Cold water immersion (a.k.a., “ice baths”) has become a popular method amongst exercise enthusiasts and athletes to enhance recovery after an intense training bout. The strategy involves exposing either the trained limb or the whole body to very cold liquid temperatures. According to p...
Brad Schoenfeld, Ph.D, C.S.C.S., is an internationally renowned fitness expert and widely regarded as one of the leading authorities on body composition training (muscle development and fat loss). He is a lifetime drug-free bodybuilder, and has won numerous natural bodybuilding titles.
Nick Tumminello is not only an excellent trainer, he’s one of the real good guys in the fitness field. But what really impresses me about Nick – in addition to his innovative approach to training – is that he’s never afraid to speak his mind and challenge accepted dogma on a given fitness-related topic. You may remember that I interviewed Nick here a little over a year ago. Well, Nick has just come out with a new DVD on single leg training and it just so happens he has some interesting things to say on this subject and a few others. So without further ado, here’s the uncensored interview:
BJS: Musclemag recently featured you for your work with bodybuilders in this awesome 7 page spread. Congrats! How did this come about?
NT: I’m always grateful that I get to write articles for major fitness magazines. But, to have a major magazine do an article about me… man is that a huge professional honor! Especially in MuscleMag, which has been of one my favorite magazines since being teenager who was into lifting and trying to “get swole” 🙂
The article feature came about because I’ve been writing articles for several of the RKP magazines: Oxygen, Maximum Fitness, REPS! and MuscleMag. The editors of MuscleMag know me as a guy who’s always full of scientifically-inspired and athlete-approved ways to upgrade classic bodybuilding exercises. And, they are always interested in providing their readers with new ways to improve their workouts and bring about new muscle. So, when they decided they were going to start doing features of trainers, they contacted me to be the first. I’m so humbled that I was the very first name they thought of for this project.
MuscleMag filmed and photographed an extended training session I did with my friend and bodybuilder Fello Cambronero, who just won the OVERALL at the Sr. y Sra. musculo competition in Costa Rica. When it was all said and done, the editors liked the content so much they turned it into a BIG 7-page feature. I shared the excitment with Fello (Alex) Cambronero when the article was published because it was his first ever appreacnce in a major bodybuilding mag as a featured model. High five goes out to Alex and his lovely wife Maggy!
BJS: What’s your approach when working with bodybuilders? Specifically, do you use a mix of machines and free weights or do you prefer one versus the other. What about rep ranges?
NT: My approach with bodybuilders is to increase Hypertrophy, DUH! 🙂 That said, I still take a hybrid training approach with them. In that I incorporate mobility work, some 3D movements and even some athletic type drills into thier warm ups.
I absolutely use BOTH free weight and machines as they both have unique benefits the other doesn’t. Machines are actually a very consistent component in almost ALL of the bodybuilding workout programs I design because they allow for a constant tension on the muscles being worked, due to the Cam design of a machine. You don’t get that with free weights because they’re purely gravity dependant.
Just think about a Biceps curl with dumbbells; you get no resistance at the bottom (when your elbow is straight), and you don’t get much resistance at the top of the curl either because the lever arm is very short. Is that a bad thing?, NO! But, when doing biceps curls on machine, we can hit those angles gravity (i.e. free weights) wouldn’t allow.
This is why I don’t get caught up in these typical arguments over which is better, free weights or machines? We just do both because they both have benefits. And, we’ve found using them together get us results even faster because our workouts are more comprehensive.
For sets and reps: We use a variety of schemes. We’ll do basic 3-4 sets of 8-15 reps. We’ll do 4-6 sets of 4-6 reps. We love to alternate between those two basic rep schemes.
We’ll also use a wide variety of traditional and not so traditional overload concepts, such as: rest pauses, drop-sets, 21’s, 1.5 reps, etc. Along with many Performance U Hybrid Strength Training innovations such as 747s, Complexes, Triple Threat Protocols, 54321 workouts, etc.
BJS: Do you periodize bodybuilding routines or is it more intuitive?
NT: I always have some sort of plan. But, my “plans” are a moving target in that I’ll change something up a bit if needed.
One of my favorite, go-to bodybuilding program design strategies is to design a 6-week block program. In that 6-weeks your first (primary) exercise is alternated between two moves. The rest of the exercise in that workout stay the same for six weeks. But, the reps are undulated each workout. So, you have higher reps days, lower reps days, etc.
In short; We alternate and undulate! That’s my little saying, so I’ll know if anyone steals it 🙂
BJS: I know you have a new DVD on single leg training that was just released. What are the benefits of performing single limb exercise for the lower body?
NT: First, I’d like to say that just because I came out with a Single Leg Training DVD doesn’t mean I’m against double leg training. At Performance U, we use BOTH bilateral and unilateral lower-body training. This another situation where we don’t bother wasting our time arguing which is better because they both work!
When coaches and trainers stop being so concerned with being right over thier peers in these debates, and become more concerned with finding what right for thier clients in thier training, we’ll all be better off.
Anyway talk to most trainers about single leg training and they’ll likely show you pistol squats, single leg RDLs and Bulgarian split squats. Or, a small variations of those same basic movements. Those are great exercises, but they don’t even scratch the surface of what we’ve been able to do with our hybrid single leg training concepts and techniques. In other words, pistol squats, single leg RDLs and Bulgarian split squats are the checkers. But if you’re ready to play chess, get the Secrets of Single Leg DVD.
There are several benefits of single leg training that we’ve found:
Better balance: This one is obvious
Less Chance of Sports Injury – We hear lots about asymmetries and injury potential. But, the research I’ve seen says injury potential is more about strength asymmetries than anything else. In that, when you don’t control one side of your body as well as they other, you may be at a higher injury risk. Research shows us that you can still move a bit differently on each side (i.e. have a movement asymmetry), just as long as you can control the movement you can create on either side.
Better Body Control and Strength – By following the SAID principle (i.e. Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands), if you want to make sure you’re strong and able to control each side of your body, you train each side of your body independently to ensure BOTH side can do what they need to.
Improved Muscle Symmetry – Not only will have better strength/control on both sides potentially help you minimize injury. It can help you look better and build a more symmetrical looking lower-body.
Improved Sports Performance – Sports require stops, starts, direction changes and raising and lowering your center of mass. And, most of the time these action are done from a split, unilateral type stance where one leg is positioned to do more work than the other. We’ve found Single leg training can help ensure that both legs can get the job done, regardless of the position you’re in!
Less risk of hurting yourself in the gym – A high percentage of humans have a leg length asymmetry, which would make double leg training more risky because your body is having to deal with torque (from the leg length issue) along with the compression from the load you’re lifting when squatting or deadlifting. Single leg work allows us to not worry as much about this issue potentially hurting our clients and athletes. Plus, it gives us more capacity to use heavy double leg training when we feel it appropriate.
BJS: If you could pick one single leg exercise that provides maximal benefits for muscle development, what would it be?
NT: When speaking purely about muscle development (for bodybuilding) purposes, I’d say the knee tap squat. It’s basically a single leg version of a front squat, with a bit more hip hinge to bring in more glutes and hams. It’s the exercise pictured in the middle images of the back of the DVD cover (see the image to the left).
BJS: You state that the pistol squat might not be a good exercise. Why?
NT: Here’s what I wrote for Laree Draper about this, which she posted here;
Although the pistol squat is a trendy, cool looking and old-time exercise, it’s not something we use with our clients and athletes at Performance U.
We don’t feel the pistol squat exercise is “bad”, nor do we feel it’s dangerous. And, we don’t get caught up arguing against Pistols, or will we try to convince anyone to stop doing them. All we can do is share the training methodologies that make the most sense to us, along with the exercise applications we’ve found to work best for us.
That said, in our training with individuals of all levels from pro athletes to active seniors, we haven’t found the body positions and force production patterns involved in the pistol squat exercise to have as much value and functional carryover as some of the other creative, hybrid single leg squat variations we use, which I’ve displayed in the Secrets of Single Leg Training 2-DVD set.
You can see more about why we don’t use the pistol squat in this video
Sure the pistol squat can make you stronger! It’s also very challenging exercise. And, if you enjoy doing them, then great! But, we’ve found other single leg squat training options, which we’ve found to be more beneficial because they more accurately match the body postures we see in sports and daily living; and they more closely replicate the force production patterns we are looking to improve with the clients and athlete we train.
In my continuing efforts to expose the readers of my blog to top people in the fitness field, here is an interview I did with bestselling fitness author and award-winning journalist, Lou Schuler. Lou is someone I respect both professionally and personally, and he’s one of the few people around writing high quality consumer-oriented fitness books. He’s well-read on exercise and fitness, and conveys practical information in a very engaging manner. I’m sure you’ll get that sense from reading his responses to my questions. Enjoy!
BJS: You started out as a newspaper journalist. How did you get into writing about fitness?
Lou Schuler: It goes back to 1989. I had just gotten a job for a brand-new daily paper, the St. Louis Sun. I was a feature writer, so I wrote a lot about lifestyle trends. Health clubs were pretty common by then, and lots of people were at least interested in working out, even if relatively few people actually did.
I was 32, and I’d been working out since I was 13. I had no idea what I was doing most of that time, but it was something I’d done for so long that it was a big part of my identity.
The newspaper business, traditionally, has not been conducive to healthy lifestyles. Even in 1989 it was still pretty unusual for a writer to not smoke, not drink very much, and spend a big chunk of his free time working out.
So whenever we needed a story that was related to health or fitness, I got the assignment. Honestly, I didn’t consider those stories any more important than anything else I wrote about – dating, nightlife, entertainment, whatever.
The Sun went out of business in 1990, and in the fall of 1991 I started grad school for creative writing at USC. I was just terrifyingly broke. I was paying my rent with a credit card. I thought I’d be able to get a job waiting tables or tending bar while I got my master’s degree, but there was a recession in L.A., and even the places that were hiring didn’t want to work around my class schedule.
Sometime that fall I answered a blind ad in the L.A. Times for an editor at a fitness magazine. It turned out to be Men’s Fitness, which I’d never heard of. I used my clips from the Sun as writing samples, and that’s what got me in the door for an interview. I didn’t get the job that was advertised, but I got some freelance assignments, and then a part-time copyediting job at Muscle & Fitness, and finally a full-time job at Men’s Fitness in early 1992.
I was promoted to fitness editor three years later, and then I moved across the country to work for Men’s Health in 1998.
BJS: You were a top editor at popular magazines such as “Men’s Fitness” and “Men’s Health” for many years. Any reflections on that experience? Do you miss it?
Lou Schuler: I don’t miss being in an office. I was involved in way too many things, and I think it was clear I needed to get out on my own and focus on the things I do best.
The one part I do miss is feeling that I’m on top of everything – that I’m reading all the latest studies, that I’m going to the right conferences, that I’m identifying the coaches and trainers with interesting new ideas and finding ways to get them into the mix.
Fortunately, I’ve been able to get back to that, in a limited way, in the past couple of years, writing and editing articles for Men’s Health.
Writing for magazines is limited by space and format, and you can’t really appreciate how challenging it is until you work on both ends – writing and editing.
The good thing about magazines is the way you’re forced to zero in on what’s immediately useful to a reader. The tough part is knowing the reader would get more benefit with more information. You have to make a lot of judgment calls.
That’s also true of books, by the way, where you have hundreds of pages to work with. You still have to choose what you think will help readers most, and cut out the rest.
BJS: You are super knowledgeable about exercise and nutrition. How do you stay on top of current research?
Lou Schuler: Brad, you’re being way too kind! I think a better way to phrase the question is, “You aren’t a complete idiot when it comes to exercise and nutrition. How do you maintain your non-stupidity?”
I get the best information and insight at conferences. If it’s just me reading journals, keeping up with blogs like yours, and following along with the New York Times and the other daily media, I get an overview of some things that some people have decided are important.
But when I go to a conference, I get to hear what researchers talk about when they sit down with other researchers. They’re looking at their own field in a way that’s fundamentally different from the way outsiders report on their field.
Here’s a very specific example: I attended the NSCA sport-specific conference in 2003 in New Orleans. It was the first time I’d heard Mark Verstegen present. His topic was rotational training, and almost every exercise he showed in the presentation was new to me. My first thought was, “We have to get this stuff in the magazine.” I introduced myself to him after his talk, then ran up to my hotel room and emailed a couple of editors at MH. I said we have to work with this guy.
The upshot, interestingly enough, wasn’t a magazine feature. It was the Core Performance book that Mark wrote with Pete Williams. When the proposal came in from Mark’s agent, a couple of us pushed hard to get the deal for Rodale (the company that owns Men’s Health). I ended up editing the book. It worked out great for everyone.
That’s not a story about research so much as identifying someone who had fresh, exciting ideas, and coming away from the conference knowing I’d seen something new that I just had to share with readers.
BJS: Your “New Rules…” series has been wildly successful. What motivated you to write the first book in the series, “New Rules of Lifting for Men”?
Lou Schuler: That’s a fun story. The original title of the book was Basic Training. I’d spent my career as a fitness editor searching out new ideas that, ultimately, made lifting more complicated. So Alwyn Cosgrove and I talked about how simple we could make it. Could we narrow down all exercises to a handful of movement categories?
The goal was to get lifters away from the idea of “body parts” and get them to focus on the big picture – the exercises that use the most muscle in ways that come closest to basic human movements. People like Paul Chek had been talking about this idea, and Alwyn was already using it to train his clients. But it was new to me, and I thought readers would respond to it.
As it turned out, there was another workout book with that same title. It was going to come out before ours. We needed a new title, and everyone liked New Rules of Lifting.
Now, it’s interesting that you refer to it as “New Rules of Lifting for Men.” Obviously, it was written for men, because that’s the audience I’d always written for. But as soon as it came out in January 2006, I got questions from women asking why I’d excluded them.
There aren’t many things that catch me completely by surprise, but that was one of them.
BJS: You followed that first book up with “New Rules of Lifting for Women.” In what ways do you feel that women need to train differently than men?
Lou Schuler: I’d read a couple of textbooks to get my training certifications, I’d gone to conferences for years, and I’d been in weight rooms where elite male and female athletes were training. Nothing I’d read or seen suggested that women should train differently for the same goals. Certainly Alwyn and Rachel Cosgrove don’t train women differently from men at Results Fitness.
I just thought women wanted to train differently. You know, purely a cultural thing.
But when I started getting all these questions, from readers as well as the media, I thought, well, why not write a book for women who want to train like men?
The original title was Lift Like a Man, Look Like a Goddess. People either loved it or hated it.
After the book was finished, edited, and photographed, the sales staff at Penguin petitioned our editor to change the title. They said, “We’ve done okay with New Rules of Lifting. Why create a completely new branding for this book, when we could make it part of a franchise that’s already off to a pretty good start?”
So I went back and, again to my surprise, it took hardly any rewriting and restructuring to put it into the New Rules format. A lot of the rules were already there in chapter titles and subheads. It was just a matter of moving type around. So I’d written it as a New Rules book without meaning to.
Changing the title was a great call all around. NROL for Women came out in 2008, and it’s the most popular book in the series so far. It wouldn’t have had nearly the same impact with the original title.
BJS: You just released the fourth book in the series, “New Rules of Lifting for Life.” Who is the target audience and how does this one differ from previous books?
Lou Schuler: As with NROL for Women, this book is entirely demand-driven. I’ve always resisted the idea that men and women in middle age needed a book of our own. Readers convinced me otherwise.
Readers kept asking how to modify programs for age. I kept saying, no, you don’t have to change anything. You just have to be smarter. Be more careful. Take more time to recover if you need it. But don’t change the program just because you’re 45 and you think it’s written for someone who’s 25.
There was another type of question that came from people who were extremely overweight, or who were rehabbing an injury, or who had some kind of illness that changed what they could do in the weight room. I don’t give medical advice, but I always tried to help those readers however I could.
Then I had a light-bulb moment: All these readers were asking the exact same question: How do I train when I’m not like all the other people in the gym?
The solution was relatively simple once I’d identified the problem, and it was right in front of us the whole time.
When Alwyn and Rachel and their staff train clients, they work from a template. The workout is presented as a series of movement patterns – which of course is the basis of all our books – along with parameters for sets and reps. They select exercises based on what works best for the individual client in that part of the program.
So if someone has knee issues, but no upper-body problems, that client might be restricted to extremely basic exercises in the squat and lunge movement patterns, while doing more advanced upper-body pushes and pulls.
This is exciting for us on two levels. First, we allow readers to decide for themselves what they’re able and ready to do. Second, it comes closer to the way Alwyn actually trains clients.
A book can never replicate that experience directly – a good trainer is always going to see problems we don’t see in ourselves, and make adjustments that wouldn’t occur to us. But it comes just a bit closer.
BJS: What is the single most important piece of advice you can give someone who wants to attain a fit body?
Lou Schuler: You have to work hard, and you have to work consistently. That means you have to find something you enjoy enough, and that you find interesting enough, to keep you going back to it. It also has to be something that lends itself to steady improvement over time.
It has to engage your mind in a way that allows it to be fully separate from the rest of your life, but not disrupt your life. In other words, when you’re doing it, you forget about work. But when you’re finished with it, you can get right back into the flow of your job or your family or World of Warcraft or whatever.
For me, and for you, and for most of the people reading this, strength training meets those criteria. It’s a perfect hour-long break in the middle of my workday. For someone else, it might be a perfect start to a day, or a perfect finish.
We both know that trends change over the years, and sometimes research points us in new directions. But what never changes is the importance of effort. Get the work done and you’ll be pleased with the results.
BJS: Great stuff, Lou. Many thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas with my readers!
For further info, check out Lou’s blog at: LouSchuler.com
The 2012 NSCA Personal Trainer Conference was held in Las Vegas at the beautiful M Resort (and it really is a magnificent hotel!). I had the pleasure of speaking there–my seventh time presenting at the event– and, everything considered, this was the best of them all. My topic was “Facts and Fallacies of Fitness.” It’s a subject that I’ve spoken on before, but the topics I covered were all new. I had good-sized crowds for both lectures (at the PT conference, you present the same lecture twice–once in the morning and once in the evening) and the response was excellent. NSCA trainers are at the top of the food chain, so it’s always great presenting to a knowledgeable, inspired audience.
What made the conference so special, though, was both the quality of the other presenters and getting to hang out and chat fitness with many of them. In particular, I spent a lot of time with my two good friends, uber trainer Bret Contreras and uber nutritionist Alan Aragon. Both of these guys are super smart and super humble. What’s more, they’re as passionate about fitness as me, and that’s really saying something! Most memorable was going to dinner (the M resort has an awesome buffet!) with the two of them and spending 3+ hours discussing and debating aspects of exercise and nutrition. We got so wrapped up in discussion that at 10:30 pm, the waiter told us the restaurant had closed–an hour-and-a-half ago! Below is a pic from that epic evening. That’s me on the left, Bret in the middle, and Alan on the right.
There were so many excellent presenters that it was impossible to see every session I would have liked (the presentations are structured so that four speakers are presenting at any given time slot). Here is a rundown of the sessions I did get a chance to see:
Alan Aragon: Alan presented on nutrient timing. This guy is the real deal! I’ve known Alan for quite a while now and no one–I mean *no one*–has a better grasp of nutritional research and its application to real life situations. Ask Alan a question on a nutrition topic and he’ll rattle off answer supported by research with the name of the author and year of the study faster than you can bat an eyelash. In his presentation, Alan discussed various misconceptions about nutrient timing and also touched on the issue of meal frequency. Bottom line from Alan’s perspective is that the importance of nutrient timing exists on a continuum. If you are a recreational athlete or someone who simply wants to add a little muscle, the importance of timing will be negligible; if you are a bodybuilder or strength athlete, there will be added importance; and if you are an athlete that needs to compete multiple times in the same day, the strategy is crucial.
Brent Alvar: Dr. Alvar presented on the dose-response relationship of exercise. Doc just happens to be the chair of my doctoral dissertation committee and one of the most knowledgeable guys in the field on strength training adaptations. His presentation focused on the importance of higher volumes of training in promoting increases in strength and hypertrophy–the single set approach, which certainly can produce gains, simply is not sufficient if maximal results are desired. Dr. Alvar also delved into the importance of periodization, stating that different periodization models can be appropriate depending on the goals and abilities of the individual. He advocated a non-linear (i.e. undulating) approach for those who need a combination of strength and muscular endurance (i.e. military personnel, firefighters, etc) whereby you perform a three-day-a-week routine, lifting heavy on Monday, moderate on the Weds, and light on Friday.
Morey Kolber: Morey is not only a close friend, but he also is one of the world’s leading researchers on shoulder joint injury and rehabilitation. Morey discssed an evidence-based approach to working with clients who have had shoulder injuries in a post-rehab environment. He discussed the importance of avoiding exercises such as behind-the-neck presses and behind-the-neck lat pulldowns in this population due to the increased stresses on the joint. He also showed video demonstrations of various stretches that can be performed to improve functional results. Terrific, practical info!
Marie Spano: Marie is a super-knowledgeable Registered Dietician who isn’t afraid to refute typical American Dietic Association dogma. Her presentation focused on the importance of total caloric intake in weight control. She used practical info to make her points, including overviewing the Twinkie Diet that helped nutrition professor Mark Haub lost 27 pounds in just ten weeks eating pretty much nothing but junk food–just to prove that the first law of thermodynamics applies to weight loss. Proof positive! She also discussed application of different nutritional strategies to optimize results, stating that a low-carb approach can work well for those who are insulin resistant.
Len Kravitz: No, this isn’t the singer/guitarist. Rather, Dr. Len Kravitz is perhaps the most dynamic fitness presenter I’ve seen. The guy is such a total pro and his Powerpoint slides are amazing. I study his techniques and try to adopt many of his attributes into my own style. If I’ve grown as a speaker over the past few years, I have Dr. Kravitz to thank. Here, he presented on high-intensity interval training (HIIT). In case you don’t know, HIIT involves alternating between high-intensity cardio intervals and low-intensity cardio intervals. As usual, Dr. Kravitz had tons of video examples of different HIIT strategies and how they can be applied based on the needs of the individual. Most interesting was his chart at the end of the presentation where he compared HIIT to traditional ‘steady-state’ cardio. He noted that all things considered, HIIT has the edge when you consider the totality of the adaptations promoted by each respective approach. Bottom line: If you can do HIIT, it’s probably going to be the most beneficial way to achieve cardiovascular benefits.
Again, this was just an awesome conference. Great people, great presentations, great times. My only regret was that I didn’t have more time to see some of the other terrific presentations. Next up: The NSCA National Conference this July in Providence, Rhode Island. I’ll be presenting a pre-con on training for maximal muscle growth as well as a main session on metabolic resistance training. Can’t wait!
It’s been a busy past few weeks! With everything that’s been going on, I haven’t had much time to breathe, nevertheless post. Sooooo….in the meantime, I wanted to get everyone up do date with what’s been doing:
First off, I’m finishing up the semester for my PhD with a sea of papers and tests currently due. Thankfully, I’m just about half way through my doctoral coursework. Yes it’s been *a lot* of work so far, but overall a very rewarding experience. Beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel! I’m in the process of finalizing my dissertation research and very much looking forward to furthering our understanding of the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and how we can best train to optimize muscular development. I’ll be posting info about my findings as they become available. Stay tuned…
I lectured at the ACSM Fitness Summit last week in Las Vegas. My main session was a seminar on “Is Functional Training Really Functional?” The seminar challenged many of the commonly held beliefs on what constitutes ‘functional fitness.’ Bottom line is that we need to get away from the polarizing belief that exercises are either ‘functional’ or ‘non-functional’. In fact, all training can be functional. Functional transfer exists on a continuum (I’ve dubbed this the ‘Functional Fitness Continuum’) and its application to program design ultimately depends on the needs, abilities, and goals of the individual. In addition to this session, I also participated in an expert panel about high-performance conditioning. The panel was moderated by Dr. Len Kravitz, and I served as the expert on muscle hypertrophy (i.e. growth). This was a really fun experience. The turnout was great (I was told over 500 were in attendance), and there were some very thought-provoking questions from the audience. I’m looking forward to speaking at the event again in the future.
After ACSM, I flew to NSCA headquarters in Colorado Springs to finalize initiation of the Certified Special Populations Specialist (CSPS) exam. This was the culmination of over a year of work that went into developing the exam, which was spearheaded by my friend and colleague Chat (Chopper) Williams. In short, the CSPS is designed to distinguish those trainers who have the competency to work with a wide array of special populations, including those with musculoskeletal disorders, cardiopulmonary disease, and pretty much any other condition that requires knowledge beyond that needed to work with healthy populations. The first exam will be held at the NSCA National Conference in July. For those interested, here is a link to info about the certification.
This coming Saturday I will be lecturing at the NSCA Personal Trainer Conference at the M Resort in Las Vegas on one of my favorite topics: Facts and Fallacies of Fitness. The lecture will debunk many of the common fitness myths and misconceptions that abound in the exercise field. This is my sixth time speaking at the event, and the NSCA always puts on a first-class conference. Lots of other great speakers, too. Hopefully you can attend. Here is a link to the schedule of presentations.
Finally, my good friends, uber trainer Nick Tumminello and uber journalist Lou Schuler, have teamed up to write an excellent primer on creatine. In case you don’t know, creatine is one of the only supplements that has been found to have any efficacy for building muscle and increasing strength. Yet a great deal of controversy and uncertainty exists about the supplement. Nick and Lou have done an outstanding job cutting through the hype and providing the no-nonsense facts about pretty much everything you need to know on the topic. It’s a must read for those interested taking or considering taking creatine. And best of all, its free! Here is a link where you can download a copy of the report.
Today’s post is an interview I conducted with uber trainer Bret Contreras. If you’ve read this blog over the past couple of years, you’ll know that I hold Bret in highest regard; someone I’m proud to call a friend and colleague. Not only does Bret have a terrific grasp of the research, but he is able to harness this info and apply it in highly innovative ways that few can match. This is the essence of evidence-based practice and no one does it better. Pure and simple, he’s one of the preeminent fitness professionals in the world.
Bret has just come out with a terrific monthly research review that synthesizes the current research from a practical perspective. I ask him about this as well as a number of other fitness-related topics that I’m sure you’ll find of interest.
BJS: Tell us a little about your background in the fitness field.
I’ve been weight training and reading about fitness for 20 years now. Like most in the fitness industry, I started accumulating tons of workout partners in my teens. This gradually evolved into personal training on the side until finally moving to full time training and strength coaching. Eventually I opened up my own facility which I had for a couple of years and then I switched to full time writing and researching.
No matter how busy I am, I always make sure to keep a few personal training clients so I don’t become too theoretical and esoteric like some researchers. Training real clients and having discussions with fellow strength coaches, trainers, and therapists keeps me grounded and humble.
BJS: You’re often referred to as “The Glute Guy.” How did you come to get this nickname?
To make a long story short, I was talking to legendary strength coach Martin Rooney a few years back at a Perform Better seminar and was discussing my EMG findings on the glutes. He jokingly mentioned that I give myself a name and threw out “The Glute Guy” as a suggestion. I liked the sound of it and went forth with the nickname, and now it has stuck. I’m very comfortable being known as The Glute Guy as I believe that the gluteus maximus is the most important muscle in sports since it’s heavily involved in running, jumping, cutting, and twisting – all extremely powerful movements. In my opinion it’s also the most important muscle for increasing women’s sex appeal.
BJS: What is your training philosophy?
I could write an entire essay on this, but it depends on the client and the goal.
For sport training, I believe that 80% of the potential gains from strength training come from “general” big lifts such as squats, deadlifts, bench press, bent over rows, military presses, and farmer’s walks. I believe that the big lifts can and should be modified to be more joint-friendly or replaced by biomechanically-similar exercises for lifters who don’t tolerate the big lifts very well. For example, front squats, hex bar deadlifts, incline presses, inverted rows, and neutral grip dumbbell military presses are suitable alternatives which are generally safer but will yield nearly identical adaptations.
I believe that the remaining 20% of potential gains from strength training come from exercises which are chosen by analyzing the specificity of the sport and position. The most underutilized principle of specificity is the direction of the forces in sport. Force vectors need to be mimicked in strength training to maximize the transfer of training. There are typical strength exercises that help bridge the gap between weight training and sport, such as hip thrusts, back extensions, Bulgarian split squats, cable hip flexion, cable woodchops, and JC band presses. Explosive lifts such as Olympic variations, jump squats, kettlebell swings, slideboard lateral slides, and medball throws; as well as towing exercises such as sled pushing bridge the gap as well. I believe that these special exercises put the finishing touches on a well-balanced general routine and significantly enhance the transfer of training.
For hypertrophy training, I believe in getting people really strong in a variety of exercises in a variety of rep ranges from a variety of angles while incorporating a variety of methods. How’s that for being vague? I’ll elaborate.
Let’s say I was aiming to achieve maximal pectoral hypertrophy for an experienced male client. In this case I would seek progressive overload in barbell and dumbbell bench and incline press variations for low to medium reps. I would incorporate targeted movements such as flat and incline fly and crossover variations for medium to high reps. From time to time I’d throw in weighted dips and push-ups (assuming they were well-tolerated by the client) for medium reps. I’d rely on traditional methods such as straight sets and pyramiding, in addition to utilizing neural overloading techniques such as the rest-pause method and pumping techniques such as the constant tension method with short rest times in between sets.
BJS: Do you believe in periodizing programs?
Of course I do, but not in the same manner as most coaches. There’s an Olympic Weightlifting coach out of Las Vegas named John Broz who sticks to six exercises year in and year out. His athletes are far more explosive than 99% of those who train with other coaches. They get really good at squatting and front squatting, cleaning and snatching, and power cleaning and power snatching, and their routines don’t vary from week to week and year to year. There’s something to be said for sticking to the basics and keeping it simple for strength and power gains, and Broz clearly demonstrates that fancy periodization is not a requirement for impressive training results.
However, it’s of utmost importance to keep clients and athletes injury-free. For this reason, I wouldn’t feel comfortable sticking with Broz’s approach, though I recognize its efficacy in terms of performance gains.
Currently I don’t train many clients but I’ll discuss some things that have worked well for me in the past as well as over the past year with some of the clients I’ve trained. First, I periodize according to skill level. I’ve learned much from Gray Cook over the years and think it’s imperative to focus on developing sound fundamental movement patterns which requires ideal levels of mobility, stability, and motor control. All clients and athletes need good squatting, hinging, and bridging patterns, as well as single leg and lumbopelvic stability. Corrective exercises should be utilized up front where necessary to fast-forward progress.
Once good technical form is reached on the big lifts, correctives are placed on the back-burner by moving them into the general warm-up, and the primary focus shifts to progressive overload. Getting stronger at the big lifts through a full range of motion without compromising perfect technical form is the name of the game. Once sufficient strength is reached following many years of strength training, main exercises should be rotated frequently and explosive repetitions via the dynamic effort method become more important.
Second, I sometimes periodize by targeting the weakest range of motion along the strength curve. For example, lifters who seem to fail down low and display disproportionately low flexed-range hip extension strength would be prescribed full squats, deficit reverse lunges, good mornings, and deficit deadlifts, which are all very hard in a deep position of hip flexion. Conversely, lifters who seem to fail at lockout and display disproportionately low end-range hip extension strength would be prescribed high box squats, rack pulls, back extensions, and hip thrusts, which target mid or end-range hip extension strength. I usually prefer to blend these movements together during programming but I’ve achieved great results with several clients by using this methodology. In fact several months ago I put 35 kgs (around 77 lbs) on a guy’s deadlift with this approach in just four weeks.
Third, from time to time I periodize by alternating clients between higher frequency approaches, higher volume approaches, and higher intensity approaches. Though this is a very common approach to periodization, I do it differently than many coaches as I switch things up more drastically than just tinkering with sets and reps – I’ll vary the exercises, manner of execution, and special methods as well. For example, during the high frequency phase I’d keep things simple and stick to the basics. During the high volume phase I’d employ bodybuilding techniques such as drop sets. And during the high intensity phase I’d employ HIT techniques such as breathing squats.
Fourth, I periodize by choosing new goals each month for my clients based on their input. One month we might try to set a record on maximal deadlifts. Let’s say a male client can deadlift 365 lbs, I may design the program around trying to get him to reach 405 lbs by the end of the month. Perhaps the individual wants to lose 5 lbs of fat for the month; I might add in 10-15 minutes of HIIT or MRT at the end of the session.
Fifth, I often periodize by utilizing an undulating (non-linear) approach, for example during a high frequency phase I might go with heavy weight for low reps on Monday, light weight for high reps on Tuesday, moderate weight for explosive reps on Thursday, and moderate weight for medium reps on Friday.
So there are a few ways in which I periodize programs. One approach to periodization that I don’t like is the classic (linear) approach that has you tapering down on rep ranges over time. I don’t like this method as individuals seem to get really good at whatever rep range they’re training at the expense of losing strength in the other rep ranges. For this reason I believe that every week should include some heavy low rep work, moderate medium rep work, and light high rep work for maximal efficacy. I do have some colleagues who have achieved good results using this approach so I recognize that it seems to work well for certain folks.
I should also mention that I am a big fan of programming according to instinct/gut feeling, though I don’t feel that this is a true form of periodization. Whether you call it auto-regulation, Cybernetic periodization, instinctive training, or biofeedback training, it’s all similar. You have a clear agenda and specific goal in mind for when your client enters the weight-room, but you tinker with the program on the fly based on verbal and non-verbal feedback from the client. I believe that all good programs rely heavily upon auto-regulation as it’s impossible to predict the precise psychological and physiological disposition of the client on a regular basis as there are just too many factors at play.
BJS: I know you’ve worked a lot with EMG. Do you consider it a useful instrument for studying biomechanics?
Hell yeah I do! Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t worked with EMG and doesn’t regularly read research. Strength & Conditioning writers are great at coming up with new ideas and new theories – in fact they’re the best. Sometimes these theories end up being right, but often the theories are either incorrect or incomplete. Researchers and sports scientists use various tools to learn more about the neuromuscular system and test hypotheses, and EMG is just one of these tools.
EMG is great because it measures the electrical activity in muscles; a measurement of the nervous system’s intent to fire the muscles. This gives us a reasonable measurement of muscle force (especially during isometric contractions and when non-fatigued) which is related to mechanical tension and ultimately, hypertrophy.
Like any tool, EMG has some shortcomings, but many of the shortcomings can be ameliorated, for example you can use multiple channels of EMG (i.e. using multiple electrodes on a particular muscle) during testing to cover more surface area and test more regions of the muscle. I like that EMG can be lined up with motion capture to analyze EMG timing relative to motion. EMG can be incorporated into muscle modeling along with force plate data and inverse dynamics to help predict joint torques, spinal loading, and muscle forces. Spinal biomechanist Stu McGill utilizes this approach in his experiments.
I learned so much valuable information when I conducted my extensive EMG experiments. I’d hook up 4 electrodes to various regions of muscles and perform tons of different exercises to see which movements activated the various muscles and regions of muscles best. Many times the experiments validated what I already knew through practical experience, but a few times I was very surprised at the results. However, after pondering the results and analyzing the biomechanics of the movements, the EMG findings made perfect sense.
My favorite aspect about EMG is that it’s the only tool that I know of that gives us numerical data to give us some idea as to muscle force. MRI and ultrasound are nice but they don’t provide numbers. Until we have a more practical way to measure actual muscle force, to me standardizing EMG to MVC is the way to go.
Many of my researcher colleagues and strength coach colleagues are quick to dismiss EMG because of various reasons and I always listen to their rationale. But usually I think their rationale is overly-critical and unfair. There are indeed limitations, but it’s the best tool we’ve currently got for seeing which exercises work a particular muscle or muscle part the best. Sure we can utilize other methods, such as MRI (there’s even a newer MRI technique called “STIR” which examines muscle damage following a workout), ultrasound, biomechanical analysis, “feeling the burn” during exercise, palpation, and simply doing a bunch of sets and seeing where you’re sore the next day, but EMG gives us actual numbers to use for comparison.
Bodybuilders have long claimed that you can perform specific movements to target a particular area of a muscle. Sports scientists were skeptical, but EMG has provided much evidence for their claims. Bodybuilders were right about the delts, traps, pecs, lats, abs, glutes, quads, hams, and calves; muscles don’t get worked uniformly across the various fibers and specific exercises can be used to strengthen or hypertrophy a particular region. This is useful for functional purposes and sport, for bodybuilding purposes, and for rehabilitation purposes. We’re now learning that the nervous system is skilled at determining which parts of the muscles have the best leverage at a particular range of motion and it fires those regions when appropriate to produce efficient movement – this has been coined “functional differentiation.”
Just recently EMG was used to dispel the “corset hypothesis” that most physical therapists and strength coaches subscribe to; we learned that the transverse abdominis doesn’t contract uniformly during unilateral limb movement. There are many excellent uses for EMG and when used by a skilled practitioner who understands its strength and limitations, it’s incredibly valuable.
BJS: You have a new product out that I know you’re quite excited about. Tell us about it.
I sure do. It’s a research review service that I started with my colleague Chris Beardsley – someone who I respect immensely. Beginner coaches and lifters need to spend time in the trenches gaining experience under the bar and working with other people. They don’t have time to sift through the research, and even if they did have the time, chances are they don’t have access to the journals.
Yet every young and advanced athlete, lifter, trainer, therapist, and coach could benefit considerably by receiving a monthly report that summarizes the latest findings in strength & conditioning, biomechanics, physiology, and physical therapy. This is exactly what Chris and I will do each month; we’ll pick out the 40-50 best articles for the month with a good blend from each category and summarize and email them to you in a nice PDF format.
Think about it – the President of the United States has advisers that hand him reports so he can stay informed. I’d like for you to feel like the President each month, so let Chris and me do the hard work for you so you can stay abreast of the literature and have an edge on your competition without taking up too much of your precious time.
For just $10/month you can be in the know by subscribing at www.StrengthandConditioningResearch.com. I can’t begin to tell you how much more intelligent and informed I am as a coach following a year of intensive studying and researching. It is my hope that strength & conditioning enthusiasts will take my word for it and subscribe as I can’t imagine anyone regretting it – so far all the feedback I’ve received has been very positive. Thanks for the interview Brad – I appreciate the opportunity!
My review article titled, “Does Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage Play a Role in Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy?” has just been published ahead of print in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. For those who want the cliff notes, here is a synopsis of findings:
Exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) occurs primarily from the performance of unaccustomed exercise, and its severity is affected by the type, intensity, and/or duration of training. Concentric and isometric actions contribute to EIMD, but the greatest damage to muscle tissue is seen with eccentric exercise, where muscles are forcibly lengthened. Although EIMD can have detrimental short-term effects on markers of performance and pain, it has been hypothesized that the associated skeletal muscle inflammation and increased protein turnover are necessary for long-term hypertrophic adaptations. A theoretical basis for this belief has been proposed, whereby the structural changes associated with EIMD influence gene expression, resulting in a strengthening of the tissue and thus protection of the muscle against further injury. Other researchers, however, have questioned this hypothesis, noting that hypertrophy can occur in the relative absence of muscle damage.
An extensive review of the scientific literature showed that there is a sound theoretical rationale supporting a potential role for EIMD in the hypertrophic response. While it appears that muscle growth can occur in the relative absence of muscle damage, potential mechanisms exist whereby EIMD may enhance muscle development including the release of inflammatory agents, activation of satellite cells, and upregulation of the IGF-1 system, or at least set in motion the signaling pathways that lead to hypertrophy. Although research suggests that eccentric exercise has greater hypertophic effects compared to other types of actions, however, a causal relationship directly linking these gains to EIMD has yet to be established. Moreover, if such a relationship does in fact exist, it is not clear what extent of damage is optimal for inducing maximum muscle growth.
Evidence seems to show that threshold exists beyond which damage does not further augment muscle remodeling and may in fact interfere with the process. Given that a high degree of EIMD causes a reduction in the force-producing ability of the affected muscle, excessive damage can impair an individual’s ability to train, which necessarily would have a detrimental effect on muscle growth. Moreover, while training in the early recovery phase of EIMD does not seem to exacerbate muscle damage, it may interfere with the recovery process. Thus, current research indicates that a protocol that elicits a moderate amount of damage would be most appropriate for maximizing the hypertrophic response.
A big gap in the literature is that the vast majority of studies have been carried out on untrained subjects. Considering that a ceiling effect slows the rate of muscle growth as one gains training experience, it is possible that muscle damage may become an increasingly important factor in promoting hypertrophy in highly trained individuals. This area needs further study.
Today’s blog post will be a guest-post from my friend and colleague, Anoop Balanchandran. For those who don’t know, Anoop is one of the most astute trainers around. In addition to being a top fitness pro, he is the founder of the excellent site, Exercise Biology, which provides cutting-edge articles and discussion about a wide range of fitness and nutritional topics. What I particularly admire about Anoop is his commitment to evidence-based practice. His article here shows his passion on the subject. I think you’ll find it to be highly informative. Hopefully it spurs thought and discussion. Feel free to chime in with your comments/feedback.
Why We Need an Evidence-Based Approach in the Fitness Field
By Anoop Balachandran, MS, CSCS
We have so many experts in the field who have been working in the trenches for years and getting results. So what is really the need for an evidence-based approach? Why do we spend millions of dollars on research? And why are people like myself, Brad Schoenfeld, Mark Young, Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon and a few others so bent on scientific studies?
In this article, I am going to write about why evidence-based medicine evolved in the first place. Or what circumstances in the history of medicine led to the evolution of evidence-based medicine. These are the very same reasons evidence-based approach is used in other fields too, including fitness and strength conditioning.
I always felt that if you don’t understand why the evidence-based approach evolved, you will never really be bothered to look up studies or hear the science. You will of course say research is important, but will always be swayed by anecdotal evidences.
Almost everyone falls back to 3 types of evidences when they don’t have any scientific studies to support: Ancient wisdom, expert opinion, and common sense. What follows is a discussion of the problems with these approaches along with relevant examples of each:
Ancient wisdom
This is one of the most common arguments that are posed as “evidence” for why certain treatments should work or why it should get a pass from being tested scientifically. It is assumed that the longer the treatments existed, the stronger the evidence that it works.
Ancient Pharmacology: It is often quoted by medical historians that we used to use diuretics, purgatives, emetics, abortifacients and other drugs even before pharmacologic science evolved. And it is very true that they existed, but the effects of these drugs are grossly misleading.
Emetics work by making people vomit, but what conditions did vomiting help? Purgatives are useful for constipation, but nothing else; they only serve to dehydrate and weaken the people who were already dehydrated and weak. Diuretics were most commonly used for acute infections, but they only made the existing condition worse. Drugs were used to make people sweat thinking that it will get rid of toxins, but the only things they got rid of were essential fluids and salt from the body that was vital for an ill person. Crocodile dung was even placed in women’s vaginas for abortion and to prevent conception!
What about surgeries? Ancient Egyptians were skillful enough to remove a portion of the skull without killing the patient, but they didn’t have any clue what they were doing inside the skull in the first place. They performed these surgeries in people who had psychological problems yet all it did was cause pain and death for most. It is known that ancient Egyptians used moldy bread to treat infections. But even in the 19th century, even after we knew there was something in penicillin that could kill bacteria, the doctors struggled to get some practical benifits. Without the right species and chemical procedures to extract concentrated amounts of it, it was just useless. Now what chance does moldy bread stand in healing? The list can go on and on. There were some treatments that did do well such as mercury, antimony, and such. But the benefits were heavily outweighed by the harms that came with them.
Bloodletting: The practice of bloodletting was the standard medical treatment for almost 2500 years, lasting even till the 19th century. The most common form of bloodletting was cutting the vein, besides using cups and leeches.
It was based on the humoral theory of disease: all diseases and disabilities resulted from an excess or deficit of one of these four humors. The ancient Ayurvedic system in India, traditional Chinese medicine and Unani are very similar to the humoral theory. The four humors were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood.
Sick patients were thought to have an imbalance of their humors, which bloodletting was thought to restore. Doctors bled patients for every ailment imaginable. They bled for pneumonia and fevers, back pain and rheumatism, headaches and melancholia; even to treat bone fractures and other wounds.
Here is a quote from a historian on the subject: “The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.” The patient: George Washington – the first president of America – died that very same day. What do you think killed him – the infection or the “treatment”?
Now think about it for a second: Bloodletting endured for more than 2500 years and was considered as the major medical treatment for almost every disease. How can so many millions of people and thousands of experts go wrong for hundreds of years?
Expert Opinion
Experts in every field have one thing in common – an unflinching self-confidence in their treatments and procedures.
Galen was the greatest physician of ancient Medicine after Hippocrates. Galen wrote about one his potions: “All who drink of this remedy recover in a short time, except those whom it does not help, who all die. Therefore, it is obvious that it fails only in incurable cases.” In short, if you got cured, it’s his medicine. If not, it is your fault.
In 1920, not all that long ago, William Osler, often called father of modern medicine and one of the most influential medical authorities in the world wrote: “To bleed at the very onset in robust, healthy individuals in whom the disease sets in with great intensity and high fever is good practice.”
Sleeping Babies: Dr. Benjamin Spock was one of the foremost experts in pediatrics. His book titled, Baby and Child Care, was the bible for both professionals and parents, especially in USA and UK for several decades. He wrote that a disadvantage of babies sleeping on their backs was that, if they vomited, they would be more likely to choke. Dr Spock therefore advised his millions of readers to encourage babies to sleep on their tummies. Sounds reasonable right?
Later scientific studies showed that babies sleeping on their stomachs increased the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. We now know that this advice, apparently rational in theory, led to the cot deaths of tens of thousands of infants.
Repressed Memories: Though we dumped most of the Freudian concepts of psychoanalysis, repressed memories still lingered. The subject of repressed memories has been one of the most controversial areas in psychology. Therapists claimed that anxiety, eating disorders, depression were due to memories of childhood sexual abuse that were repressed. And ‘therapy’ can unearth these buried memories.
The 1980’s began to see thousands and thousands of court cases being filed against parents, former neighbors, former teachers, former ministers and priests for sexual abuse based on newly discovered memories.
A few years later studies showed that suggestions and leading questions by therapists can implant false memories and that repressed memories have very little evidence. Imagine the pain of those fathers who went to grave bearing the burden of their own daughter falsely accusing them of sexual abuse. This is another example of how experts were unwilling to scientifically question their casual observations and beliefs that can lead to disastrous consequences. .
Lobotomy: The New York Times once wrote this about lobotomy: “…a groundbreaking medical procedure that promised hope to the most distressed mentally ill patients and their families”. The treatment was pretty simple: You surgically sever certain connections in the brain. Walter Freeman made it even simpler – he could do the procedure within 5 minutes without the need of a surgical room and anesthesia. Freeman’s “ice-pick” lobotomy involved inserting an ice pick like-instrument through the eye socket, tapping it with a hammer, and ‘wiggling’ it around to sever the frontal lobe. In 1949, the number of lobotomies conducted rose to 5000 per year. There were a few success stories, but for many patients the procedure resulted in a vegetative state, or reduced them to a childlike mental faculty.
Later this treatment was considered as one of the most barbaric mistakes of modern medicine. In his dying years, Walter Freedman travelled across the country to see his former patients to show the world that lobotomy “helped”. Just like most experts, he still couldn’t see where or what went wrong.
All these examples show how even well-meaning experts who have practiced their art for years in their field can go horribly wrong.
Common sense
This is another reason how treatments are justified in the absence of scientific studies. If the theory makes sense, why not use it.
Heart Rhythm Abnormalities: Heart rhythm abnormalities are associated with an increased risk of death after heart attack .So the theory was that a certain drug would prevent heart rhythm abnormalities and thus lower early deaths. The drug was licensed and the drug was prescribed in 1970. Most doctors were convinced of the drug from their excellent ‘results’. Just to convince the minority of unbelievers, a large scientific study was conducted in 1987.
As expected, the drugs stopped the abnormal heart beats in the study. It also stopped the heart. The five- year study was stopped in two years because people on these drugs were dying. At the peak of their use in the late 1980s, it is estimated that they may have been killing as many as 70,000 people every year in the United States alone – many more than the total number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War.
Hormone replacement Therapy (HRT): Hormone replacement therapy was based on the rationale that restoring estrogen levels in menopausal women would be helpful. This made sense since the female body stopped producing estrogen during menopause so replacing the estrogen could conceivably bring back the lost youth. HRT claimed to prevent heart attacks and strokes and millions of people, advised by their own doctors, started taking HRT.
In 1993, Women’s health initiative study was embarked to confirm the belief that HRT was saving lives. The study was stopped early because the number of deaths from breast cancer was higher in the hormone treated group. This study was later confirmed by other two large trials. It is estimated that in the UK alone the use of HRT was causing an extra 2000 cases breast cancer cases a year.
The thalidomide disaster, diethylstilboestrol (DES) disaster and many other tragic stories from the past have reminded us again and again to be very skeptical of our casual conclusions. There are even more not-so tragic stories of treatments that were claimed to be effective for specific conditions, but later proved to be ineffective. In the fitness and strength and conditioning field, there are a lot of programs just based on grandiose theories, expert opinion and testimonials but yet to be scientifically tested.
Conclusion
I can keep going on and on, but hopefully it’s clear that an evidence-based approach was born because experts, ancient medicine, and theories were getting it wrong – so wrong that people were dying in thousands. Most of these experts were the foremost experts in their field and had mastered the so-called art of medicine or treatment.
I hope this article serves to show why treatments, workout programs, diets, and theories should be scientifically tested or simply why we need an evidence-based approach.
Bloodletting and Lobotomy maybe long gone, but experts, theories and uncertainties still remain.
A dozen or so years ago, I was given a book to read called “The Antioxidant Miracle.” The book, written by researcher Lester Packer, discussed the (apparent) plethora of benefits of taking antioxidant supplements–benefits that included a reduced incidence of heart disease and cancer, healthier skin, and even better sex! The skeptic that I am, I decided to look into the research and assess the validity of these claims.
First a little background info on the topic: In case you don’t know, antioxidants scavenge unstable molecules called “free radicals” that have been implicated in disease and aging. Here’s a short-course in how the process works: Your body is made up of billions of cells held together by a series of electronic bonds. These bonds are arranged in pairs so that one electron balances the other. However, in response to various occurrences (such as oxygen consumption), a molecule can lose one of its electron pairs making it an unstable free radical. The free radical then tries to replace its lost electron by stealing one from another molecule. This sets up a chain reaction where the second molecule becomes a free radical and attacks a third molecule, which becomes a free radical and attacks a fourth molecule and so on. The main culprit: oxygen. Every time you breathe, oxygen uptake causes free radical production. Environmental factors such as pollutants, smoke and certain chemicals also contribute to their formation.
To prevent rampant free radical production, your body has a sophisticated internal antioxidant system. Various antioxidant enzymes combine with antioxidants from the foods you eat to help keep free radicals at bay. But when free radical activity reaches a critical level, the system can become overwhelmed, causing extensive damage to cellular tissues.
Given my role as an exercise scientist (as well as the fact that I’m an avid exerciser), free radical buildup was of particular concern. After all, free radicals are generated by oxygen consumption and when does oxygen consumption skyrocket? During exercise, of course!
So I began poring over the peer-reviewed literature in an attempt to evaluate the potential benefits of supplementation. Lo and behold, the research seemed pretty compelling. There were numerous studies showing that taking antioxidant supplements had a positive effect on a multitude of health issues. Vitamin C, vitamin E, alpha-lipoic acid, co-Q 10 and other antioxidants all had shown efficacy with respect to improving health and preventing disease. Moreover, there seemed to be a synergistic effect of combining supplements. A red flag was that the studies were almost all observational and thus low on the hierarchy of evidence-based practice. Nevertheless, the studies included several large-scale trials and the sheer number of positive studies gave credence to positive benefits. I jumped on the antioxidant bandwagon…
As it turned out, this was an important career lesson for me. Subsequent studies (including a number of randomized clinical trials–the top of the evidence-based hierarchy) failed to find support for benefits of taking antioxidant supplements. In fact, some recent studies actually showed a *negative* effect of supplementation on markers of health and wellness. A 2008 systematic review published in the Cochran Database (Bjelakovic et al., 2008) refuted the claims that antioxidant supplements could prevent mortality in healthy people or patients with various diseases. The authors went on to conclude: “We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may increase mortality. Future randomised trials could evaluate the potential effects of vitamin C and selenium for primary and secondary prevention. Such trials should be closely monitored for potential harmful effects. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.” A pretty sobering rebuke of earlier research.
For those who exercise, things become even murkier. Turns out that reactive oxygen species (ROS) actually function as key cellular signaling molecules in the response to exercise, and serve to bring about important training-related adaptations. They seem to be particularly important in adaptations to aerobic exercise, where oxygen is utilized at a very high rate. In accordance with this theory, a number of studies have shown that antioxidant supplementation can actually cause decrements in athletic performance. In a recent letter to the editor at the American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology and Metabolism, Gomez-Cabrera et al. cite some of the research on the subject and point out that antioxidant supplementation may be worse than useless for aerobic athletes–it has the potential to be detrimental.
Although the effects of antioxidants on resistance training have not been as well studied, there is good reason for concern. ROS have been shown to promote growth in both smooth muscle and cardiac muscle, and they are theorized to have similar hypertrophic effects on skeletal muscle. Interestingly, transgenic mice with suppressed levels of selenoproteins, a class of proteins that function as potent antioxidants, display increased exercise-induced hypertrophy, suggesting that the higher levels of ROS may play a role in muscle growth.
Now before we say case closed and demonize antioxidant supplementation as useless, realize that research on the subject is still in its infancy. There is still much we don’t know about the relationship between antioxidants, health, and exercise performance. Could it be that certain antioxidants are beneficial while others are not? Or could it be that a threshold of intake is beneficial while beyond this amount detrimental effects occur? We simply don’t know yet. So based on current evidence (which is all that we can go on at this point), it seems prudent to avoid taking supplemental antioxidants and instead focus on getting these nutrients from the foods you eat (vegetables and fruits are replete in antioxidants and other potentially beneficial phytochemicals). When future research comes out on the topic, we can then reevaluate recommendations.
Brad
Reference:
Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2.
Here is an article I wrote for Bodybuilding.com titled Metabolic Resistance Training: Build Muscle And Torch Fat At Once!. As discussed in the article, it’s a very effective technique for reducing body fat while simultaneously maintaining or even improving muscle development.
Here is a link to an excellent article by Marta Montegro titled What’s the Best Time to Exercise? that appears on FOX News Latino. She does a great job delving into the science of the topic and dispelling some of the myths that continue to be perpertrated.
Finally, here is a terrific article by my buddy Bret Contreras aptly titled, The Contreras Files: Volume II. As always, Bret tackles some controversial fitness subjects and backs up his opinions with solid research. You can read Part I of this series here.
Entries (RSS)
