Mon 25 Jan 2010
W.O.W. 1/24/10-The Visible and The Invisible
Posted by Doug McGuff under Uncategorized
I worked out Sunday at 6am before going in to work a day shift in the ER. It was a good workout at my favorite time of day to work out. I did a “little 6” routine.
Calf Raise
MedX abdominal
Thick bar bicep curl
Nautilus Tricep extension
Thick bar wrist flexion
Thick bar wrist extension
After a busy day at the ER I had a dinner of stuffed Bell Pepper (with grass fed beef) and settled in for some channel-flipping. I came across a show on the Discovery Health Channel about the boy who was the first documented case of a spontaneous myostatin deletion in humans (the same child featured in the New England Journal of Medicine article that broke the story 3 years ago). I was particularly struck (as were the child’s parents, and the show’s producers) by how much the child enjoyed lifting weights and performing pull-ups. This activity was selected spontaneously by the child, as opposed to being pushed by the adults in his life. There were endless video clips of him lifting dumbbells, doing pull-ups, and carrying heavy objects. It was very clear that this 3 year-old was “lifting weights” because he was muscular. He was NOT muscular because he lifted weights. It struck me as a very clear representation of the cause/effect reversal that we discussed in the introduction of BBS.
After the show was over I went to the computer to peruse PubMed for an interesting article that I might post with this week’s WOW and found this:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Feb;42(2):314-25.
Resistance training at eight-repetition maximum reduces the inflammatory milieu in elderly women.
Phillips MD, Flynn MG, McFarlin BK, Stewart LK, Timmerman KL.
Texas Christian University, Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Fort Worth, TX 76123, USA. m.phillips@tcu.edu
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Inflammatory cytokines are associated with age- and inactivity-related diseases. We examined the influence of moderate- to high-intensity resistance trainings (RT) on inflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6 (IL-6) and 1beta (IL-1beta) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha)) in circulation and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated whole blood in elderly women. METHOD: Previously sedentary women (72 +/- 6.1 yr) were grouped according to their hormone replacement regimen: traditional estrogen/progesterone (HRT, n = 12), selective estrogen receptor modulator (SER, n = 7), no hormone replacement (NHR, n = 9), or nonexercise control group taking no hormone replacement (CON, n = 7). Participants in the HRT, SER, and NHR groups trained (three sets, 10 exercises at eight-repetition maximum (8RM)) 3 d x wk(-1), whereas participants in the CON group maintained their “normal” activity for 10 wk. Participants performed a bout of resistance exercise (RE at 8RM; HRT, SER, and NHR groups) or sat quietly (CON) before (BT) and after (AT) RT to assess the influence of training on the acute responses to RE. Blood samples were obtained preexercise (PR), postexercise (PO), and 2 h postexercise (2H; same time points for resting CON). RESULTS: Hormone status had no influence on dependent variables, so HRT, SER, and NHR groups were collapsed into one exercise group (EX, n = 28) and compared with CON. RT significantly reduced resting serum TNF-alpha level by 37%. RT also reduced LPS-stimulated production of IL-6, IL-1beta, and TNF-alpha at all time points (PR, PO, and 2H; per monocyte). Acute RE transiently increased plasma TNF-alpha, but blunted the circadian increase in LPS-stimulated inflammatory cytokines observed in CON. The blunting effect in EX was significantly greater AT compared with BT. RE also resulted in an increase in plasma IL-6, which was significantly reduced AT (BT: PR = 1.6 +/- 0.5, PO = 2.8 +/- 0.5; AT: PR = 1.8 +/- 0.3, PO = 2.4 +/- 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 10 wk of moderate- to high-intensity RT 1) reduced the systemic inflammatory milieu and 2) abrogated exercise-induced circulating IL-6 in previously sedentary elderly women.
This article demonstrated a very substantial decrease in the systemic inflammation of elderly women that was independent of their hormone replacement status. Here was a great demonstration of the profound benefit to be derived from high intensity strength training that is not immediately visible to the human eye.
My mind then returned to our 3 year old demonstration of cause/effect reversal. How many times do we seek advice from someone with a muscular physique who has self-selected weight training because of their muscularity? How many times have we seen someone give up strength training because they have not produced “P90-X” before and after type results? This is a very important concept that is discussed in great detail by Nassim Taleb in The Black Swan …sometimes that which is not visible to us is the most important thing. Many times we only realize the importance of something after the fact of it becoming visible (like the hassle of decanting tiny amounts of toiletries into zip lock bags, removing my shoes, and now having my underwear x-rayed and my wife ogled at by high school drop-outs), while we miss out on the more important fact that a vigilant citizenry will beat your ass down if you try to light your underwear or shoe on a plane, or that someone wearing a funny hat who checks no luggage on a transoceanic flight might be a problem. So what is the point of my rant? It is simply this: we in the field of high intensity exercise need to work hard to make the invisible visible. The people who don’t self-select for strength training are those who may stand to benefit the most. Arthur Jones was right when he said “it is too bad that bodybuilding is wasted on bodybuilders”.
Post your WOW’s…and your thoughts.
Randy does end interview by telling people to only do raw to the degree to which they’re comfortable and to not eat anything you are unsure of. Most on this site will be familiar with old 20 rep squat routines coupled with lots of milk as in Randall Strossen’s Super Squats. I believe most of those programs were actually done with raw milk, or at the very least full fat milk. I personally thought much the same way as you for a couple of years finding the raw thing pretty weird honestly, except I did want to try the raw milk, but didn’t think I’d be able to get it since it’s illegal, but I’ve found a good source of grass fed cow and goat’s milk…as I mentioned the eggs are easy… I know that egg whites are better absorbed cooked because the biotin in raw blocks protein absorption but there is so much protein in the diet that I’m told this is not a major concern. (fat is the anabolic I believe and is essential in assimilating the protein in the diet… traditional bodybuilding diets of boneless, skinless chicken breasts and tuna and very little fat, I now believe winds up with most of the protein going right through you.) AS for the raw beef, admittedly, I’m only eating that once to three times a week, as my work involves restaurants and travel, and when my wife cooks, I don’t turn away, though I’ve been ordering beef “blue” whenever I can. If nothing else, people should try ordering their steak or prime rib “blue” or trying it at home…. tastes amazing…. and did have 9 oz of raw round steak today with tomato basil Mrs. Dash, and I gotta tell you it also tastes pretty amazing.
I love rare steak, maybe raw isn’t too bad? Never heard of “blue”. That must be extra rare, right? Ah, Supersquats-I have that one. Lots of raw milk! I wonder if anyone has actually ever done that routine as instructed for a few months? So grueling-hard on the mind! Anyway, thanks for the feedback, Rick. Casey Butt wrote in an article on his excellent site weightrainer.net the following:”What you can be certain of, however, is that the unreasonable fear of saturated fat and cholesterol must be overcome if you’re to make your maximum drug-free progress with weight training.” I believe this. And the more I study the topic of fat and cholesterol, the more the fat and cholesterol fear looks ridiculous, especially for healthy people. By the way Casey Butt has a great ebook called “Your Muscular Potential: How to Predict Your Maximum Muscular Body Weight and Measurements.” It’s only $9.95. and worth it if you want a good dose of reality.
Didn’t read every post, so if I missed something I apologize.
@ Hugh and Anthony, I really appreciate your comments. I hope I don’t “irritate” ya’ll? In this short format, I sort of challenge ya’lls expertise?! It has nothing to do with me questioning your knowledge!! I think ya’ll are some of the very farking best!! Like a kid, a little nagging and crying, I can get you to pay attention to my questions?? That’s all?
Something interesting? I don’t do the Paleo yet? I didn’t see the film that Dr. McGuff talked about, with the muscle baby. On FOX news Sunday, they showed this 4 year old kid that was having up to 100 epileptic seizures a day!!!? Some female doctor from the Mayo, put him on this “ketogenic(?)” diet; and cured him??! It’s a high fat, high protein, and low carb diet? Lot of saturated fat, but no man made hydrogenated stuff!! Maybe you Paleo animals aren’t that far off the mark?!!!
@Jim V. !!????
Your posts are difficult ot read????!!
Why all the unnecessarry question marks and exclamation points!!?? !! ???
Dr.McGuff,
I’m sorry I missed this comment of yours,”One point I would like you guys to pick up on that I have experience is this…as form gets more perfect, I tend to feel totally hammered (even if volume is low). Discuss if you note a “narrowing of the therapeutic window” and how you manage it.”
This is an interesting topic that I have been pondering over. I too feel that I am totally hammered the more refined my focus gets, but I actually feel I recover slightly faster when I’m more concentrated on my internal cues.
I was theorizing that when switching from a more load based and goal oriented focus to a sharper internal focus, that one might be saving up some resources by limiting the systemic stress. I suppose though that it may just be a matter of channeling the resources to a more direct spot. It could be that the more direct stimulus is perceived by the body as a greater threat to its survival and therefore sends everything possible in the way of “help” to reduce inflammation and speed up repair. This could be a cause of the narrowing therapeutic window?
Al
Ugh, being able to eat more calories by eating “raw”? Yucky idea. One would be eating “more” because one would then be absorbing less from the food he/she ate.
Suppose its a good way to spent a lot of unnecessary money on food though.
In any case, I do eat some raw food. I threw an egg yolk in with a shake yesterday. Yum.
I’ve read eating raw egg whites is very, very unwise though. Probably not as bad as raw chicken though, which could easily send you to the hospital.
Who came up with this idea in the first place?
@Doug H
Bout just fell out of my chair reading your comment.
@Jim
No “irritation” here, glad I could help (somehow).
“I was theorizing that when switching from a more load based and goal oriented focus to a sharper internal focus, that one might be saving up some resources by limiting the systemic stress. I suppose though that it may just be a matter of channeling the resources to a more direct spot. It could be that the more direct stimulus is perceived by the body as a greater threat to its survival and therefore sends everything possible in the way of “help” to reduce inflammation and speed up repair. This could be a cause of the narrowing therapeutic window?”
This makes a lot of sense to me, especially with my barbell squat resistance that is becoming increasingly ridiculous and problematic.
Dr.McGuff and Anthony,
I was also thinking of this from an evolutionary perspective. What we are doing with HIT/SS is quite unique. I doubt that at any point in our development did we ever intentionally direct stress onto a specific area until it was rendered momentarily dysfunctional. That direct “HIT” is such a displaced event of both mental and physical resources that the recuperation period gets prolonged.
This may help to explain why CrossFitters are able to place there bodies under such a systemic and voluminous pounding 4 times per week. No one area of their body is fatigued to the point of complete dysfunction. Yes, they get the feelings of needing to vomit(mainly because they keep their environment hot)and all of the other metabolic stresses that come from doing such large amounts of mechanical work, but they don’t knock anyone area out of service. In an environment where movement needed to be preserved, fatiguing your quadriceps for instance, to the point where they were rendered momentarily useless could have been problematic. The advantage though is that once recovered from that stress, the quadriceps of a HITTer would probably have a greater degree of functional capacity.
Just some thoughts.
Al
Last month I analyzed my workout log from last year and made some interesting observations.
There are some exercises where I progress week by week, and there are some exercises where I did not progress for a long time and even regressed. I wondered why.
My strongest exercise is the leg-press. Here, I consistently increase the weight by 5kg every two weeks. In this exercise I have a TUL of 1:45 min to 2 minutes.
According to the book, I could increase the weight, until my TUL is 60 sec, and then progress until I reach the 90 sec limit. Unfortunately, the mechanics of the machine is such that I start in a deep squat position which presents a sticking point. Thus, the first weight that I can lift from this position will give me a TUL of at least 1:45 min. From there, it takes me two workouts to reach a TUL of over 2 min.
My weakest exercise is the narrow grip pulldown. Here I am stuck at the same load for 6 month now. I pull 60kg with a body weight of 80kg (and below 14% body fat). The load is not even enough to do one chin-up! Here my TUL is 1:15. Chest-press and shoulder press are similar in TUL and lack of progress.
Now, following some comments from this board, I decided to raise the weight by the smallest possible amount. This worked for one workout, but then my TUL actually decreased! The following week, I decreased the weights to the previous level and noted a strong decrease of the TUL. Note, all this happened while I am consistently improving on the leg press.
So what went wrong?
BBS tells us that there is a minimum of time you must be under load in order to activate all your fibers (TULmin). And then there is an upper limit (TULmax), beyond which you reactivate fibers that were already used. So we should choose a weight that lets us achieve the lower limit of TUL and then do the exercise until we reach TULmax.
Comparing the successful and the non successful exercises, we notice the much longer TUL for the leg press. So maybe, I generally need a longer TUL to induce adaptation. A time between 60 and 90 second just seems too short. Anyway, during 90 secs, I manage just 2-3 reps of the pulldown.
To test this, I lowered the weights in the next workout, so that the TUL is around 2 min. After the workout, I compared the TUL with my old values from several month ago and found that I did *not* even reach these values anymore. This agrees with something that is written latter in BBS: If we don’t increase the load regularly, we start to regress. Apparently, by staying on the same load for too long, I had regressed more than I feared.
What does that mean for the workout? It means that rather than continually increasing the TUL, until TULmax is reached, I now maintain a target TUL while continually increasing the weight. Well, I increase it every other workout. To achieve this, I had to reduce the weight increments for pulldowns and chest press to 1.25 kg. This is a bit tricky, because the smallest increment of the machines is 5kg. In the leg press, my increments are 5kg at a load of 200kg.
What I have learned is:
1. The target TUL maybe longer than 90 secs. For me it is around 2 min.
2. I increase the weight every other workout.
3. The weight increase should be so small that the target TUL is reached latest after 1 workout.
Does this match your experience?
@Marc-if Dr. McGuff puts up a new post today you may want to re-post this one under the new post so it doesn’t get lost.
@Thomas Thanks. I shall do so.
@Al, Anthony- I agree that the internal focus does narrow the therapeutic window, but the upside is a sensation that “nothing is wasted”. With perfect form, all the effort that leads up to failure seems to provide meaningful stimulus. I think Crossfit offers some advantage of “recruiting without completely exhausing” FT fibers. This creates a big emphasis on the metabolic component of the stimulus. The main problem IMO is using skill-based movements to generate fatigue. As fatigue accumulates and form degenerates there is opportunity for injury. Drew Baye wrote a great post on his blog about how to use HIT-based movements to get a crossfit-like metabolic punch. Perhaps this sort of activity alternated with a more tradition HIT approach would prove effective.
@Marc- with longer TUL’s you have more wiggle room for progression because the sticking point in the ROM is less aggressive (the old pushing a yugo-vs-a dump truck over the speed bump). It might prove beneficial to try the longer TUL, especially if your equipment has less than ideal strength curves, as the exagerrated sticking point may be stalling you short of a meaningful level of inroad. Having stated that, I do think we all need to acknowledge that as adaptive organisms, we do not need an ever more perfect stimulus to get results. Many times perfecting the stimulus simply creates the opportunity to show where we are lacking on the recovery/response side of the equation.
Doug McGuff
Little 6(14 minutes):
Bicep Curls: Up 2 seconds
Leg Curl: Up 19 seconds.
Tricep Extension: Down 8 seconds.
Leg Extension: Up 8 seconds.
Deltoid Raise: Up 10#, down 20 seconds. Still almost 2 minutes.
Calf Raise: Up 18 seconds.