. In all, 32 studies involving 24,066 participants were examined. The relationship between injury and running frequency, volume, intensity and duration were examined. The results? I’ll let the writers tell you;

“Regular followers of RunningPhysio will know of the ongoing debate we have with those staunch supporters of research who insist we must be evidence based. Surely this shows us just how unhelpful research can be in reality – over 30 studies, involving 24,000 runners and no firm conclusions on injury prevention! No wonder Verhangen (2012) described it as “skimpy published research” and went on to conclude,

‘Specifically for novice runners knowledge on the prevention of running injuries is practically non-existent.’

Nielsen et al. isn’t the first review of its kind in this field – a Cochrane Review in 2001 reached a very similar outcome and was updated in 2011 with equally negative conclusions; Yeung, Yeung and Gillepsie (2011) completed a review of 25 studies, including over 30,000 particpants and concluded,

‘Overall, the evidence base for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce soft-tissue injury after intensive running is very weak.’

They go on to make the very wise observation that, “More attention should be paid to changes in training charactisitcs rather than the characteristics themselves.” Based on their reading of the research review, Running-Physio makes the following suggestions:

Novice runners should be especially cautious with increasing volume or intensity of training.

Increase in weekly mileage should be done gradually. The higher the weekly mileage the more caution needs to be applied in increasing this distance. Running expert Hal Higdon talks about runners having a ‘breaking point’ – a weekly mileage above which they start to develop injuries. For every runner this is different but with experience you can find your breaking point and aim to work below it. A gradual increase in mileage helps avoid crossing this point and picking up an injury.

Changes in intensity of training should be added in isolation, rather than combined with increase in distance. Be cautious when adding interval training or hill work and use each training session for its specific goal (i.e.long slow runs at an appropriately slow pace).

Be aware of signs of injury – look out for persistent or severe pain, swelling, restricted movement or sensations of giving way.

Use rest sensibly – don’t be afraid to rest or replace running with cross training when your body needs it.

Seek help – the right GP, Physio or health care professional can make a real difference!

Something I observe here is that we’re often looking for the (training variable) that causes the one thing (an injury). In reality, it’s typically many variables (some of them unseen) that bring on an injury. Also, nowhere in the article or the research is the discussion of running technique. I would think that how someone runs probably has a big effect on whether or not he or she becomes injured. I’ve mentioned previously that where the foot lands in relation to one’s center of mass is quite important as it pertains to impact and running efficiency. I’d be interested in an analysis of the foot placement (and stride length and cadence) in the role of injury.

Small Frequent Meals? Bad Idea for Weight Loss.

Bloomberg News is reporting on some very interesting weight-loss news. (I guess there’s not much going on in the financial world…) Two Large Meals a Day Tops Six Mini-Meals for Weight-Loss reveals evidence that contradicts the hallowed advice to eat several small meals per day if you want to lose weight.

Here’s what’s important:

“Over 12 weeks, people with Type 2 diabetes who ate just breakfast and lunch lost an average of 1.23 points in body mass index, or BMI, compared with a loss of 0.82 point for those who ate six smaller meals of the same nutritional and energy content. The data, in a small study involving 54 patients, were presented today at the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

The study builds on previous results disproving the theory that eating more frequently improves weight loss. That pattern, thought to work because it helps control appetite, was shown to produce no more weight loss than three regular meals in a 2010 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition. The latest report eliminates one additional meal.

In today’s study, sponsored by the Czech Republic’s Ministry of Health, both the frequency of the meals and the timing were important, according to Kahleova. Eating earlier in the day — just breakfast, between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m., and lunch, between 12 p.m. and 4 p.m. — is associated with better results than skipping breakfast, she said.

Two meals a day also led to a greater decrease in liver fat content and a bigger increase in insulin sensitivity than six smaller meals.”

I find it very interesting that the researchers recommend skipping dinner instead of breakfast. That counters what I’ve been doing and what I’ve learned as a good fasting strategy. As I’ve said in recent posts (here and here), I like the idea of continuing the nighttime fast well into the day, then eating later in the day. In fact, in recent weeks I’ve been trying to eat two big meals on my fast days: a mid-day meal and an evening meal. Perhaps I’m doing this less than optimally if this recent study is accurate.

I think the big picture is that we should spend several hours not putting food in our mouths. There is mounting evidence that being hungry for a while is a good thing. Clearly in this country we eat too much food. It seems we not only eat too much–we eat too often. Further, the weight-loss gospel that a small-frequent-meal strategy aka “grazing” may be entirely wrong.

If you’re interested in this topic, there are a couple of worthwhile articles from Dave Tate’s site EliteFTS.com. Logic Does Not Apply Part I: Meal Frequency and Part II: Breakfast are well-referenced and interesting. Both discuss and support the idea of a) skipping breakfast and b) spacing out our meals by several hours. The writer notes though that small frequent meals throughout the day may be best for putting on weight. So if you’re looking to gain a bunch of muscle then eat often!

Things to Read: Taking on Dr. Oz, Don’t Take Your Vitamins, Questions About Barefoot Running,

There are several interesting things out there to check out. Here are a few:

The New Yorker on Dr. Oz

Scientists often argue that, if alternative medicine proves effective through experimental research, it should no longer be considered alternative; at that point, it becomes medicine. By freely mixing alternatives with proven therapies, Dr. Oz makes it nearly impossible for the viewer of his show to assess the impact of either; the process just diminishes the value of science.
– the New Yorker

Dr. Mehmet Oz is hugely popular. I don’t know how many people watch his show but it’s a lot. We all know who he is. He’s a Harvard- and University of Pennsylvania-trained heart surgeon and he directs Columbia Hospital’s Cardiovascular Institute and Integrative Medicine Program. He knows a few things. An article in the New Yorker titled The Operator: Is the most trusted doctor in America doing more harm than good? takes Dr. Oz to task for perhaps crossing a line from science and good doctoring to entertainment.

I agree with a lot of what the article suggests. He seems to veer from scientific-based factual information into entertaining yet scientifically questionable material. He’s had psychics on his show and he often discusses “miracle cures,” and “breakthrough fat-burning this-and-that.” I haven’t seen much of him but what I do see and hear sounds very sensational. He seems to promise miracles to desperate people. Sounds a little kooky to me. From the article:

“The Dr. Oz Show” frequently focuses on essential health issues: the proper ways to eat, relax, exercise, and sleep, and how to maintain a healthy heart. Much of the advice Oz offers is sensible, and is rooted solidly in scientific literature. That is why the rest of what he does is so hard to understand. Oz is an experienced surgeon, yet almost daily he employs words that serious scientists shun, like “startling,” “breakthrough,” “radical,” “revolutionary,” and “miracle.” There are miracle drinks and miracle meal plans and miracles to stop aging and miracles to fight fat. Last year, Oz broadcast a show on whether it was possible to “repair” gay people (“From Gay to Straight? The Controversial Therapy”), despite the fact that Robert L. Spitzer, the doctor who is best known for a study of gay-reparation therapy, had recanted. (Spitzer last year apologized to “any gay person who wasted time and energy” on what he conceded were “unproven claims.”) Oz introduced a show on the safety of genetically modified foods by saying, “A new report claims they can damage your health and even cause cancer.” He also broadcast an episode on whether the apple juice consumed daily by millions of American children contains dangerous levels of arsenic. “Some of the best-known brands in America have arsenic in their apple juice,” he said at the outset, “and today we are naming names.” In each of those instances, and in many others, Oz has been criticized by scientists for relying on flimsy or incomplete data, distorting the results, and wielding his vast influence in ways that threaten the health of anyone who watches the show. Last year, almost as soon as that G.M.O. report was published, in France, it was thoroughly discredited by scores of researchers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Dr. Eric Rose was interviewed for the article. Rose is a professor of surgery at the Mount Sinai medical school. Rose and Oz worked together, most notably on Frank Torre’s 1996 heart transplant. (Frank Torre is the brother of former Yankee manager Joe Torre.) He said this:

“I want to stress that Mehmet is a fine surgeon,” Rose said, as he did more than once during our conversation. “He is intellectually unbelievably gifted. But I think if there is any criticism you can apply to some of the stuff he talks about it is that there is no hierarchy of evidence. There rarely is with the alternatives. They have acquired a market, and that drives so much. At times, I think Mehmet does feed into that.”

I asked if he would place his confidence in a heart surgeon, no matter how gifted, who operated just once a week, as Oz does. “Well,” he replied, “in general you want a surgeon who lives and breathes his job, somebody who is above all devoted to that.” Again he mentioned Oz’s experience, but when I asked if he would send a patient to Oz for an operation, he looked uncomfortable. “No,” he said. “I wouldn’t. In many respects, Mehmet is now an entertainer. And he’s great at it. People learn a lot, and it can be meaningful in their lives. But that is a different job. In medicine, your baseline need has to be for a level of evidence that can lead to your conclusions. I don’t know how else you do it. Sometimes Mehmet will entertain wacky ideas—particularly if they are wacky and have entertainment value.”

And there is this observation from researcher Eric Topol:

“Mehmet is a kind of modern evangelist,” Eric Topol said when I called him at the Scripps Research Institute, where he is a professor of genomics and the director of the Translational Science Institute. Topol, one of the nation’s most prominent cardiologists, founded the medical school at the Cleveland Clinic and led its department of cardiovascular medicine. “He is keenly intelligent and charismatic,” Topol said. “Mehmet was always unique, but now he has morphed into a mega-brand. When he tells people the number of sexual encounters they need each year to improve their lives in a specific way, or how to lose weight in three days—this is simply lunacy. The problem is that he is eloquent and talented, and some of what he says clearly provides a service we need. But how are consumers to know what is real and what is magic? Because Mehmet offers both as if they were one.”

Dr. Oz seems like the latest in a long line of American snake-oil salesmen. The best ones mix truth with fantasy and it sounds like Dr. Oz is doing just that. On the positive side, the article tells us that Dr. Oz is pro-vaccine. Read the full article on the cult doctor here.

The New York Times: Don’t Take Your Vitamins

The likely explanation is that free radicals aren’t as evil as advertised. (In fact, people need them to kill bacteria and eliminate new cancer cells.) And when people take large doses of antioxidants in the form of supplemental vitamins, the balance between free radical production and destruction might tip too much in one direction, causing an unnatural state where the immune system is less able to kill harmful invaders.
– the New York Times

I’ve discussed various questions about supplements. Now, a recent opinion piece called Don’t Take Your Vitamins is in the New York Times and it goes into more information on the topic. Here’s a bit:

“Antioxidation vs. oxidation has been billed as a contest between good and evil. It takes place in cellular organelles called mitochondria, where the body converts food to energy — a process that requires oxygen (oxidation). One consequence of oxidation is the generation of atomic scavengers called free radicals (evil). Free radicals can damage DNA, cell membranes and the lining of arteries; not surprisingly, they’ve been linked to aging, cancer and heart disease.

To neutralize free radicals, the body makes antioxidants (good). Antioxidants can also be found in fruits and vegetables, specifically in selenium, beta carotene and vitamins A, C and E. Some studies have shown that people who eat more fruits and vegetables have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease and live longer. The logic is obvious. If fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants, and people who eat fruits and vegetables are healthier, then people who take supplemental antioxidants should also be healthier. It hasn’t worked out that way.

The likely explanation is that free radicals aren’t as evil as advertised. (In fact, people need them to kill bacteria and eliminate new cancer cells.) And when people take large doses of antioxidants in the form of supplemental vitamins, the balance between free radical production and destruction might tip too much in one direction, causing an unnatural state where the immune system is less able to kill harmful invaders. Researchers call this the antioxidant paradox.

Because studies of large doses of supplemental antioxidants haven’t clearly supported their use, respected organizations responsible for the public’s health do not recommend them for otherwise healthy people.

So why don’t we know about this? Why haven’t Food and Drug Administration officials made sure we are aware of the dangers? The answer is, they can’t.”

The article goes into how the supplement makers have tied the hands of the FDA. Seems this sort of thing happens in many different arenas from food and drugs to environmental regulations. It seems over and over again we’re shown that we should get our nutrition from real food, not pills and powders.

The New York Times: Is Barefoot-Style Running Best? New Studies Cast Doubt.

(Somehow all these article came from the great city of New York. Wasn’t really intentional but… there it is anyway.) I’m a big fan of minimalist or barefoot-style running. I believe in my case it has helped me regain proper mobility and strength, and has helped me overcome pain and regain my running ability. That said, simply donning a pair of Vibram 5-Fingers and hitting the road WAS NOT a cure-all for me. A lot more work went into my efforts to fix my running. The New York Times discusses things in this direction in this recent post in the Well Blog section.

The article discusses research from the Journal of Applied Physiology that looked at forefoot vs. heel striking in runners. (Advocates of barefoot-style running suggest that barefoot running promotes forefoot striking which is suggested by some to reduce injuries.) The pertinent findings are these:

In the end, this data showed that heel-striking was the more physiologically economical running form, by a considerable margin. Heel strikers used less oxygen to run at the same pace as forefoot strikers, and many of the forefoot strikers used less oxygen — meaning they were more economical — when they switched form to land first with their heels.

Most of the runners also burned fewer carbohydrates as a percentage of their energy expenditure when they struck first with their heels. Their bodies turned to fats and other fuel sources, “sparing” the more limited stores of carbohydrates, says Allison Gruber, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who led the study. Because depleting carbohydrates results in “hitting the wall,” or abruptly sagging with fatigue, “these results tell us that people will hit the wall faster if they are running with a forefoot pattern versus a rear-foot pattern,” Dr. Gruber says.

That covers running efficiency of two different foot-strike styles. The article says this about injuries:

The news on injury prevention and barefoot-style running is likewise sobering. Although many barefoot-style runners believe that wearing lightweight shoes or none at all toughens foot muscles, lessening the likelihood of foot-related running injuries, researchers at Brigham Young University did not find evidence of that desirable change. If foot muscles become tauter and firmer, the scientists say, people’s arches should consequently grow higher. But in a study also presented at the sports medicine meeting, they found no changes in arch height among a group of runners who donned minimalist shoes for 10 weeks.

Other researchers who presented at the meeting had simply asked a group of 566 runners if they had tried barefoot-style shoes and, if so, whether they liked them. Almost a third of the runners said they had experimented with the minimalist shoes, but 32 percent of those said that they had suffered injuries that they attributed to the new footwear, and many had switched back to their previous shoes.

This isn’t terribly surprising considering that from a biomechanics standpoint, running is a complicated task. There are numerous joints and muscles involved in the kinetic chain. If any part of that chain isn’t functioning properly then we may get a problem. If we’re conditioned to running in one type of shoe then abruptly change to another shoe, then conditions are very different under our feet and thus the way we run will be altered.

Minmal shoes have been a component of my overcoming various chronic aches and pains–which I should say were acquired while running in conventional “good” running shoes. I initially simply running in my old, bad style in my new minimal shoes. It didn’t work! I had to regain competency in my feet, hips, and torso to fix my running issues. Minimal shoes allowed me to become more aware of my feet and more aware of how I land on the ground. So again, I think minmal shoes can be a very good idea so long as they’re not looked to as a be-all-end-all cure to running injuries.

The Fasting Experiment: Part II

Got food? Nope.

Back in May I discussed Michael Mosley and his PBS special called Eat, Fast, and Live Longer. It motivated me to try out fasting. This is an update.

Fasting can take on various different forms. We often think of fasts in terms of total abstinence of food and drink but that’s not the only way to fast. Fasts may be undertaken for several days at a time, for 24

hrs, or during part of a day. Reasons to fast include medical instruction, weight loss and other health benefits, or religious devotion. I’ve employed two types of fasting for weight loss and the various other health benefits discussed in the previous post and below.

Types of fasts

– Intermittent Fasting: Intermittent fasting has days of fasting alternated with days of non-fasting. I’m not doing a full-on fast but rather I’m extending my nighttime fast and reducing my calories on these days. This pattern has been popularized by Michael Mosley’s FastDiet aka the 5:2 Diet. (As I’ve said, I find Mosley’s work compelling, but to be fair, the Wiki entry on the 5:2 diet mentions a lack of evidence for its efficacy. Make your own decision.) I typically take two rest days throughout the week on Wednesday and either Monday or Friday. These have been my fasting days.

The strict version of intermittent fasting has men consuming about 600 calories on the fast days, women about 500 calories. That ain’t much! I’m training for some athletic events so this isn’t necessarily the ideal time to fast as I need all sorts of nutrients, fuel, and protein in order to engage in and recover from workouts. My modification simply has me waiting to eat (more on that right below) and generally trying to consume fewer calories. I actually sort of look forward to trying this very low-calorie fast though. When I’m ready…

– Restricted Feeding Window: This process is the other component of my fasting project. Essentially, this has you restricting the time during which you eat. Typical suggestions are to eat only during an 8-hr. time period of the day and to fast the other 16 hrs. Eating programs such as the Perfect Health Diet and the Warrior Diet advocate the restricted eating window.

Research in mice has indicated favorable benefits of the restricted-feeding window. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies released a study last year in which a researcher said:

“It’s a dogma that a high-fat diet leads to obesity and that we should eat frequently when we are awake,” says Satchidananda Panda, an associate professor in the Regulatory Biology Laboratory and senior author of the paper. “Our findings, however, suggest that regular eating times and fasting for a significant number of hours a day might be beneficial to our health.”

Further, an article by Brownen in Ageing Research Reviews discusses evidence that both caloric restriction and intermittent fasting may have potential to combat age related illnesses such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. This type of information supports my efforts.

My early experience

I’ve combined intermittent fasting with the restricted feeding window for about a month now. I reduce my calories two days per week and I take in very few calories (about 230) in the morning. This comes from the coconut oil and grass-fed butter in my version of Bulletproof coffee. The idea is to prolong the overnight fast. Then sometime around noon or later I start eating. I typically do this on Wednesday and Friday which are my rest days. I’ve fasted on Mondays as well.

Besides the likely health benefits of fasting, I’d also like to lose some weight and get down to 195 lbs. I’m training for both the Triple Bypass bike ride and the Continental Divide Trail Run and both of those efforts would be a little easier if I were a little lighter. Therefore I’m tracking my caloric intake and expenditure with My Fitness Pal (Myfitnesspal.com). It’s a fantastic tool for anyone wanting to lose weight. (If you want to lose weight then you must track your food intake. If you’re not willing to track your food then you’re not serious about losing weight–and that’s OK. It’s just not going to happen unless you decide to do it.) I started using it in conjunction with fasting. It seems to be a very good combination. I’ve consistently weighed anywhere from 202 lbs. to about 207. Now, I’m consistently weighing anywhere from 195 lbs. to 198 lbs. My body composition has improved as well from about 18% to about 15%. These changes came about very quickly

My Fitness Pal has you filling out a profile that includes such data as age, sex and activity level. You then enter in how much weight you’d like to lose and how quickly you’d like to lose it–1 lb. per week for example. I started off using My Fitness Pal by only tracking my calories and not tracking my exercise expenditure. At times it was really tough to keep my calories within the prescribed range. Once I started entering my exercise data My Fitness Pal adjusted my caloric intake and allowed me to consume quite a bit more which was very helpful. It looks like my rapid weight loss was probably due to my adhering to the recommended caloric intake of a sedentary person. This while I was exercising quite vigorously and staying below the recommended calories on my fasting days. Quick weight loss indeed.

More information

If you’re interested in learning more about fasting, I’ve listed some resources below. I’m new to this and there’s a lot more you can learn.

Depriving yourself: The real benefits of fasting – This comes from the Chicago Tribune. The evidence of the benefits of fasting are discussed:

“When it comes to treating cancer, Valter (cq) Longo, director of the Longevity Institute at the University of Southern California, thinks that short-term complete fasts maximize the benefits. He’s found that a 48-hour total fast slowed the growth of five of eight types of cancer in mice, the effect tending to be more pronounced the more fasts the animals undertook (Science Translational Medicine).

Fasting is harder on cancer cells than on normal cells, he says. That’s because the mutations that cause cancer lead to rapid growth under the physiological conditions in which they arose, but they can be at a disadvantage when conditions changes. This could also explain why fasting combined with conventional cancer treatment provides a double whammy.

Clinical trials assessing the impact of fasting in people with cancer are ongoing. Early results are promising, says Longo, and patients in the advanced stages of cancer, who cannot wait for the results, might find it worth discussing fasting with their oncologist.

Could fasting prevent cancers developing in the first place? Evidence is scant but there are ‘very good reasons’ why it should, says Longo. He points out that high levels of IGF-1 and glucose in the blood, and being overweight are all risk factors for cancer, and they can all be improved by fasting. Another risk factor is insulin, says Michelle Harvie at the University of Manchester, UK.

Studying women whose family history puts them at high risk of developing breast cancer, she put half of them on a diet that involved cutting calories by about 25 percent, and half on a 5:2 fast. After six months, both groups showed a reduction in blood insulin levels, but this was greater in the fasting group. Harvie’s team is now analyzing breast biopsies to see whether this translates to fewer of the genetic changes associated with increased cancer risk.

High insulin is also associated with type 2 diabetes, so perhaps it is no surprise that fasting shows promise here, too.”

Ready, Set, Fast: How Strategic Meal-Skipping Can Help You Lose Fat, Gain Muscle and Get Healthier – Dr. John Berardi of Precision Nutrition wrote this for The Art of Manliness. It’s his account of his own fasting experiment. He gives a good rundown of fasting basics, different types of fasts, links to fasting research, and his take on how to get started.

The UK’s Hot New 5:2 Diet Craze Hits The U.S. – Weight Loss Miracle? – We haven’t discussed the drawbacks of fasting. This article from Forbes discusses several aspects of fasting including intermittent fasting which the 5:2 Diet is based on. Some of the downsides of fasting are mentioned here too.

“The main drawback of intermittent fasting that has drawn many vocal critics is that it’s really, really hard to do. There’s no question, you’re going to be pretty hungry – and pretty grumpy – on your fasting days. And when dieting is miserable, people tend not to stick to it. And when they don’t stick to it, they get discouraged, often eating even more once they give up. Other than that, experts cite side effects including dehydration, irritability, anxiety, sleep problems, and bad breath.

Like many fad diets, intermittent fasting is likely to work really well for some people, discourage many more. But you won’t know which group you fall into until you try. So get ready to start coordinating your fast days with family and friends; the 5:2 FastDiet is going to be around for awhile.”

The writer makes a good point. Fasting isn’t all that easy or fun. But neither is cancer, diabetes or being overweight. What’s your health worth to you?

Lower Trap/Scapula Mobility & Strength Process

I’ve had some on and off right shoulder pain for a while. Along with it has been some wrist and elbow pain. I’ve worked wrist mobility, elbow mobility and I’ve worked shoulder internal rotation as well as elevation and retraction of the scapula. Like I said, the pain comes and goes so I figure I’ve been knocking on the door of the issue, but I haven’t yet nailed it. I’ve employed the following process to very good effect. I’ve used the same process with several clients and seen some very nice changes in shoulder pain and mobility, and neck pain and mobility.

An elevated shoulder

Recently, I asked my wife to look at my shoulders from the back and see if there were any discrepancies or anything that seemed out of place. She quickly said my right shoulder was higher than my left. I took a wild guess and figured I had an elevated scapula and that perhaps my lower fibers of my trapezius muscle weren’t doing their job.

The trapezius

The trapezius (or “trap”) is an interesting muscle. As the name implies, it is a trapezoid. From the picture you

The multi-talented trapezius

can see the superior fibers originate from the base of the skull and attaches at the lateral clavicle, acromion process, and the spine of the scapula. The middle fibers originate from C7 and T1-3 and attach at the acromion and scapular spine. The inferior fibers originate from T4-T12 and run upwards to attach to the lower scapular spine.

The traps do several things. Largely, they shrug your shoulders up (elevation), shrug them back (retraction) or shrug them down (depression). The traps also play a role in rotation, lateral flexion, and extension of the neck. The traps work closely with lots of other muscles including the lats, the levator scapula, deltoids, rhomboids, the muscles of the rotator cuff and a host of neck muscles. Consequently, if some part of the traps are too tight, too long or offline in some way, the result may be shoulder pain, neck pain or other issues down the line such as elbow, wrist or possibly jaw pain.

Mobilize & strengthen

To get things feeling and moving correctly, I like to start with soft tissue work via a lacrosse ball, the Stick, a foam roller, or whatever tool you like to use to soften tight tissue. I’ve found the stick rolled along the upper trap to be quite effective. An example is below. Also, I like to pin a lacrosse ball against my shoulder blade and the wall to get at the external rotators, mid traps, rhomboids, etc. I like to use the lacrosse ball in a similar fashion to work the pecs, but facing the wall instead of backing into the wall. Then, I’ve been using the following combination of stretches and strength work to put things in working order.

First are a couple of stretches I stole from Kelly Starrett at MobilityWOD.com. Both are useful ways to work on internal rotation and tie in some neck mobility. We often see poor shoulder movement that includes poor internal rotation and tight neck muscles–whether the lower trap is messed up or not. Working some internal rotation, moving the neck and loosening the tissue in that neighborhood seems to help facilitate good shoulder movement.

Second, I use the prone-Y simply to get a feel for what it feels like to use the lower traps. It’s nearly impossible to do this one wrong. Make sure to keep the glutes engaged so the low back doesn’t arch too much. Put a cushion under the forehead so as not to mash your face into the ground, bench, or table. I like to go to mild exertion. This isn’t something to make you grimace. It’s simply to get you connected to your lower traps.

The face-pull comes next. Take a staggered stance so as not to lean back. Keep the upper arms parallel to the ground. Keep the shoulders down–but don’t let the elbows drop. This may be a challenging skill for some. You may find your brain gets a tougher workout than any of the muscles involved. Again, no need to go to use a lot of weight or go to high exertion. Technique is #1 here!

Then I go to something I call a shrug-down. You can do this with a lat pull-down or cables or tubing of any sort positioned overhead. It can also be done with an assisted pull-up machine or unassisted hanging from a bar. The important thing is not to go too heavy. Just like the other exercises, this should feel too easy to start with. Many people find it quite difficult to shrug the shoulders down without bending the elbows. This is a skill and it may take some time, some steam coming out of your ears, and sticking out your tongue to master it.

Finally, I like going to a full cable pull-down or pull-/chin-up. Just like the other exercises, I suggest you go light. Try to separate the scapular depression (the shrug down) from the elbow flexion. See if you can make it sort of a two-part exercise: shrug down, pull up, lower yourself back down, un-shrug. Let me know if this helps your shoulder and/or neck issues.

Ft. Collins Half-Marathon Report

What things in life are good? 13.1 miles, a full squat & a full beer.

This past Sunday I had the pleasure of running the Colorado Half-Marathon in Ft. Collins, CO. My official results are as follows:

Final time: 01:47:26 at a 00:08:12 pace.
Overall place: 204 out of 1529 in the HALF MARATHON.
Division placing: 13 out of 68 in class M35-39.

I’m not too terribly disappointed in those results. I came in in the top 20% of my age group and top 13% overall. That sounds kinda cool… Makes me think I could actually be competitive. Too bad they don’t do standings by weight class. I wonder how I did among men in the 200 lbs. range? I know I could’ve done better though if I’d been a little smarter. More on that in a moment.

Early morning & a perfect day

I couldn’t have asked for better racing weather. It was dry, clear and temps were somewhere in the low 40s at the start. Cold but perfect for a vigorous run. The pre-race meal consisted of some Bulletproof coffee and a bit of beet/celery/apple/cucumber/kiwi/kale juice. About a half-hour before the race I had an old-fashioned Powerbar which always seems to agree with me.

Start time was 6:30 am. Getting up at 4:30-ish was a little tough but being that I get up early most days, it wasn’t anything freakish. Racers boarded buses for a ride up along the Poudre River to the start. The scenery was typical of Colorado’s Front Range: mountainous, beautiful and powerful.

The race: I’ll be smarter next time.

My goal time was 1:47 and change. I did in fact hit my goal time so that’s fine, but the course was a fast course and I thought I could finish faster. (Maybe 1:45? Sounds like a nice almost-round and realistic number.) The big issue is I started off too fast. Every runner who’s ever raced more than one race has done this. The results always confirm that we are just as human as everyone else. No matter how good you feel at the start of a race you’re not going to feel that good at the end. Hold back. Feel like you’re going slow at the start so you can maintain speed at the end. Lesson learned (again.)

I planned on running with a pace group. There was a 1:40 group and a 1:50 group. I started with the 1:40 group with the idea that I’d stay with them just a little while, slow a bit and maintain my goal pace of 8:11/mile. Bottom line, it didn’t work out exactly. I slowed down near the end. If I had it to do over–which I will–I would’ve maintained even splits the whole time. Fortunately, there was beer at the end which in all truth may not be the ideal post-workout/race recovery drink but it still takes a special prize. To paraphrase Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now: “I love the taste of cold suds in the morning. Tastes like…. I ran 13.1 miles.”

The final word

I have great affection this race. Ft. Collins is a delightful place and I love going there for any reason. If you get a chance to run this race, do it. (There’s a marathon, half-marathon, 10k and 5k–a distance for everyone.) Register early though because the marathon and half- fill up fast.

It’s tempting to think about running the marathon, but training for a spring marathon during the Colorado winter sounds less-than-enjoyable. I’ll have to think on it.

The Fasting Experiment: Part I

Even if calorie restriction does not help anyone live longer, a large portion of the data supports the idea that limiting food intake reduces the risks of diseases common in old age and lengthens the period of life spent in good health.
– Scientific American

The second of Michael Mosley’s PBS series on health is titled Eat, Fast and Live Longer. A significant portion of the program is devoted to the health effects of fasting or caloric restriction. (He does not suggest that you actually consume your food at a rapid pace.) I’ve read and heard about some of the benefits of fasting and I’ve played around with it a little bit. After understanding the results of Mosley’s self-experiment with fasting, my wife and I both were very motivated to enact some form of fasting in our lives.

Michael Mosley PBS

Watch Eat, Fast and Live Longer with Michael Mosley on PBS. See more from Michael Mosley.

Benefits of caloric restriction

There seem to be several noteworthy benefits to fasting (aka caloric restriction.) I’ve written before that hunger actually seems to stimulate movement and alertness. The idea being that a hungry animal must go look for food.

Also, caloric restriction seems to extend the lifespan of various organisms and reduce incidence of various diseases. (Many studies have been done on animals, others in humans.) Caloric restriction seems to improve insulin sensitivity, heart function, and seems to improve memory in the elderly and may help in epilepsy treatment. Fasting seems to make brain tumors more vulnerable to radiation treatment, and calorie restriction–particularly carbohydrate/sugar restriction–appears to be an effective treatment for other cancers. (To be fair, there are other studies finding few benefits to calorie restriction. A recent study in monkeys suggests that the type of calorie matters more to lifespan than the amount of calories consumed.)

In this episode of Mosley’s show, he discusses Insulin-like growth factor or IGF. I won’t go into all the details of this compound, but it seems that it plays a key role in the development of several cancers and diabetes. In a study from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, subjects with breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer and ovarian cancer had higher levels of various types of IGF compared with controls. The study says:

“Evidence suggests that lifestyles characterized by a high-energy diet may affect the IGF system, which may, in turn, connect such lifestyles to high rates of cell proliferation and predispose cells to risk of malignant transformation.”

An article in the Harvard Gazette discusses studies with similar findings.

Why is this important?

Fasting decreases levels of IGF. Beyond just cutting calories, protein needs to be reduced as well. Watch Mosley’s special or read his BBC article The Power of Intermittent Fasting for more discussion on fasting and IGF.

I’m not a true academic researcher and I don’t claim to have found all the definitive evidence of this whole IGF/disease relationship, but from what I’ve read and heard it sounds like too much food may push us towards some types of diseases including various cancers. Periodic caloric restriction seems generally like a good, healthy idea.

If you look at the Wikipedia entry for fasting, you’ll see that the practice has been around all over the world for thousands of years, often for religious purposes. I tend to think though that if a practice hangs on for that long, our organism must on some level see something beneficial in it. Further, as noted in the Scientific American article How Intermittent Fasting Might Help You Live a Longer, Healthier Life, ancient humans were often forced to fast due to availability of food. A reliable supply of three (or more) square meals a day is a very recent addition to humanity. It’s possible that this pressure in evolution helped select for healthier genes that survive today.

In the next entry, I’ll discuss various types of fasts and my early experience in toying with caloric restriction.

One Week Until the Colorado (Half-)Marathon

I like this plan. You might too.

The Colorado Marathon and Half-Marathon are coming up on May 5. It’s in Ft. Collins, north of Denver. I’m running the half-. It’s actually my first half-marathon. I’ve run several 10-milers, a 15-mile trail race, 10k’s, 5k’s, and one marathon, so this shouldn’t be any radical departure. This is a very popular race that fills up early. The course is supposed to be scenic and this time of year is spectacular in Colorado. It’s also slightly downhill which should make for a fast race.

My goal time is ~~just under 1:38~~ about 1:47. That’s based on a 23:10 5k I ran last year. That it’s downhill makes me think I might get a little bit better time. I’ve been following the 3-run per week Runner’s World Run Less, Run Faster plan developed by the Furman Institute of Running and Scientific Training (FIRST). I enjoy the plan for several reasons. First, it covers the whole spectrum of speed: fast track workouts, tempo runs, and long runs. Everything is paced. Times are based on a 5k race time. The plan pushes me to run harder than I probably would on my own. That’s good. Second, with only three runs per week it’s time-efficient. The idea is for you to do only what you need to do and nothing more. That’s another good idea.

I’ve been lifting several times per week with two of those workouts being hard workouts. The workouts are loosely based on the Wendler 5/3/1 scheme. (Week 1: 3×5 reps. Week 2: 3×3 sets. Week 3: 5 reps, 3 reps, 1 rep. Week 4: reduce the work load and take it easy. Then start the process over with more weight.) They’ve looked like this:

Workout 1

barbell, kettlebell, or dumbbell clean & press
box back squats
core work, one or more of the following: ab wheel roll-outs, hanging knee-ups, cable chops, cable lifts, side bends, Turkish get-ups, 1-arm farmer walks

Workout 2

1-leg work: pistols alternated each week with 1-leg RDLs. I mix pistols off a box with TRX pistols. Two weeks from the race I’ve done some single leg jumping on and off a plyo box.
weighted pull-ups or chin ups
bench press
core work: similar to workout 1

Other workouts

Mobility work: I’ve been religious about using the rumble roller, lacrosse ball (big-time favorite of mine), and the Stick to address my soft tissue. I’ve also been smashing my quads with a barbell ala Kelly Starrett’s Becoming a Supple Leopard pg 326. (That one’s great for nausea. That is, if you’re not currently nauseous and you’d like to be, the barbell quad smash will get you there. Seriously, it’s really improved my hip flexor ROM and helped reduce soreness.) I’ve worked a lot on ankle mobility; foot/big toe mobility; hip flexors, extensors, adductors and rotators; quadratus lumborum (HUGELY for me lately), and thoracic mobility. I’ll often combine this work with a trip to the hot tub either before or after.
If I missed an exercise one day due to time or fatigue, I fit it in on another day.
There are lots of core exercises to pick from. I don’t do them all in one workout, therefore I often get one or more in on another day.

I think single-leg work is very important. Running is a one-legged gig. Mobility, stability and strength on one leg is an essential ability. Further, it seems that getting strong on one leg makes me stronger on two legs (squat or deadlift), but getting stronger on two legs doesn’t necessarily seem to make me stronger on one leg. The last week before the race I might do some single-leg jumping only–and nothing else. It’s time to rest. More work at this point won’t improve my race performance.

The core work has been a big part of this scheme. I’ve spent more time on specific core work than I have in the past. I understand it better. I perceive its importance more thoroughly than I used to.

I’m hoping for good weather. Spring in Colorado can be sunny and gorgeous or it can be frigid, snowy/rainy, and rough. Sunny and gorgeous is my preference.

PBS’s The Truth About Exercise

“The chair is a killer.”
– Michael Mosley, PBS, The Truth About Exercise

Attention all exercise geeks and anyone fond of learning about the ins and outs of regaining or maintaining your health: You must check out the new series from PBS called The Truth About Exercise with Michael Mosley. (Actually, it seems that each episode has it’s own title “… with Michael Mosley.”) I watched the first episode and it’s tremendously interesting. The second episode is titled “Eat, Fast and Live Longer.” I just started it.

(Thanks to my mom for telling me about this show.)

Mosley uses himself as an experimental subject as he delves into some of the following topics:

How to reduce your insulin response with 3 minutes of (very) intense exercise per week.
How and why exercise can help remove fat from the blood stream.
The very deadly perils of sitting too much.
Why some people are “non-responders” to some aspects of exercise (and why exercise is still healthy for “non-responders.)

I know very little about Mosley but that he seems to be a fairly common sort of guy who’s not in particularly good shape. He has the questions about his health that many of us have. He talks to various exercise physiologists, nutrition scientists and coaches as he searches for answers and examines several exercise myths. I love it because much of what he discovers is informed by the latest science. He’s not rehashing the “common knowledge” (which is commonly stale and fairly inaccurate.) It’s a very entertaining show that moves quickly and isn’t overly science-y. It has a pretty decent soundtrack as well. I highly recommend it to anyone reading this right now. Previews of each episode are below. Go here to watch the full episodes.

Watch The Truth About Exercise with Michael Mosley – Promotion on PBS. See more from Michael Mosley.

Watch Guts with Michael Mosley – Preview on PBS. See more from Michael Mosley.

Denver Fitness Journal

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