My 1st Triple Bypass

Any Colorado cyclist knows about the notorious Triple Bypass. It doesn’t actually involve a scalpel but rather 120 miles of cycling over three mountain passes (Squaw Pass, Loveland Pass, Vail Pass) with over 10,000 feet of climbing. It’s a very popular ride that fills up quickly. It’s definitely something worth having on the cycling resume. The journey took me a little over 10 hours with around nine hours of riding. This was no casual ride.

The ride was reasonably brutal but also beautiful and enormous fun. (Equating self-inflicted brutality with fun is common among cyclists I think.) Save for the very ugly wreck I saw near the end of the ride, everything went exceedingly well–even with the afternoon shower and high winds. Traveling Colorado by bicycle is a wondrous thing.

The day started at about 4:30 am and the wife dropped me off at Bergen Park at 6:15 am. I joined about 3,499 other riders for a bit of climbing up Squaw Pass. All went well but several other riders had flats early. I saw one rider walking his bike–not a good sign.

I asked, “You OK? You need any help?”

“Ah… This is my third flat,” he said.

That’s a nightmare. Fortunately there were support vehicles orbiting us as we rode. I hope he got to finish the ride.

The ride up Squaw Pass featured all the mountain scenery you can imagine. Any tourist to Colorado would be impressed–as would most residents. Tremendous views of many mountain peaks were all around. Nice enough, but the ride down into Idaho Springs was helluva thrill ride! The scenery was exquisite, the roads were in good shape and the traffic was minimal. I believe I can descend fairly well (I’m 200 lbs.; thus gravity tends to welcome me) but some of these guys were SO fast downhill I couldn’t believe it. It’s like they were sprinting downhill, taking turns at vicious speeds. My gajones are only about medium-sized it seems. But how cares? It was all fun. Then we were into Idaho Springs.

From Idaho Springs the ride sort of hit a lull. I think most of us were anticipating the next big climb which was Loveland Pass. To get there we had to travel alongside and then finally on Interstate 70. This is nothing to dream about. Part of the route involved a slightly muddy, rocky road that was quite unsuited to road bikes. It wasn’t treacherous but I’d like to avoid such roads in the future. As for riding on I-70 (or bicycling on any interstate for that matter), this is a harsh and ugly thing. It is necessary from time to time however.

If you ride bikes in the mountains then you know getting an early start is wise. Winds tend to pick up around noon and it’s always about a 50% chance that a storm will blow through. This means you may get a sprinkle or you may get a cold soaking.

True to form, the wind started to gust as we marched onto the highway. Clouds were gathering If you like a windy uphill slog next to SUVs and tractor trailers then you’ll love this part of the ride. I’ll move on to more interesting parts.

The big lunch stop was at the Loveland Ski Area. We were about 60 miles in. We’d had a couple of other aid stops but this one was very welcome. (WHOOOOO! Did I want to sit in a chair…. A rock would have to do.) The refuel felt good but I wanted caffeine. I thought I brought two caffeinated energy gels with me but I managed to forget them. I wanted all the chemical assistance allowed by law as I had to climb up the nearly 12,000 feet of Loveland Pass, but no dice.

This was the toughest part of the ride for me. The climb started well enough but soon I felt light headed and my stomach was in slight turmoil. Both symptoms are rare for me. This is where all the weird mental imagery and self-talk started. I thought of my ride up Mt. Evans (hardest thing I’ve ever done); thought of my dog; thought of ice cream, beer, big pizza… I played Judas Priest and Black Sabbath in my head. Pretended I was riding l’Alpe D’Huez… None of it helped much. I got to the top and sat down on some warm pavement. I could’ve napped right there on the shoulder. Couldn’t do that though so I got the jacket on and got ready for another warp-speed run downhill.

By this time significant dark clouds were all over the place and the wind was gusting wildly. It was into an absurd headwind that climbed up Swan Mt. Road and around Dillon Reservoir. White caps were on the water and the sky was a thick, dark purple. Looked like DEFCON 2, but the big storm held off…

One more aid station stop and it was on to the third and final climb up Vail Pass. The rain started about a half-hour in to this portion of the ride. I had almost the right gear: full-finger gloves and a water RESISTANT jacket. The lesson learned is that I need to get an actual water PROOF jacket. That said, I felt pretty good. Climbing meant I was generating heat and I didn’t have to worry about slipping and sliding on a fast downhill. The full-finger gloves were vital.

The rain stopped in about a half hour and then the sun was out! I felt fantastic at this point–why?–I have no idea. I tend to like cool temps and I had them. Made climbing a lot easier for me. Plus, Vail Pass didn’t seem too terribly steep and the scenery was absolutely stunning. Everything was green and blooming. Looked like something out of “the Sound of Music,” complete with a picturesque mountain stream. (We rode by a lot of them throughout the day. It’s amazing how much easier it is to grind out a long climb when there’s flowing water nearby.)

Bed time now. I’ll finish the rest tomorrow.

Hydration

It’s summer and it’s hot. Seems like the ideal time to write about hydration. First, I’ll comment New York Times Health Section features the piece titled In Summer’s Heat, Watch What You Drink. The article has two main points. The first point concerns our fluid intake and the idea that we likely aren’t drinking enough to replace water lost to perspiration. The second point deals with high-calorie drinks and the fact that it’s easy to consume too many calories in our quest to hydrate ourselves. This post regards the first point.

Regarding fluid intake, the article suggests that a) our thirst is a poor guide for fluid intake and b) a quenched thirst is equally unreliable as a guide. The suggestion is that we should multiply our weight in pounds by 0.08 and then drink that number’s worth of eight-ounce cups of water daily. Sounds a little complicated to me. Prior to the advent of mathematics, how did early homo sapiens drink enough to survive?

(The above mentioned formula is almost as complicated as this one. If you’d like to further complicate your drinking habits, try the test described here.)

In the recent past, we were advised to drink eight glasses of water a day. No one is entirely sure where this advice came from. Then we were given formulas like the above mentioned methods to figure out how much fluid we needed to consume. There was and still is widespread fear that a little dehydration would certainly cause cramps, delirium, and possibly death. Like the Times article, much of the popular advice told us our thirst wasn’t a good guide–that to wait until we were thirsty to drink was to wait too late.

In recent years though we’ve seen new hydration guidelines. These guidelines are much simpler, more instinctive and easier to follow.

A list of the old vs. new rules of hydration can be found on Active.com. The best new rule in my view is to drink according to your thirst. Excellent. That’s what thirst is for right? A signal that it’s time to drink. The article states,

“The idea that thirst comes too late is a marketing ploy of the sports-drink industry,” says Tim Noakes, M.D., a professor of sport and exercise science at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. While thirst is not a perfect indicator of hydration status, it does appear to be a good indicator of the optimal drinking rate during exercise, according to Noakes. “The answer is just drink as your thirst dictates.”

Another new rule is to drink to slow dehydration rather than drink to completely prevent dehydration. Studies show that the effort to drink to completely prevent dehydration is nearly impossible and uncomfortable. Slight dehydration is not a health threat despite many popular fear to the contrary. To that point, overhydration or hyponatrimia is far more dangerous.

(One easy hydration check you can use regards urine color, as advocated at Ask the Dietitian. Dark urine means you need more water. Light yellow means your adequately hydrated.)

Next, sports drinks are superior to plain water if your activity lasts more than one hour. Sports drinks contain important electrolytes such as sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and phosphate as well as carbohydrates for fuel.

Some sports drinks such as Accelerade and Hammer’s Perpetuem contain protein. At least one study suggests that consuming small amounts of protein during a workout boosts performance. Be careful though. Some people (like my wife) experience gastrointestinal turmoil when they consume such drinks.

Next new rule regards caffeine. Previously, we were told that caffeinated drinks would dehydrate us. Now we’re told that isn’t quite the case. Caffeine can be a powerful ergogenic aid that may aid performance but it doesn’t seem to be inhibit adequate hydration. (Alcohol on the other hand definitely promotes dehydration.)

Finally, cold fluid is best to drink when it’s hot. (Similar to thirst, this seems instinctively obvious right?) It was once suggested that warmer water emptied out of the stomach faster but that’s no longer regarded as true. Nor does cold water promote cramping.

In conclusion, don’t complicate things. Drink as much (cold) fluid as you feel is appropriate. Drink a sports drink if you’re out in the heat for over an hour. You may want to experiment with protein and/or caffeine.

Strength Training for Runners: Part II

These make you faster. Lift them. Don't run with them.

In Part I of this post I discussed some of the evidence and ideas behind the idea that distance runners benefit from explosive movements and heavy strength training. In Part II I’ll discuss some of the exercises and workouts which you might incorporate into your current program.

First, when we talk about strength or “resistance” training programs we can think of several methods including plyometric or jumping exercises, weights, hill running or running with parachutes attached to the runner. This discussion will focus on jumping exercises and weight exercises.

Jumping Exercises

Also known a plyometrics, these exercises include but aren’t limited to the following:

Be careful with depth jumps. Impact forces generated from landing off of a box can be enormous depending on the height of the box involved. Think of box height like you would weight on a bar. Start with a low box and work up to higher boxes.

Weight Exercises

These are total body exercises employing barbells. Avoid machines like leg extensions and leg curls.

Deadlifts
Front squats
Back squats
Squat jumps
Cleans (with many variations such as the power clean)

Frequency

Plyometric and strength work should not be used more than three times per week. Rather than simply pile this work on top of your endurance work, two sources (here, here) suggest replacing 20%-30% of endurance training time with explosive or weight training. The point being that you don’t need to spend very much time doing this work in order for it to be effective.

Reps & Sets

– Bounding: You may think of bounding in terms of distance or reps. This is short duration/short distance. For example, bound the length of a basketball court or for 20-30 yards. Or bound for up to 10 reps. Start with two sets and add one set per week up to 10 sets. Recover fully between sets. THIS ISN’T ENDURANCE WORK.

– Box jumps, power step-ups: Go no higher than 10 reps. Use the same set scheme described above. Recover similarly.

– Depth jumps: Again, be careful. Go no higher than six reps per set and no higher than 10 sets. Recover at least 30 seconds between jumps and recover fully (up to three minutes) between sets. Only use depth jump workouts once per week. Progress to depth jumps only after several weeks (2-3) of jumping and bounding. Don’t start with depth jumps.

– Weight exercises:

Lift heavy and always use perfect technique. The rep range is 1-5. Work to the point where you know you can get one more rep and stop. (For more on this topic, read Train to Success Part I and Train to Success Part II.) You may get more reps just get them in subsequent sets. Use as few as two sets when you begin and progress over the course of weeks to as many as 10 sets. (10 sets of 2 reps for instance.)

A good method of tracking your lifting is to multiply weight x reps x sets. For instance: 200 lbs x 3 reps x 5 sets = 3000 lbs. If you’re doing three workouts per week then you can add the totals together to get your weekly score. Follow the 10% rule for running with your weight program, that is add no more than 10% per week either through weight or volume to your weekly score. You may use the same scoring method for your jumping work.

Jumping or weights?

You could use an infinite combination of jumping and/or weight exercises but why not keep it simple? For example, you could use one jumping exercise exclusively for all workouts for one to three weeks then use one weight exercise exclusively for the same amount of time. Take a week off then start over with new exercises. The research suggests that it doesn’t take a lot of time or many exercises to get the results you want.

Workout intensity should build over the weeks. Take a break then start over at a slightly higher intensity than where you previously started. Your workouts may vary during the week. Don’t set your workouts in stone. Depending on how you feel you may use higher or lower volume (reps and sets) or you may vary your intensity (weight). All of this variation is known as known as periodization.

Is it working?

The research suggests these methods work to increase running ability. One way to make sure you’re progressing is to test yourself. This is fairly easy. Select any distance you want (1 mile for instance) over a standard course. Run the mile each week and track your time, average heart rate and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). If you are progressing then your run time may decrease, and/or your average heart rate may drop, and/or your RPE may drop.

What else?

Remember to taper your gym work as you would your running work. Don’t start a new strength program in the middle of your season. Start this program before the competition season. Workouts should be brief and robust. Done correctly, these workouts should not negatively impact your run workouts. To that point, strength workouts should be separated from your hard running workouts. Both your strength workouts and your runs should be high-quality.

Engage in some sort of dedicated joint mobility program before, after and possibly during your workout. Z-Health is a fantastic method to prepare your body and nervous system for hard work. Addressing joint mobility and joint awareness will keep you pain free and performing at your highest potential.

Don’t lift weights in your running shoes! They’re not made for that. Running shoes put your heel up on a wedge which may promote hyperextension at your low back. Further, the squishy cushioning will impede proprioception or your sense of how to interact with the ground. Choose a flat-soled shoe preferably with a thin sole. The Converse Chuck Taylor is a good choice as are Vibram 5-Fingers.

(Are you sure I won’t bulk up???)

YES! If you could bulk up you would’ve already bulked up.

In conclusion…

It may seem counterintuitive that distance runners can benefit from heavy weight lifting and explosive jumping exercises. These things don’t much resemble distance running! However the evidence is in and it’s growing. Don’t waste your time in the gym doing high-rep/low-weight lifting–stuff that feels like endurance work in other words. Leave the stuff that feels like endurance work… for… well… endurance work! Use your time in the gym to build strength.

Product Review: Gatorade G Natural and G2 Natural

I’ll admit I’m a little bit excited in that someone at Gatorade reads my blog and sent me a couple of their new products to test. (I almost feel like a real journalist!) Gatorade G Natural and G2 Natural are two sports drinks that Gatorade is marketing as a natural alternative to their regular sports drinks. Both drinks are part of Gatorade’s Perform line of drinks. This means they’re designed to be drunk during a workout or competition. (Pre-competition/workout and post-competition/workout drinks are also available.) G Natural is a full-calorie drink with 50 calories per serving while G2 Natural is a low-calorie drink with 2o calories per serving. The G Natural I got was orange flavored. G2 Natural was berry flavored.

I drank the G Natural on a tough, quick bike ride up Lookout Mountain in Golden, CO. It was warm and the road was steep. A sports drink was definitely in order. I drank the G2 Natural after a five mile run. I found it refreshing and adequate to the task.

Flavor is probably the most important factor as to whether or not someone likes a sports drink. (Research has shown people will drink more if a drink is flavored as opposed to an unflavored drink like water.) My personal preference is for a light-flavored drink but this is a rare find among sports drinks. I found the G Natural flavor to be a bit strong, but it was nothing severe. I’d be perfectly happy to find this drink at rest stops during a bike tour or a running event.

Overall, I think this new Gatorade product is just fine and if you’re a fan of Gatorade then you’ll probably like these drinks. What has me thinking though is to what degree is this new product actually “natural?” To me, calling something natural implies that it is a minimally processed product. In my mind, natural foods should contain no engineered chemicals or food additives that I can’t pronounce or produce in my kitchen. So what’s in Gatorade Natural? (Specifically, we’ll look at what’s in the orange flavored drink.)

First is water. Nothing remarkable there. Second is sucrose. What is that? A sugar naturally found in plants but it can also be manufactured in a factory or lab. I don’t know where Gatorade gets its sucrose. Second is dextrose, AKA glucose. Glucose occurs naturally but commercial glucose is derived from plants, most commonly from corn–but this isn’t corn syrup.

Erythritol is next. (Ever cook up a batch of erythritol?) This is a sugar alcohol. It’s sweet but has almost no calories, therefore it’s often used as a sweetener in nutritional supplements and soft drinks like Gatorade. It’s derived via fermentation of glucose. This sugar alcohol tends to be easier on the digestive tract than other sugar alcohols like maltitol, sorbitol and xylitol. Erythritol also doesn’t affect blood-sugar levels thus making it fairly safe for diabetics. In my view, this is not a natural substance. That said, it sounds like good stuff to me. From the way it’s described, erythritol is a fairly benign sweetener and I have no problem using it on a consistent basis.

Next is citric acid. That’s in a lot of things. It’s used as a food flavoring and preservative. It’s also found naturally, often in citrus fruits. (Guess what else. If you buy a large enough quantity of it, the authorities may suspect you of terrorist activity because of citric acid’s role in the production of HMTD, a very powerful explosive.)

The always popular natural flavor is next on the list. The Code of Federal Regulations defines as natural flavoring as such:

“The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants listed in §§182.10, 182.20, 182.40, and 182.50 and part 184 of this chapter, and the substances listed in §172.510 of this chapter.”

So is natural flavor natural? You be the judge.

Sea salt follows natural flavor on the ingredient list. I’d call this some fairly natural stuff. It comes by way of evaporating sea water thus leaving sea salt.

Sodium citrate is next on the list. (One of three types of sodium citrate, trisodium citrate is the only food additive.) This is a tart flavoring and preservative used in various drinks as well as an anticoagulant in order to help preserve blood in blood banks.. It’s a relative of citric acid. How is it produced? If you’ve got a chemistry background, it shouldn’t be too tough. Can you find it in what most of us would call “nature?” Unlikely.

Finally we’ve got beta carotene (for color). (Can’t have a natural drink without color right?) Well, it’s fairly natural stuff. It’s what gives carrots and other orange veggies and fruits their orange color. (Wouldn’t it be ironic if the beta carotene in orange flavored Gatorade Natural came from carrots instead of oranges?) Beta carotene is quite possibly very healthy for you so long as it’s consumed in it’s natural state; that is as a whole food along with the thousands of other compounds found in carrots, oranges, pumpkins, sweet potato, orange peppers, etc. In contrast, if you’re a smoker and you consume enough beta carotene in isolation, your chances of lung cancer go up.

What’s my point here? The term “natural” can be applied to almost any food. There are no specific regulations concerning its use. We’re starting to learn that highly processed foods are unhealthy for us. Organic foods are becoming more popular and many of us recognize the health benefits of eating non-processed or minimally processed foods (i.e. stuff that’s simply pulled out of the ground or yanked off a tree branch.) Thus there is profit to be made by way of foods we might generally consider natural. Is Gatorade Natural actually natural? It depends on your definition. Almost anything on earth or in the universe might be considered natural. (Supernatural probably isn’t the correct term for Gatorade Natural either.) Does it contain some naturally found substances? Yes. Does it also contain some highly processed substances? Also yes.

Am I calling Gatorade Natural a bad or unhealthy product? No. I truly have no idea of the overall health effects of Gatorade Natural. I personally have no fear of consuming the product. It may well be the ideal thirst quenching fuel for many athletes. At the same time, it’s not quite what I consider to be a natural product.

Strength Training for Runners: Part I

Many runners I speak with in the gym believe that in order to improve their running, they need to lift weights in a fashion that’s similar to running. That is, they believe lifting very light weights for many many reps (thus creating an endurance-like situation for their muscles, heart and lungs) will lead to better performance. Conversely, many endurance athletes see no reason to lift heavy weights. They often believe they’ll become muscle bound and/or injured. (Besides, when was the last time the winner of a 10k stopped to deadlift for three reps?) The fact of the matter is, runners–both sprinter and distance runners–will benefit from lifting heavy weights and/or explosive movements. There. That’s what I have to say. Now let me explain…

Strength is your friend.

Strength is like money: No one ever complains that they’ve got too much. (Please let me know if, after a race, the 2nd place finisher said to the camera, “I’d probably have gotten first if I’d just been a little weaker.) Stronger muscles will propel you faster and/or further. Our view of endurance however may clash with our view of strength. They may seem like two very different concepts. We may think that endurance is strictly a heart & lung thing. Strength and endurance aren’t that different though. Strength and endurance are very strongly linked. And for the endurance athlete, improving muscle strength will also improve his or her endurance.

Several studies have indicated strength training increases endurance performance in cross-country skiing, running (here, here, here) and cycling (here, here, here). Explosive exercises and very heavy strength training (1-5 RM) have been researched and shown to improve running economy, anaerobic power, and lactate threshold. (Further discussion and references can be found here and here). Thus, exercising in a fashion that’s very different from running–that is a very few seconds of explosive movement and/or lifting very heavy objects a few times will benefit an activity done at a much lower intensity for a much longer time. So while it’s obviously vital to engage in your endurance sport of choice in order to improve in that sport, the addition of the right strength training protocol will increase your performance. What’s at work here?

Physiology

Endurance performance is more than just the heart and lungs. Several sources (here, here) have suggested that neurological and muscular factors play important roles in endurance performance. We know this because several of the above studies show an increase in performance with no improvement in VO2 max. That is, the heart/lung function didn’t improve–but something did! Improvement in running economy is indicated in several studies.

We should consider a couple of effects of explosive and heavy weight training. First, the muscle fibers used in running are likely made stronger via these methods. Thus muscles can generate more force and a more powerful stride. Second, more muscle fibers may have been drawn into action, again making for a greater ability to drive forward during stride. The results from either of these situations is that we should be able to use less energy to run just as far and as fast as before–AND we should be able to run farther and faster period. Great!

What about muscle and weight gain?

Many runners are worried about gaining weight from lifting too much heavy weight. The fear is reasonable in that any sort of weight gain will likely slow down a distance runner. (The right amount of new muscle mass in a sprinter however may be beneficial.) The reality is though there is nothing for a runner to fear from lifting heavy. There are several reasons.

First, putting on lots of muscle is mainly a function of eating. To put on mass, one must eat like a grizzly bear: several sizeable meals per day (not just snacks), gobs of meat, lots of all sorts of food. This sort of eating can’t be done unconsciously. There must be intent.

Second, we have the genetics issue. It’s very likely that people gravitate to endurance running because they’ve been dealt a hand of genetic cards that facilitates running. This same hand of cards DOES NOT facilitate growing large muscles. Thus there is often a self-selection process that sees certain people participate and excel in endurance sports while others may tend toward strength-and-power sports or bodybuilding–activities that in order for the participants to excel, require large amounts of muscle mass.

Third, explosive and heavy strength training doesn’t build big muscles. (Huh?) These methods are far more stimulating to the nervous system than they are to actually growing bigger muscles. That is, we’re looking at getting the brain to cause more muscle fibers to fire in order to create an explosive movement or lift something heavy. A different process is at work for growing muscles, and this process is better stimulated by lifting moderate weights for roughly 8-15 reps.

To give a further example, if we look at sports involving weight classes (boxing, wrestling, martial arts, weight lifting, power lifting for example) we see that many of these athletes need to get stronger without gaining weight. Otherwise they’ll end up in a weight class in which they can’t contend. These folks need to get stronger but not bigger. (Sound familiar?) How do they do this? They lift heavy.

Next, I’ll discuss workouts based on these factors.

Train to Failure or Train to Success? Part II

In Part I of this post I gave evidence that training beyond our limits or “training to failure” may not be the best

This guy could never fail.

strategy for enhancing athletic performance (or just every day performance for that matter.) Training smarter but not necessarily harder is a concept worth considering. The correct amount of training at the correct intensity is key, not just more more more—harder harder harder!! Observations and instruction to exercise at an appropriate intensity are found in both the endurance running world and the strength and power realm.

Tim Noakes’ Lore of Running is a superb text for anyone who’s a serious runner or run coach. At the other end of the physical performance world is Pavel Tsatsouline’s Power to the People!. This is also an excellent book on very heavy strength training, primarily the deadlift and side press. Both books encourage top physical performance through very hard work. Both authors though consistently tell readers that most workouts should essentially be moderate in intensity. Running workouts should not be races. Weightlifting sessions should not be hell-bent-for-leather torture fests. Rather both activities should leave the participant feeling energized.

Scottish ultramarathoner Bruce Fordyce is quoted in Lore of Running:

“My training advice is going to be different… because I place my emphasis on rest and recovery. I do believe in hard training, but there is only so much hard training that the body can take. , and the timing and duration of any hard training phase is very important. During the hard training phase, never be afraid to take a day off. If your legs are feeling unduly stiff and sore, rest; if you are at all sluggish, rest; in fact, if in doubt, rest.”

Further advice from other running coaches cited by Nokes includes:

New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard: “You can’t train hard and race hard at the same time.”
American coach Jack Daniels:
- “Don’t leave your race on the training track.”
- “Alternate hard and easy days, in fact only two to three hard days per week.”
American exercise physiologist Stephen Seiler:
- “Build the program around two high-intensity interval sessions per week.”
- “Most of the non-interval training should be at fairly low intensities.”
- “If you are not training easily enough on the easy days, you will not be able to train hard enough on the hard days.”

So we have words from the endurance running world on the importance of focusing your hard efforts to a few specific workouts. As well you should balance these high-effort bouts with truly easy recovery work. How about the other end of the spectrum? How do we train for maximal strength without failing?

“If after your exercise, your bath and your rub-down, you feel fit to battle for a kingdom, then your schedule is right.”
– Earle Liederman, Secrets of Strength, 1925

Power to the People! presents the idea of training with very heavy weights–not to the point of fatigue. The idea being that it’s tension of the muscles via lifting very heavy weights for a very few reps (five or fewer) that leads to greater strength, not the fatigue of the muscles that occurs when using many reps. Tsatsouline states:

“The most intelligent way to develop strength is to lift much heavier weights than than most weekend warriors play with but to terminate your sets before your muscles fail.”

Further, he cites Russian strength expert Robert Roman:

“…besides, as the result of fatigue [from many reps], the last reps of a set are performed against a decreased excitation of the nervous system. This impedes the formation of the complex conditioned reflex loops needed for further strength development.”

So in practical terms, what are we talking about? The experts are suggesting that most of our workouts should be of the submaximal variety. Don’t make every run a race. Make your races races. If your running workout consists of 20 sprints then at the end you should feel like you could run 22 sprints. If it’s a long-run day then you should finish knowing you could run one more mile. Feel good at the end!

When lifting, terminate your sets before total exhaustion sets in. End the set and/or the workout knowing you could lift a few more reps. Feel that you’ve conquered the workout, not that the workout conquered you.

Am I advocating easy workouts? NO!! What I’m suggesting is that your hard efforts should be very focused and specific. Don’t dillute your hard work by trying to go hard all the time. (If you do, you’ll probably just be going “medium-hard.”) Further, your hard work must end in success and not in sloppy failure. Otherwise you will only have set the stage for more sloppy work. Work very hard when it’s called for and balance the effort with easier efforts, relaxation and restoration. Then come back to the next hard workout ready for success and new achievements.

Feldenkrais

I’ve been suffering with back pain and other symptoms (Achilles pain most recently) of something since about 2002. I’ve gone through a lot of types of therapy from physical therapy to chiropractic, to Muscle Activation Techniques to Active Release Therapy, acupuncture, massage, prolotherapy and lots of different corrective exercise protocols. My issue seems to be a movement issue. That is, as I move the sequence of events–muscle contractions, feedback from muscles and joints, etc.–that should be happening aren’t happening in an ideal way. I’ve gotten better especially with my introduction to Z-Health but nothing has quite yet resolved my issues. I’ve been aware of Feldenkrais for a while and it’s been on my list of modalities to investigate. I recently emailed Seattle-area Rolfer and Z-Health practitioner Todd Hargrove (Todd writes an excellent blog) to ask him his opinion and he suggested I search out a Feldenkrais practitioner, so I did. Yesterday was my first experience and it was quite interesting.

I met with local Denver Feldenkrais practitioner Ray Little for two hours and I became quite a bit more aware of how I move–and how I should move. Without any technical terminology or complicated instructions, he helped me feel how to walk properly. The most powerful thing he showed me was where on my foot to feel the impact of walking (right in front of the heel) and then how to effectively push myself forward. We discussed the idea of lengthening into stride, taking the impact of the foot strike and smoothly rebounding into forward motion. All and all it was a very enlightening experience and I very much look forward to meeting with him again next week.

As I’m about to post this, I’ve gone on two runs since Monday and I’ve felt better than I have literally in years. I think I’m back on the horse!!

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.

The Role of Exercise in Weight Loss

Want to lose weight? The tried and true advice has always been “Exercise and eat right.” Hard to argue with that. Burn calories via exercise and eat less and/or eat better quality food. Done and done. Recently however, the role of exercise in this process has been questioned. Time magazine went so far as to tell us Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin. Other research has suggested that the eating part of the equation is more powerful than the exercise part. Further, from experience as a personal trainer, I’ve seen many a gym member tell themselves “Hey, I’m exercising. I can eat whatever I want!” I have yet to see anyone succeed following that route. So what if any role does exercise play in shaping our physique?

The New York Times has weighed in with a very interesting, nuanced and informative article on the topic. Weighing the Evidence on Exercise tells us among other things that exercise alone may not make you lean, but that it will likely help keep you thin if and when you get there. Further, it seems exercise has a different effect on the appetites of men vs. women.

“When you look at the results in the National Weight Control Registry,” Harvard researcher Barry Braun says, “you see over and over that exercise is one constant among people who’ve maintained their weight loss.”

The article cites two studies to this effect One by the American College of Sports Medicine demonstrated that appetite was blunted in men who ran on a treadmill for 1.5 hrs. In another study by Harvard researchers reported in the American Journal of Physiology, men and women walked on treadmills and their appetites were monitored. The men showed similar results to the ACSM study. The women however showed increased appetite. It seems that female physiology is very favorably given over to storing energy (as fat–eeeeeeech!!!)

The Harvard study found other very valuable information which I’ll get to in a moment but first, more about who was studied. The weight-change history of 34,000 women was tracked for 13 years. (The large sample size and length of the study are two strengths.) The average age of the women at the start of the study was 54 years. Now the important information as reported by the Times:

“During that time, the women gained, on average, six pounds. Some packed on considerably more. But a small subset gained far less, coming close to maintaining the body size with which they started the study. Those were the women who reported exercising almost every day for an hour or so. (emphasis is mine) The exercise involved was not strenuous.”

Finally, the Times article discusses a study from the University of Colorado. In this study, rats were fattened and allowed to be sedentary for a time. The rats’ diets were then switched to low-calorie fare and half of them were made to run on treadmills for about 30 minutes a day. (Strangely, Jillian Michaels was not involved.) The results of the study as reported by the Times are as follows:

“Then the fun began. For the final eight weeks of the experiment, the rats were allowed to relapse, to eat as much food as they wanted. The rats that had not been running on the treadmill fell upon the food eagerly. Most regained the weight they lost and then some.”

But the exercising rats metabolized calories differently. They tended to burn fat immediately after their meals, while the sedentary rats’ bodies preferentially burned carbohydrates and sent the fat off to be stored in fat cells. The running rats’ bodies, meanwhile, also produced signals suggesting that they were satiated and didn’t need more kibble. Although the treadmill exercisers regained some weight, their relapses were not as extreme. Exercise ‘re-established the homeostatic steady state between intake and expenditure to defend a lower body weight,’ the study authors concluded. Running had remade the rats’ bodies so that they ate less. (emphasis is mine)

To reinforce the message from all this, Science Daily reports on another study not mentioned in the Times article: Diet Alone Will Not Likely Lead to Significant Weight Loss, Study Suggests. Here, Oregon Health & Science University studied monkeys that were fed a high-fat diet for several years. They then were placed on a low-fat diet for a month. The important information is this:

“Surprisingly, there was no significant weight loss at the end of the month,” explained OHSU post-doctoral fellow Elinor Sullivan, Ph.D. “However, there was a significant change in the activity levels for these monkeys. Naturally occurring levels of physical activity for the animals began to diminish soon after the reduced-calorie diet began. When caloric intake was further reduced in a second month, physical activity in the monkeys diminished even further.”

So what’s the take-home message from all this? First, as a personal trainer, I find it highly interesting the actual role that exercise seems to play in weight loss. It’s not so much a direct influence as it is something that changes our bodies over the long haul, and sets the stage for us to stay trim. Beyond that, think of this evidence in light of research (here, and here for instance) showing that exercise alone won’t do the trick when it comes to weight loss and we have a very familiar message: To lose weight we must eat right and exercise.

Denver Fitness Journal

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