Exercise Intensity & Overtraining

The New York Times ran a great story in its health section this week, on exercise intensity, overtraining, and the insanity of some of the current marketing trends in the fitness industry.

Unlike their article on the value of icing, it is authoritative, well written, coherent, and uses respected experts to explain the points made. Read it here.

Exercise Science?

Hello.  I’m back.  And i have a few things to say.

Over the last 2 weeks I’ve read multiple articles in the New York Times Health section, and a much longer piece in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, that would make any seasoned exerciser bewildered about what we do, and don’t know, about how the human body works.

In one article, “Why Ice may be bad for sore muscles“, there are so many ridiculous suppositions that it boggles my mind.  The article starts off:

“For the study, researchers at the University of Ulster and University of Limerick in Ireland reviewed almost three dozen earlier studies of the effects of using ice to combat sore muscles, a practice that many who exercise often employ. Ice is, after all, the “I” in the acronym RICE (rest, ice, compression, elevation), which remains the standard first-aid protocol for dealing with a sports-related injury. Icing is also widely used to deal with muscles that twinge but aren’t formally injured. Watch almost any football, basketball or soccer game, at any level, and you’ll likely see many of the players icing body parts during halftime, preparing to return to play.”  (The bold text is highlighted by me)

In 29 years of being in the fitness industry, I’ve never; not once; heard the recommendation to ice muscles made sore from regular exercise or physical activity.  Not once.  Ever.  The RICE protocol is used in first aid when dealing with INJURIES.  Post exercise muscle soreness is not considered an injury and would be considered counter productive as icing the muscle would reduce blood flow, which is the opposite of what a weight trainer is trying to accomplish.  The paragraph then goes on to say that icing is also used for muscles that may not be sore, but “twinge”.  Again, never heard this in 29 years from a professional.  And the final nonsense: “…players icing body parts during halftime, preparing to return to play”.  Body parts, yes.  But not specifically muscles.  The athletes routinely ice shoulders, elbows, hips, knees, and ankles.  They do not typically ice biceps, pectorals, latissimus dorsi, Quadriceps, etc.  Do you know what the difference is?  Athletes ice joints, not muscles, during competition.  And they only ice themselves if they’ve suffered an injury, like a contusion, or severe muscle pull, or sudden attack of tendonitis; situations where inflammation around the affected joint will have a serious impact on the athlete’s ability to continue competing.  Yes, muscles cross joints, as do tendons and ligaments.  But it is the area of the joint that matters.  The article continues to discuss how the research being detailed shows that icing reduces the overall performance of the athlete in the affected area.  Really, was it the icing, or the injury that preceded the icing?  And how much more degraded would the athlete have performed if they didn’t ice at all and tried to compete anyway?  As someone who used to be a tournament racquetball player, I have some experience with elbow tendonitis.  Icing was sometimes the difference between winning a trophy and prize money, or losing because i could no longer grip my racquet.  As to why an athlete would risk more serious injury by continuing, the answer is: They are competitive athletes with prize money and trophies at stake.  This is who they are and it is often their job.  And Aaron Rodgers or Eli Manning at 75% effectiveness is many factors of 100% better than their respective backups.

Lets continue:

The article goes on to discuss how:  there  has been surprisingly little science to support the practice. A 2004 review of icing-related studies published to that point concluded that while cold packs did seem to reduce pain in injured tissues, icing’s overall effects on sore muscles had “not been fully elucidated” and far more study was needed.”  Why an ice pack before exercise should depress performance isn’t fully understood…”.   Not understood!  Oh my god!  Icing reduces blood flow and slows down cellular activity, which is why we ice severed limbs, not put them on heaters.  And ice will slow down muscle cellular activity and tighten up the muscles it is used on.  There aren’t any studies because it would be like a PHD in physics deciding to test Newtons theory of gravity by dropping an apple and a 50 kilo weight from the same hight to see if they fell at the same rate (they do).

I need to point out that a MLB Pitcher, or an NFL Quarterback is paid millions of dollars to play, while you and I are not.  They are not icing to rehabilitate an injury, they are icing to continue the competition.  And how did we go from discussing whether or not icing injuries was an effective treatment, to icing muscles before exercise to see how that affects performance?  How does that have any relevance to icing an injured body part?  No one ices before exercising.  Anyone in the exercise industry knows you warm up muscles and joints prior to exercise, not cool down!  For the rest of us, any injury that would require the RICE protocol would also be followed by the recommendation to rest the injury for a period of days or even weeks, depending on the severity.

Why was this ridiculous study done in the first place?  I imagine some graduate student in Ireland needed to conduct research and present their findings in order to receive their graduate degree.

As to why the New York Times decided to publish an article about this I surmise it was a slow news week in the world of exercise, and the writer of the article doesn’t know anything about fitness, or doesn’t care.  Write or die.  I see the same thing in all the major fitness magazines.  You can’t leave blank space.  You must publish something every month or go out of business (or lose your job).  This writer should lose his or her job just for publishing this nonsense and confusing the public more than they already are.  Hey New York Times…maybe you should hire me.

I will follow this up with two more blog posts; each on two other NYT articles; with valid information, much better researched, much more well-informed, and seemingly contradictory, on the issue of fat and weight loss.  Stay tuned.

Sugar, Protein, and Us

Sugar
Image via Wikipedia

Nutritionists have had a model for how refined sugars and simple carbs negatively impact the human body.  In a nutshell, it works like this:

I eat or drink a high sugar food product (candy, soda, pasta, breads; your body thinks they’re all the same).  These things are already in their most broken down state and are ready for immediate absorption.  Body releases a lot of insulin, which sucks up the sugar and causes blood sugar to temporarily soar (momentarily boosting energy)  then catastrophically crash since it just as easily gets stored (as fat) if you don’t use it right away.

English: Diagram shows insulin release from th...
Image via Wikipedia

When the burst of energy ends, your brain wants to get the energy back and tells you your hungry, again.  This model still works, but it’s an incomplete picture, and the truth appears to be even more insidious.

Our friend Thane shared this link which details the neurobiological mechanisms that underly the classic model I sketched above.  It sheds light on why it’s so hard to break this cycle, and tells us how to more effectively deal with the problem.  What I find most amusing is the fact that old medical advice from the 50’s and 60’s, on how to manage blood sugar levels using a chart called the glycemic index, came to these same conclusions long ago.

The article is still fascinating if your into science and health and fitness, so check it out here.

Exercise is good for your brain!

Another great NY Times health article on the almost un-intended benefits of exercise: improved brain function as you age. Read it here:
http://nyti.ms/vj3Epu

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Austin St,,United States

Stretch, anyone? Part 2

Stretching (see part 1)has no inherent physiological health benefits.  Should anyone stretch?  Why stretch at all?   As my brother, an auto mechanic might say, “…there’s a tool for every job, pick the right one”.  Stretching is a a tool that can enhance athletic performance and exercise, and impede athletic performance and exercise.  As a tool, it can help alleviate cramps and a sense of physical discomfort,  but overused can lead to excessive joint laxity and increased risk of injury.  It is a tool to be used specifically, not blindly.  It is not inherently healthier to be more flexible.  This isn’t about faith or dogma.  Why and how we are stretching is the question.

Cons and Common misconceptions of stretching:
  1. It will not lesson muscle soreness after a workout.
  2. It will not prevent or reduce the risk of getting muscle cramps if done before a workout.
  3. It can increase the risk of injury due to excessive joint laxity.  The more flexible a joint is, the more inherently unstable it is, leaving the joint vulnerable to dislocation and tendon/ligament injury).
  4. It might decrease sport specific performance (extremely elongated muscle will have reduced inherent muscular tension; tension which aids in the contractile response.  All muscle fibers have an automatic contract reflex when the brain senses the muscle has reached a certain length/stretch.  This reflex causes the muscle to contract suddenly, and can aid in activities that require explosive movements.

Pros:

  1. It can help correct or minimize musculoskeletal pain and discomfort caused by muscular tightness and imbalance (lower back, hip, knee, ankle).
  2. It can reduce the risk of  cramping, post exercise and athletic activity.
  3. It might help in alleviating active cramps.
  4. It can enhance the performance of specific activities prior to, and after, like:
  • Ballet
  • Gymnastics
  • Yoga
  • Weight lifting, Aerobics, and Athletics: each form has its own specific flexibility and range of motion (ROM) requirements where overly tight muscles could impede performance.
  • Martial arts

There are different types of stretching techniques that are popular.  They each have benefits when applied appropriately.

  1. Static Stretching refers to the technique of lengthening a muscle to the point of mild discomfort and holding that position for 30-90 seconds.  In my experience this is the least functional of the prescribed methods.  Animals, and their associated joints move, and in most real world situations you wouldn’t bend down to touch your toes and not move for 90 seconds.  It might be more efficacious when dealing with certain injuries and post exercise to use this technique, but modern research is moving against this technique.  Traditional stretching is the most common form, with PNF (proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation) being an advanced technique that has demonstrated quicker, and greater results.
  2. Dynamic Stretching refers to the technique of moving a joint through a range of motion into a stretch, and then back out of the stretch.  This is done repetitively and rhythmically in a way that facilitates flexibility for a specific activity, without short circuiting the natural contractile responses of the targeted muscle.  It would apply to virtually any activity listed under pros, and would be most beneficial to perform before, during, and after the activity.  An advanced technique would be AI (Active Isolated Stretching) advocated by the father/son team of Jim and Phil Wharton.
  3. Ballistic Stretching refers to the method of bouncing, swinging, and flinging a limb or body part into a deep stretch and then letting the muscle bounce out of the stretch.  This method should be avoided at all times and at all costs!  This method can actually cause the targeted muscles to shorten and tighten more.  It has no reported sport specific benefits that I’ve read.