Matt Metzgar

Happy Earth Day!

Exercise-Resistant

Here's a brand new study that caught my eye.  It shows that in subjects with insulin resistance (at the muscle level), there is a lessened response to exercise.  In lean subjects, gene expression in the muscles was increased after exercise.  In the insulin resistant subjects, there was a lessened response within the particular genes.

Ouch!  This almost looks like a case of the fit getting fitter, while the overweight are at a sizable disadvantage.  It's much easier to stay in shape than to get in shape...

The Aerobic Imperative II

My last post on the aerobic metabolism does mean people should go out and start running 100 miles a week.  In fact, in the same issue of the journal I cited is this article on sprints versus endurance.  This research is a follow-up on a study from a few years ago that compared short sprints with traditional endurance training.

This new study contrasted 4 to 6 30-second sprints (separated by 4.5 minutes rest) with easy cycling.  The sprinters worked out 3 days a week for about a half hour, while the other group performed easy cycling 5 days a week for 40 to 60 minutes.

The results showed similar metabolic adaptations for both protocols.  It's amazing that the short sprints can provide such aerobic benefits, but it appears to be true.  This shows that even though the aerobic metabolism may be of central importance, there are different ways to improve aerobic capacity besides pounding out the miles.

The Aerobic Imperative

I have been reading this fascinating article, "Aerobic metabolism underlies complexity and capacity".  This is an extension of research that I wrote last year.  The idea is that low aerobic capacity is a strong indepenent risk factor for most disease conditions. 

A couple of interesting things involved their studies with animal models.  Researchers bred rats over generations to produce low and high aerobic capacity groups.  First, when low aerobic capacity rats were fed normal food, they were heavier and less insulin sensitive than the high aerobic capacity rats.  When both groups were fed a poor diet, the low capacity rats got worse while there was no effect on the high aerobic capacity rats.  This shows the buffering effect of a high aerobic capacity, regardless of diet quality.

Second, when the two groups were given an oral glucose challenge, only the low aerobic capacity group showed increased insulin levels.  In effect, the deck was stacked against the low aerobic capacity group given normal carbohydrate feeding.

In humans, the study shows that high aerobic capacity protects against a variety of diseases, including diabetes and heart disease.  It is important to note that aerobic capacity was measured in METs (metabolic equivalents) - in other words, peak aerobic capacity, not just low-level endurance.

The authors also make some strong statements regarding the importance of the aerobic metabolism in general.  They look at it as the fundmamental mechanism behind all human systems and the complexity of those systems.  I'm sure some follow-up research is in the works to further develop this hypothesis.

Good Time Guys

I noticed a couple of new guys who have been coming to the gym where I work out.  They appear to be new to weightlifting and are a bit out of shape.  Nevertheless, I predict they will do well for a few reasons.

First, they are not intimidated by the gym or the gym atmosphere.  They don't know what all the exercises are, but they're not afraid to ask or try things.   

Second, they are working out together.  Many people are more consistent when they work out with a partner or a friend.  An outside sense of accountability can help keep a person on track.

Third, and most importantly, they appear to be having a lot of fun.  They're joking and laughing, while putting in a decent effort.  Exercise has to be enjoyable for a person to stick with it in the long run.  The "no pain, no gain" concept is better left in the trash bin.  Steady progress is more important than trying to perform the world's hardest workout.   

I'm happy to see these two approaching exercise from an open, positive viewpoint, and I wish them success.

Super-Fasting

I came up with an interesting idea on fasting.  It has to do with combining the benefits of alternate day calorie restriction with intermittent fasting.

First, we know intermittent fasting is a good thing in terms of health.  A number of studies have been done, and more studies are in the works.  The essence of a fast is of course skipping food, and further research is needed to find out the benefits of different length fasts.

We also know that alternate day calorie restriction provies health benefits.  This is different than lifelong calorie restriction, which has been shown to increase lifespan.  Alternate day calorie restriction simply has days of uneven calorie intake.  For example, instead of a person eating 2,500 calories day after day, they would eat in a pattern of maybe 1,000 calories one day and 4,000 calories the next.  The benefits of this approach do not appear to be connected to fasting periods.  In other words, it doesn't matter if the either the high or low calorie days are spread out over several meals or condensed into fewer meals or one meal.

My idea is, why not combine the two for maximum benefits?  Here's an example.  Let's keep things simple and say a person eats one meal per day in the evening.  This gives them a long intermittent fasting period during sleep and the daylight hours.  Now you can graft alternate day calorie restriction on top of this.  On day 1, the nighttime meal would be smaller, say 1,000 calories.  On day 2, the nighttime meal would be larger, in the form of 4,000 calories.  A person would simply alternate between "little feasts" and "big feasts" each night, with intermittent fasting during the day.

Would this type of approach work in practice?  Would fasting during the day and then only being able to eat a smaller amount at night on some days be too much to handle?  I have no idea.

This is pretty far on the other end of the spectrum in comparison to the normal six-meals-a-day advice.  But that doesn't mean that this is wrong or wouldn't work.  It is probably a very natural eating pattern in many respects.  Even animals that eat in feast-or-famine cycles aren't always guaranteed a big feast.  Some days their luck would be better than others.  Adding this randomness of feast sizes could be beneficial in terms of health. 

A Universal Mechanism

I was looking over this major study that was published last month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  The authors looked at how the glycemic index and glycemic load of foods affected disease risk.  The abstact contains a pretty powerful statement:

"The findings support the hypothesis that higher postprandial glycemia is a universal mechanism for disease progression."

This is saying that foods that cause a blood sugar spike and a resulting high insulin reponse are behind disease risk.  In other words, sugar and refined carbohydrates are driving most modern diseases.  That's all there is to it, and this pretty much aligns with everything I've read.

This is why I think research money should now begin to go towards implementing effective behavior modification models, rather than continuing to confirm things we already know.  Given that sugar and refined carbs are behind most disease, then the perspective should switch to what should be done about it.  We don't need another hundred studies to show that sugar is bad.  What we need is a way to get people off sugar, or at least get kids off it.

Paleo Cooking II

The crockpot has definitely turned out to be a winner, as far as cooking.  It's very ease to use, and I have been putting it to good use.  You just load in some vegetables and meat, add in some liquid, and turn the switch. 

The picture above is a simple Paleo dinner of chicken, carrots, yams, lettuce, and some spices.  It took just a few minutes of prep time and produced a great meal.

High and Low

I did some more experimenting with higher reps in the gym today.  Honestly, it didn't feel like the workout was doing enough, so I threw in one heavy set of 5 reps.  A mix of high and lower reps, pyramding up to one heavy set might be a solution.  This is similar to Art Devany's hierarcial routine that Dave mentioned.

Another program I have been looking into is the Westside "Skinny Bastard" program (you've got to love the name).  On each training day, you work up to one max set of 3 - 5 reps for a compound movement.  The rest of the workout has higher reps on supplemental exercises for hypertrophy.

A different option is John Berardi's power and strength program.  Here you are doing low-rep strength work on some days and higher-rep hypertrophy on others.  This calls for more frequent training, but I would rather just mix the strength and hypertrophy in the same workout, rather than spreading it out over separate days.

For now, I will work up to one peak set of 5 reps, instead of the 3 x 5 that "Starting Strength" calls for.  Hopefully, this will do enough to increase strength without wearing me down.  I'll continue to tinker with things, but I feel like I'm getting closer. 

Morning Sickness and Meat

Though it's not widely known, morning sickness is related to a women's diet.  Cornell researchers first did a study about this back several years ago, and a newer study also confirms their findings.  The essence of these studies is that women tend to reject high-pathogen foods, like meat, early in pregnancy.  Here is a quote by one of the researchers:

"While there may be no particular harm in eating, say, meat, now that we have refrigeration and best before dates, our bodies may be pre-programmed by evolution to avoid these particular foodstuffs in the first trimester."

I have also heard some anecdotal stories from women saying the same thing.  One said she that while pregnant, she couldn't even touch meat without feeling sick. 

If a woman wants to avoid morning sickness, it's probably a wise idea to forgo or limit meat for the first trimester.  Further, the studies mention that foods like sugar, alcohol, caffeine, and even some vegetables increase morning sickness and should be limited.  In short, if a woman listens to her body, both her and the baby will benefit.