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.
I recently co-authored an article with Bret Contreras on the barbell hip thrust. The article, which is published ahead-of-print in the NSCA Strength and Conditioning Journal, describes the performance of the barbell hip thrust and its application in strength training programs. It’s a terrific exercise for targeting the glutes in a manner that traditional exercises such as squats, deadlifts, and hyperextensions simply cannot approach. Here is a video of Bret demonstrating the exercise:
A colleague recently forwarded me a link to the official website for Tracy Anderson–a “celebrity trainer” who is ubiquitous in the media these days. In the past, I have ranted about Tracy’s methods. IMO, any trainer who says that a woman should never lift more than 3 pound weights has no business being in the fitness field.
But what got my goat about the link from Tracy’s website was the claim that her approach of training the small muscle groups will help you achieve long, lean muscle. This kind of marketing hyperbole has often been associated with Pilates instructors and now seems to be creeping into the general fitness arena. Although the thought of turning into a willowy runway model by performing light exercise might seem highly appealing to many women, unfortunately it’s a physiological impossibility. I delved into this topic in a previous post and would suggest that anyone who may be swayed by such hype give it a read.
Bottom line is that lifting little weights won’t in any way make you “longer and leaner.” Even worse, it won’t do much for your muscle development, particularly when the exercises exclusively involve single-joint movements working the small muscle groups. Don’t be fooled by titles such as “celebrity trainer.” Just because someone trains a celebrity doesn’t mean they are knowledgeable about exercise science. If you want proof, considered this Exhibit A.
A recent New York Times piece cited my recent paper on fasted cardio, summarizing my findings in an article titled Really? The Claim: Exercising on an Empty Stomach Burns More Fat. Good to see that mainstream publications are taking the lead in debunking some of the myths that pervade the fitness industry.
For decades now, physicians and dieticians have warned against the perils of consuming foods high in saturated fat. These recommendations are based on years of epidemiological evidence that saturated fat intake is associated with an increased risk of numerous diseases–particularly cardiovascular disease. The majority of the general public has taken this advice as gospel, demonizing saturated fat as the nutritional enemy.
Recently, however, some researchers have begun to challenge the accepted dogma that saturated fat intake actually increases cardiovascular risk. A recent systematic review by Siri-Tarino and colleagues in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition sought to investigate the subject. The review used a technique called meta-analysis to investigate the association of saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. In case you don’t know, meta-analysis involves pooling the results from multiple research studies so as to improve statistical power and arrive at a more definitive interpretation of data. The review identified 16 studies that evaluated the association between saturated fat consumption and heart disease and 8 studies that evaluated the association of saturated fat and stroke. After performing statistical analyses, the researchers concluded that “there is insufficient evidence from prospective epidemiologic studies to conclude that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease.” A pretty definitive statement, wouldn’t you say?
Based on the results of the study, it would seem that previous recommendations have been off-base and that we should feel free to slap the butter on thick and have that extra serving of bacon for breakfast. After all, a systematic review is considered the gold-standard in evidence-based practice. What more info do we need? Well, not so fast…
As is often the case, things aren’t necessarily as simple as they may seem. In the same journal issue, Dr. Jeremiah Stamler provided a detailed critical assessment of the Siri-Tarino et al. study that exposes issues with some of the methodologies of the review. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of Stamler’s points, he nevertheless does make some interesting observations.
First and foremost, there are potential biases in the method of dietary analysis in the studies evaluated by Siri-Tarino et al. Namely, 4 of the studies relied on a single 24-hour dietary recall to determine nutrient intake. This method of data collection is highly subject to recall bias and research shows it “provides a very inadequate estimate of usual intake of individuals”. Interestingly, only 1 of these studies showed an increased relative risk for saturated fat intake with respect to heart disease. On the other hand, of the 5 studies that used dietary history or multiday food records–a more accurate method of determining food intake–all 5 showed an increased relative risk.
Stamler also notes that results of the 11 studies that investigated “hard” fatal coronary heart disease (i.e. deaths from heart attack) showed a significant increase in relative risk from saturated fat intake as opposed to the 5 studies looking at “soft” data (those who experience increased total cardiovascular risk). This suggests that saturated fat intake may have a greater effect on causing cardiovascular fatalities irrespective of increasingly markers of cardiovascular disease. In other words, it is possible that a high saturated fat intake might result in a greater incidence of death from heart disease than lower intakes even if overall risk for disease is not significantly increased (i.e. progression of the disease is worse).
So what do we make of this data? Do we believe the results of the systematic review–a gold standard in evidence-based practice–that saturated fat intake is benign? Or do we dismiss it because of its inherent limitations? My view on the subject is somewhere in the middle. People are often all-too-quick to pounce on new research as the be-all, end-all on a particular topic. This is invariably a mistake and it certainly would be here. Research will always have inherent limitations and biases; this is the nature of the beast. Still and all, we must be open to new information and not rigidly adhere to previously held beliefs. As such, we must sift through the evidence and then use logical reasoning to try to make sense of what we know.
There is very good evidence that saturated fat intake increases cholesterol production, including increased LDL levels (the so-called “bad” cholesterol). However, recent research indicates that LDL levels may not be as important as once thought in promoting atherosclerosis. Rather, it is suggested that the size of the LDL particles are more indicative of cardiovascular risk, with the smaller, denser particles being atherogenic and the “large, fluffy” particles being benign. While this hypothesis is interesting, it remains largely untested in controlled research. We simply don’t know as much as we previously thought on the topic and more research is needed to draw firm conclusions.
There is emerging evidence that chronic inflammation is involved in the development of cardiovascular disease. It is therefore possible that the combination of high inflammatory markers and a high saturated fat intake may exacerbate plaque build up in the arteries and ultimately lead to an increased risk of a cardiovascular event. Again, while this hypothesis is interesting, it requires further research.
Considering the best available evidence, my advice is that you are probably better off limiting saturated fat consumption. If nothing else, saturated fat intake does little if anything for biological function (it does have a positive effect on HDL and testosterone, but so do the more biologically active monounsaturated fats). Moreover, emerging research suggests that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat can reduce cardiovascular risk. Given that omega-6 fats are pro-inflammatory, you’re best bet is to focus on monounsaturated fats (like those found in avocado, olive oil, almonds, etc) and omega-3s (like those found in cold water fish such as salmon, sardines, etc). This is considered to be one of the key components of the cardioprotective effects of the Mediterranean Diet. The omega-3 fats, in particular, have been shown to be heart-healthy (as well as potentially conferring many other health benefits for virtually every organ system in the body).
On the other hand, you don’t need to be anal about counting every gram of saturated fat consumed. For the majority of people, having a modest amount of saturated fat in your diet is not likely to have a significant effect on cardiovascular risk. Nutrition is highly individualized and it may well be that some people are more susceptible to negative effects from saturated fat intake than others. Hopefully the day is approaching when we will be able to customize nutritional regimens based on an assay of our individual genetic code. Until then, a balanced approach is warranted.
I was recently interviewed by the New York Times about the review article that I co-wrote with Bret Contreras titled, “To Crunch or Not to Crunch.” The Times article explored the topic as to whether crunches were worth the effort. My quotes were somewhat misconstrued here.
To set the record straight, I stated that it is generally superfluous to perform hundreds of crunches in a training session. The reason? Doing so has little applicability to every day life. After all, when do you repeatedly flex at the spine hundreds of times? As a general rule, core endurance is most needed in static postures and this is best achieved through isometric exercise, not flexion movements.
On the other hand, I pointed out that dynamic core strength can be important for carrying out many sporting movements and activities of daily living (as well as to optimize the “six pack” appearance that many people covet). To develop dynamic strength and muscle development, you need to perform low-to-moderate repetitions (within a range of about 6-15 reps). In the times piece, it came across as if I was advocating just a single set of crunches. This isn’t the case. Several sets are required to achieve optimal results.
Moreover, the sets must be challenging. If you can easily perform the target rep range, you need to add resistance! This can be achieved by either holding a weight (i.e. dumbbell, weighted plate, medicine ball,etc) during a crunch, or by performing spinal flexion on a cable apparatus (e.g. kneeling cable crunch).
On a side note, I’m happy to report that the NSCA has made the review article that Bret and I wrote free to read. Generally you must be a member of the NSCA to get access to articles appearing in the Strength and Conditioning Journal. However, because the article has received so much attention, the powers that be have provided open-access to all. Give it a read at the link below and let me know your thoughts.
Here’s a link to an article I wrote for uber trainer Bret Contreras’ Blog on employing the hierarchy of knowledge to fitness. Those who read this blog know that I’m a big proponent of taking an evidence-based approach to exercise and nutrition. Using the hierarchy of knowledge is an integral part of this process. Give it a read an let me know your thoughts…
The seated row is one of the best exercises for building muscle in the mid-back region. Most people perform the move with excessive hip flexion (and often spinal flexion, too). Big mistake! Check out this video to learn correct performance.
Here’s a link to the T-Nation article I co-wrote with Bret Contreras titled, To Crunch or Not to Crunch. The article refutes the claims made by some that crunches damage the spinal discs, discussing the relevant evidence on the subject. It complements the review article we recently published in the NSCA Strength and Conditioning Journal, and is a little more “consumer-friendly” for those without a scientific background.
Here’s a link to an article I was quoted in on fitness time-wasters. As I stated in the article, I’m of the opinion that for the most part there are no “bad” exercises–just poor application of a given movement based on an individual’s goals, abilities, and medical history. That said, I did manage to come up with a few moves that I find to be pretty much useless. I should also note that I don’t necessarily agree with some of the choices of the other experts quoted in the story. What are your thoughts on the topic?
In a recent post, I mentioned that I attended John Cissik’s thought-provoking presentation on core training at the 2011 NSCA National Conference. In short, John reviewed the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of core training on athletic performance, injury, and pain. His conclusion: contrary to popular belief, there is not much evidence that core training significantly improves any of these variables.
John was nice enough to consent to interview for Workout911.com readers to expand on his views on core training. Whether you ultimately agree with his conclusions or not, it should at least highlight the need for more research on the subject.
BJS: Thanks for consenting to this interview. Tell us a little about your background.
Thanks for the opportunity! Like a lot of people in our field, I wear many hats. I work as the Director of Fitness and Recreation at Texas Woman’s University. I also spend a great deal of time working with track and field programs on their strength and conditioning. I have worked as a strength and conditioning coach at several levels, worked as a personal trainer, have experience in rehab, and have even taught at a university. I have a master’s in exercise physiology, an MBA with an accounting focus, and certifications from the NSCA, USA Track and Field, and the old US Weightlifting Federation. I’ve written a number of books and articles on strength and speed training, done many presentations on these subjects, and even done four videos. I also serve as an associate editor for Strength and Conditioning Journal.
BJS: You challenge the commonly held belief that direct core training improves athletic performance. What led you to this conclusion?
I was asked to review an article on testing core stability. The article had several “field” tests along with norms, which is fine. What interested me was a statement that the article made which was essentially that everyone needs to have their core stability assessed prior to being allowed to engage in movement because movement is so inherently dangerous. At the time I felt that things have gotten a little silly with regards to core training and I thought it was time to actually seek our and review the literature on this topic.
One of the key claims regarding the efficacy of core training is that it improves athletic performance. If you wanted to demonstrate this through research, you’d have a group of subjects engage in core training and compare them to a group that doe not. Then see which group improves the best on athletic performance measures. Surprisingly, with all the claims associated with core training, this kind if research is really difficult to find.
There is a lot of research that shows that core training improves core strength and endurance. There is a lot of research to show what exercises are best at recruiting specific muscles. When it comes to athletic performance, the research is at best conflicting at and worst it shows that core training is not effective.
Research that looks at core training and its ability to improve performance does not establish that it is a magic bullet. Now, some research establishes a relationship between some measures of athletic performance and core endurance, but it is unclear if one causes the other. For example, does better core endurance create a stronger squat or does the stronger squat create better core endurance?
BJS: Many fitness pros claim that core training helps to prevent injuries, particularly those to the lower back. This is predicated on the belief that strengthening the muscles supporting the spine makes this region less susceptible to injury. What’s your take on this?
Currently, there is not a very good understanding on what causes lower back injuries. The medical literature classifies lower back injuries to two types; specific and non-specific. Basically specific are the result of an incident and can be seen through imaging. This represents about 10% of lower back pain. The other 90% are non-specific which means that there is not an established “incident” which caused it and it cannot be seen via imaging. There is no consensus in the literature about what causes either kind of injury. As a result, it’s impossible to say that exercises addresses any of the things that causes these injuries. Research that looks at exercise “preventing” low back injuries is inconclusive.
BJS: What is your opinion on performing core exercises as a treatment for those with lower back pain.
Exercise seems to be effective at reducing pain and improving quality of life for people with chronic (grater than 12 weeks) low back pain. It seems to be ineffective for people suffering low back pain for fewer than 12 weeks. The important thing to note here is that any kind of exercise seems to be effective; stretching, aerobic exercise, general strength training, and core training. There does not seem to be a best kind of exercise for chronic low back pain.
BJS: You have discussed the differences between specific lower back pain and non-specific lower back pain. Some fitness pros claim that there is no such thing as “non-specific lower back pain.” How do you respond?
Those are not my terms. Those terms come from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Spine, the European Spine Journal, the British Medical Journal, and JAMA. I understand it’s fashionable to bash medicine, but I’d rather take a sick or injured family member to a medical doctor as opposed to a fitness pro that thinks that they know more.
BJS: Given the evidence, do you think there is any value in training the core with specific exercises or does the core get sufficient work from performing multi-joint exercises so that direct core training is unnecessary?
At the end of the day, anything that gets someone into the gym is a good thing. If it’s core training, Cross Fit, yoga, Zumba, Olympic lifting, whatever it takes to get someone in the gym. I think core training is great from that standpoint, it’s great for vanity, but it is not a magic bullet. Many free weight exercises (squats, deadlifts, and cleans) activate the core muscles just as well as core exercises. So when I only have a limited amount of time to work with athletes, I include some core work to address vanity issues but my focus is on multi-joint exercises.
BJS: Any closing thoughts about core training?
Core training is a victim of poor science, marketing hype, and stretching research to say something that it doesn’t. Many of the claims are unsubstantiated or simply wishful thinking. When it comes to working with athletes, we’re always looking for some type of magic bullet but these do not exist and they do not replace hard work and structured programming.
Entries (RSS)
