Vitamin Supplementation: Good? Bad? Or Ugly?

As a personal trainer, I’m often asked about dietary supplements and vitamins. My position has long been that most dietary supplements are not needed by most people. Rather, I advise clients to eat a common sense healthy diet full of real food: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and some lean animal products if they like. Still, I’ve figured that a multi-vitamin probably doesn’t do any harm and may do some good. On this topic, I may be wrong.

Tasty...

Vita Myth: Do supplements really do any good?, an article from Slate, offers several references to research suggesting that A) there is almost no link between multi-vitamin consumption and decreased mortality, and B) consumption of individual antioxidants like vitamins A, C, and E; beta carotene, selenium, and folate may actually increase mortality risk by speeding the growth of cancers.

“But not only do antioxidant supplements fail to protect against heart disease, stroke, and cancer; they actually increase the risk of death, according to a 2007 analysis of research on more than 232,000 people, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as other studies.”

These antioxidants are often taken in order to cleanse our bodies of free-radicals, substances which are implicated in a range of ailments including cancer. Researchers have found that “certain kinds of antioxidant pills can feed latent cancers growing in the body, for instance, and reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy.” Apparently these good-for-us substances in some cases are also good for replication of cancer cells. Researchers also suggest that perhaps free-radicals are actually necessary to our good health, and that among other functions they may help kill cancer cells.

Who knew!?

The article explains among other things, the placebo effect of taking vitamins to cure colds, and why we ever took vitamins in the first place (nutritional deficiencies which resulted in diseases such as scurvy). There also seems to be some evidence that some consumption of vitamin supplements by some populations–folate for pregnant women for example–seems prudent. The overall message though is that these various vitamins which are found in food simply aren’t all that beneficial once they’re extracted and put into a pill.

Beyond this article, there are a few other factors regarding vitamin consumption worth discussing. Let’s consider Total cereal which famously tells us that one bowl has 100% of various vitamins and minerals. Sounds great right? Sounds convenient. One bowl of this stuff and we’re set for the day! Not so fast. Our bodies can only use or absorb so much of a particular vitamin or mineral at a time. That one bowl may indeed have all the vitamins you need for that day but your body will only use what it needs at that time. The rest is digested and excreted.

Hey now!!!

Further, we’ve learned that in many cases, in order for vitamins to work the way we want them to, they must be consumed in the presence of any number of other substances. Food is remarkably complex. There are literally thousands of molecules in any individual food. The vitamins in the food need the rest of the food to do their work. The big picture is very clear: Vitamins in isolation won’t do the trick. Food is required.

Should we be surprised by any of this? Once again the American quest for convenience has led us away from good health. Again, science has tried to out think Mother Nature, and again the results are of questionable use. Common sense often turns out to be an amazingly accurate guide. To anyone seeking weight loss, better health and a longer life, I offer this advice: Eat right most of the time. Work hard often.

NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part III

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

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

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

Anyone seeking weight loss must take that statement to heart.

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

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

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

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

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

No second helping for me, thanks.

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

NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardio Health Correlates to Smarts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Final Bit on Stretching: Dynamic Flexibility Demo

Here are three key dynamic stretch processes that you can (and I think you should) incorporate into your exercise regimen. I suggest you use these movements at the start of your workout, be it a gym workout or a ride, run, swim–whatever. It may be a good idea to do these movements at the end of the workout too. I’ll post more dynamic stretches later.

A Look at Massage Therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return from Cozumel

Dolphins are in that pin, probably content to skip the bike and run.

This is my first post since returning a little over a week ago from Cozumel. We went from temperatures in the mid-80s with high humidity to highs in the single digits and wind chills in the negative double-digits. Quite a contrast. No mosquitos in Denver though, and the skiing is better.

The main reason my wife and I were there was a very generous invitation from Mike, a friend and former client from Virginia. He was competing in the Cozumel Ironman Triathlon. It was a fascinating experience and the ability of anyone to complete such a race (2.4 mi. open ocean swim/112 mi. bike/26.2 mi. run) is astonishing. Mike finished 32nd out of 100 in his age group and 135 overall out of nearly 2000 competitors. That’s a tremendous performance in a grueling race. It was hot, humid and about 1/3 of the bike course was into a stiff headwind.

The race is on!

There were competitors from all over the world. The local crowd support was very enthusiastic. I figure a race like this might be an interesting change from the typical staggering visits by drunken cruise line passengers. Much thanks to Mike, his girlfriend, and their families who were there as well. Here’s an excerpt from Mike’s race report:

“That Ironman is the most recognizable name in triathlon is no accident – the lead up to the start was nothing short of spectacular. The dolphins in the enclosures at the swim start were all performing various jumps, a helicopter raced in low and fast over the pier, and the music and emotions were amped up. The pros went first – down the pier and off the edge for the in-water start. It was easy to be envious both of their 15 minute head start and the fact that there were only 50 of them. At 7am, the other 1900 of us would all be in the same water, all swimming for the same buoy, all at the same time. Not for the faint of heart. I was able to position myself about two or three rows back once in the water, almost centered on the buoy. It was the first time we tested the current, as we had to swim in

place as the rest of the competitors made their way into the water.”

Aside from the big race, my wife and I got in some scuba diving and a healthy intake of margaritas, pina coladas and beer. The house where we all stayed was right on top of the edge of a reef so we could literally jump right into the Caribbean Sea at our leisure. Dunk your head under the water and there was a wide and varied crowd of fish, coral, sea urchins and other underwater creatures. Good livin’…

All in a day's work. Bravo.

No crowd support out here.

Holiday Reading: Obesity, Wacko Cookie Diet, Strength Training, Running Research, Ice vs. Heat for Injuries

Artwork: St. Petersburg Times, FL

A day of severe gluttony is headed our way like a runaway chuck wagon. Therefore, how about a discussion of two articles on obesity? For the Overweight, Bad Advice by the Spoonful was published back in August of this year in the New York Times Health Guide. The other, Energy Gap Useful Tool for Successful Weight Loss Strategy is from early November in Science Daily. The two articles present very daunting insights into our fight against obesity. The Times piece tells us the following:

Weight control is not simply a matter of willpower. Genes help determine the body’s “set point,” which is defended by the brain.
Dieting alone is rarely successful, and relapse rates are high.
Moderate exercise, too, rarely results in substantive long-term weight loss, which requires intensive exercise.

The article further states:

“…the notion that Americans ever ate well is suspect. In 1966, when Americans were still comparatively thin, more than two billion hamburgers already had been sold in McDonald’s restaurants, noted Dr. Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California. The recent rise in obesity may have more to do with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles than with the quality of our diets.”

Our bodies are remarkably stubborn in their ability to keep us at our current weight (discussed further here). We eat smart and healthy one day, a little less so the next. In contrast to the Times article, from everything I read and understand, the food component of weight loss is far more powerful than the exercise component (suggested here, and here). In fact the issue is poor eating plus a sedentary lifestyle that’s gotten our nation so heavy. Things like this are never isolated to one cause. (By the way, body weight isn’t the only measure of health. Look here for more on the issue of fit vs. fat.)

There are two things not mentioned in the Times article that we should consider. First regarding the way we ate decades ago vs. how we eat now is the presence of processed foods. I don’t have statistics but I think it’s safe to assume that in the 1960s we were eating more fresh, unprocessed food. We now eat gobs of food every day that is packed with calories but contains very little actual nutrition. For a sober, practical, in-depth look at our nation’s obsession with “nutritionism” you must read what Michael Pollan says in Unhappy Meals. Another comment on Pollan’s work is found at Disease Proof. (For truly fascinating insights into the American food system, you must read Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma and/or In Defense of Food.)

The second component of our eating we must consider is portion size. Portion size is a tremendous component of obesity. In recent decades past, our overall calorie intake was lower than it is now, thus there was far less obesity. The article notes the billions of McDonald’s hamburgers that were sold but do you know what those hamburgers looked like? You can still buy it today. If you look at a McDonald’s menu they actually have something simply called a hamburger; not a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, Titanic Monster Burger, or whatever. It’s a small thing with one meat patty, pickles, onions and ketchup. A customer in the ’60s may have gotten fries and a soft drink, but the fries came in a small paper envelope, not a cardboard crate, and the soft drink was an eight ounce cup rather than an industrial drum.

For more on portion sizes and our consumption habits, the Centers for Disease Control provide a report called Do Increased Portion sizes Affect How Much We Eat? It’s amazing to see how we can unconsciously eat a lot more than we need to if it’s sitting there in front of us.

The Science Daily article tells us that once one is obese, the body fights extra hard to stay there. In contrast, one who never becomes obese seems far less likely to become obese. The article discusses the Energy Gap, a term used by the American Dietetic Association to estimate the change in energy balance (intake and expenditure) behaviors required to achieve and sustain reduced body weight outcomes in individuals and populations. We’re told that the energy gap to prevent weight gain is about 100 calories. That is, someone can prevent weight gain with a combination of reduced energy intake and increased physical activity that amounts to 100 calories. The news isn’t so good for those trying to lose significant amounts of weight. The energy gap may be 200-300 calories for someone looking to lose 10%-15% of their body weight. That means serious eating modification and quite a bit of time exercising.

According to James O. Hill, PhD,

“This analysis indicates that to create and maintain substantial weight loss (ie, obesity treatment), large behavioral changes are needed. This is in stark contrast to primary obesity prevention in which small behavioral changes can eliminate the small energy imbalance that occurs before the body has gained substantial weight. Because the body has not previously stored this ‘new’ excess energy, it does not defend against the behavioral strategies as happens when the body loses weight.”

What does all of this mean? First, obesity is much like any other disease in that preventing it is much easier than treating it once you’ve got it. (This makes the topic extremely relevant to the current health care debate. Preventing obesity will result in prevention of obesity related illnesses, and we’ll all spend less on health care.) Second, there’s much evidence to suggest that losing weight is a complex battle that is more than simply making a decision. We have a very tenacious system wired into us (likely rooted in some prehistoric survival strategy) that makes dropping pounds extremely difficult. It’s akin to telling the drug addict to just stop.

Just stopping–a conscious decision to change a behavior in other words–is still the heart of the issue. Weight loss still comes down to willful decisions to make changes. There’s no way around it. I learned a little bit about human psychology and behavior in graduate school. It seems that most of us adhere to changes if they’re made in small, gradual steps. Just one healthy decision made today is one more than was made yesterday. That’s a step toward whatever healthy goal we have in mind. Keep making healthier daily decisions and over the course of a year, two years, 10 years and you’ll have made a lot of them. Guess what’s around the corner though: the New Year’s Resolution.

We’re getting close to the time of year when many people will make the big decision to lose weight this year. Gyms will be packed with people exercising like they’ve never done before–at least not since the beginning of the previous year. They’ll make attempts to banish their favorite foods from their plates and replace it with food they’ve never much liked. Most of these noble attempts will be abandoned by the end of February. This is the perfect example of people making drastic lifestyle changes which cannot be maintained. As a personal trainer, I see this happen every year.

Speaking from personal experience, I look back to childhood, high school and college and see what I ate and/or drank–and in what amounts–and I’m amazed at the amounts of junk I once consumed. I’ve spent over a decade making changes here and there and I’ve found that it hasn’t been too terribly painful at all. Of course I can’t extrapolate my experience out to everyone else, but it seems to me a strategy of small changes in both eating and exercise made over time, plus the decision to stick with these changes is still the best strategy to lose weight and get healthy. If there’s a better strategy, please let me know.

Beyond that, here’s more to read on a variety of topics:

Are we Insane? Part II: the Cookie Diet. Does this even need any explanation? Cookies and dieting…. I think I’ll try breathing underwater later today, or maybe flapping my arms and flying. (Ever notice how everyone who was on a diet… WAS on a diet? No one stays on any of these things.)
To thrive longer, get stronger. The Washington Post discusses Consumer Reports’ findings on various clinical trials of strength training. Turns out picking up heavy objects is good for you in many ways.
Runners: Train less and be faster. OK, this will be controversial to some and I’m not saying this is true for everyone all the time. However the findings here help support some of the arguments made at Power Running that running fewer miles (low volume) while running faster (high intensity) may increase race performance. Science Daily profiles a report in the Journal of Applied Physiology on the topic of running less but running faster. Again, do not assume this is the be-all-end-all for everyone, but it might be exactly the strategy that will work for you.
Ice or Heat? The topic of icing or heating an injury is often debated. Like many issues of sports conditioning and rehabilitation, the jury is still out. The following is a reprint of a comment by the late Dr. Mell Siff from the Supertraining forum:
ICE OR HEAT?
by Dr. Mel C SiffThe use of ice treatment may not be universally superior to the use of heat
in enhancing recovery or rehabilitation.

THE PROBLEM

The use of localised or more extensive ice or cold treatment has been well
authenticated over the years and there is little doubt that, in many cases,
it is a highly effective and cheap method of restoration and rehabilitation.

However, any literature searches for definitive studies that compare the
effectiveness of ice cold versus very hot treatment of the same sort of injury are not as common as one would believe.

It seems as if we have all accepted that heat is contraindicated largely on
the basis of theoretical considerations or extrapolations form cases where
bleeding is apparent. We know that heat causes blood vessels dilatation,
temporary increase in inflammation and the decrease in blood viscosity, but
does this necessarily imply that it will be detrimental to the course of
restoration or rehabilitation of all sore, bruised and fatigued soft tissues?

Why I am saying this is because I have been experimenting, much against my
education and scientific traditions, with the use of very hot water as a
restorative means with myself and several other athletes, some of whom are
top pro footballers and basketballers.

Surprisingly, this seems to diminish muscle soreness and speeded up recovery
in many cases, especially if we use alternate hot and cold bathing. I have an
8 ft deep jacuzzi and long lap swimming pool and have my athletes alternate
between hot and cold immersion. Interestingly, I have found that the water
has to be almost unbearably hot (about 108 deg F or 41C) to be optimally
effective. Movement under these conditions also seems to be valuable
(‘cryokinetics’ for ice old immersion and ‘thermodynamics’ for hot
immersion).

Certainly my comments on this controversial topic merely constitute anecdotal
evidence at this stage, but I am curious to hear if anyone else has had
similar experiences or come across scientific research which legitimately
shows that dedicated ice treatment is significantly better than very hot
treatment or ice-heat contrast methods. Failing that, is there any evidence
that the use of heat is a general contraindication for musculoskeletal
recovery and rehabilitation, other than cases where there is obvious bleeding
or serious pathology?

Are we promoting ice therapy far too liberally to the exclusion of heat
therapy, when the latter may well also play a very helpful role in
musculoskeletal rehabilitation? Are we unfairly proclaiming that heat is
potentially harmful for treating any soft tissue repair? Does this attitude
go against our recent attestations to the value of ‘holistic’ treatment?

There have been a huge number of studies on the effect of stretching,
jogging, supplements, heat, cold, drugs, you name it …. and virtually
nothing has yet been found that appears to make some significant and
consistent difference to the dissipation of DOMS. Do a Medline search
and you will see what I mean. Many higher level weightlifters and
ppwerlifters rarely if ever suffer from DOMS even after very heavy
workouts, which afflicts mainly newcomers to a given exercise or
routine – or certain more susceptible individuals. For general recovery,
I have found it difficult to beat sensible program (or periodisation) design and
hot-cold contrast bathing, as I have written in previous letters. Your
recommendation to do some mild post-exercise activity probably is
a sound idea for general relaxation and recovery, but it has not been
shown to have any real effect on DOMS.

Attn Runners: Check Out This Site (Powerrunning.com)

Hey, if you’re into reading, Power Running looks to be a very in-depth site with lots of thoroughly thought out information on the physiology of running and how to train according to your abilities. The writer has really done his homework and he’s got some interesting theories that sort of go against some of the conventional wisdom.

For instance, he asks the question of whether or not more and more mileage is good for everyone. He notes that the elite runners improve as their mileage improves but he theorizes that the elite runners have the genetics to run more and more and to benefit from that large workload. Many of the rest of us though may well benefit from much lower mileages. He talks about the FIRST running program which is a three-day-a-week program and why it may be the best program for the most people. Check out the site to learn more. I’m finding it to be a very informative and interesting read.

Denver Fitness Journal

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