I wanted to mention that Esther Gokhale, author of "8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back" will be holding workshops across the country this summer. Check out her site for details.
There is also a new forum that is now available on her site. So if you have any specific questions for Esther, check out the forum.
I picked up a copy of "Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall last week. Let me start by saying that this turned out to be a great book! It is one of the best books I have read in years. Once I started reading, I couldn't stop and read the whole book within 24 hours.
The book reads like a detective story, where the author is trying to answer a very simple question: why does it hurt to run? The story takes him to many places, such as discussing running with Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman or talking with barefoot gurus. Primarily, his story takes him to Mexico, where he attempts to learn about running from the Tarahumara Indians.
I don't want to give away too many details about the main story. Instead, I want to focus on the many interesting things that were mentioned in the book related to long-distance running. First, there is much more scientific evidence than I thought to show that humans evolved as long-distance runners. I am not saying that is the proper conclusion, but just that there is a good amount of evidence. It is one thing to read scientific papers on the evolution of human running; it is another to listen in on conversations with the scientists, as you can in the book.
Next, there were some concepts in the book that I have been mentioning here on the blog. One example is the idea of open-ended running. Today, many runners go for a training run with a set distance in mind. In hunter-gatherer times, there was no way of knowing how long you would have to run that day. Therefore, the strategy is a little different - you don't want to run too fast too early and wear yourself out.
This also connects to the concept of easy running. According to the book, most of the running done on endurance hunts by hunter-gatherers was at an aerobic pace. An occasional sprint might be thrown in, but the idea was to keep moving at a moderate pace. This relates to my recent post on running versus racing. Humans might be built for moderate speed long-distance efforts and not high-speed long-distance runs.
Finally, there is the subject of modern running shoes. They are heavily criticized in the book. As said here recently, it is really running shoes themselves that often lead to incorrect running form. If you use minimal shoes or go barefoot on natural surfaces, the odds are that you will learn to run with better form.
All in all, it was a great book, and I highly recommend it. I will also probably do a few follow-up posts related to the book.
I am still piecing together the new model, with much help from the comments. With strength training needing so little time in a BBS setup, there is much more time/energy for other hunter-gatherer type activities. In between infrequent strength training sessions, I'm looking at this list of activities:
Right now my plan is do a handful of resistance exercises every 2 to 3 weeks, and hopefully get stronger each session. In between, I will do activities from the above list, making sure to do sprints/intervals every 5 to 10 days to preserve metabolic conditioning.
I have a good feeling about this plan. It has some variety, and that makes it enjoyable. If the strength part doesn't work out, I can always go back to more frequent training and build the strength back up in the fall.
After searching for something new the last couple of months, I have decided to try an extended recovery version of Body By Science this summer. I plan on doing a handful of resistance exercises, focusing on the deadlift, on an infrequent basis with metabolic conditioning interspersed between.
I haven't figured out all the details yet. I would also like to incorporate some Paleolithic exercise-type thinking in the routine as well. For example, let's say in a hunter-gatherer environment that a person was subjected to something resembling a high-intensity strength training session every few weeks. What type of other activities were performed during this time interval? It's not like a hunter-gatherer could "make a living" exercising intensely every few weeks.
This leads to the metabolic conditioning that Doug talked about. From other research, we know that hunter-gatherers hunted 1 to 4 nonconsecutive days per week. It is likely that these hunting efforts kept hunters at a high level of metabolic fitness. But what type of modern exercises approximate these hunting efforts (besides walking)? Sprints? Lighter weightlifting? Or both?
Further, if sprints are involved, will the 30-second sprints with long rests work to maintain metabolic fitness? Or is something with short rest periods like Tabata needed? Lots of questions.
There has been some great discussion about recovery time from resistance training. I was looking through Body By Science again last night and had few thoughts. In one section, Doug describes how some clients can take 3 months off and come back with no loss in strength (and may actually be stronger). This connects to a few things in my experience.
First, I posted a year ago on a study that showed the effects of resistance training can last up to year. In the study, a year after the cessation of high-intensity strength training subjects had strength that was still above baseline levels.
Second, I remember last year when I was doing deadlifts once a week for a while. I was making some progress each week, but nothing great. Then, when I took 2 or 3 weeks off from that exercise (but continued doing other lifts) and came back, my deadlift was noticeably stronger. I believe I went up 20 pounds that day and could have went up even more.
Third, in BBS a three-way split is described where the main exercises are done once every three weeks. There are a couple of testimonials that say this leads to no dropoff in strength, and may lead to better improvement.
I have in the past tried to extend recovery times out beyond a week with mixed results. Doug believes that part of the problem is metabolic conditioning. While strength can be preserved for weeks or months, metabolic conditioning starts to go after 5 to 10 days.
Therefore, a solution might be to extend the recovery between weight lifting sessions, but include some type of metabolic conditioning sessions once or twice a week. Somewhere on the web (I can't find where), Doug talks about doing strength training sessions as frequently as you get a haircut, and then doing metabolic conditioning in between.
More on this in the next post...
In the last post, I talked about how there could be a positive relationship between muscularity and recovery ability. For those with moderate potential for muscularity and therefore moderate recovery ability (which is the majority of the population), I think Body By Science is a great model. It's hard for many people to wrap their head around the idea that working out once per week can be effective. BBS does a great service in pointing out that this model can and will work for many, many people.
Looking back through my own training records, I've found that my body responds best to once-a-week training. If I increase training to twice per week, I can usually go a few months before overtraining sets in. If I try 3 times per week, it's only a matter of weeks until I get overtrained or ill. On the other hand, I have trained once-a-week for at least 12 months straight with no signs of overtraining or any other problems. Also, my heaviest all-time lifts on the bench press and squat were from training once every 7 to 10 days.
Here's one issue with BBS that I have and probably others have as well: I would like to be able to train more often. I would like to but my body just doesn't tolerate it. This has nothing to do with eating more, protein intake, or pre- and post-workout meals. Different people heal at different rates. In BBS, Doug talks about the Dose-Response model and shows that for the majority of people the rate of recovery from weights is 7 days. Now this can be slightly accelerated with better sleep, hydration, food, etc., but there are limits. Honestly, it would be great if I could show up at the gym every morning and blast some heavy weight like Arnold. But that's not reality for myself and most of the population.
All in all, I think Body By Science is a great read. Doug has put forward a simple, logical model that can be used by the majority of the population. If this concept goes more mainstream, I think it could help a lot of people. For all those people who show up January 1st at the gym and are gone by February 15th, they would probably be much better off following a BBS model. Intense, progressive, once-a-week training works.
I have now had sufficient time to digest "Body By Science", the new book by Doug McGuff. First, Doug has been interviewed and discussed his ideas on various websites recently, and so this has helped to get further detail on his ideas.
The core of BBS is an intense workout performed every 7 - 10 days. Though Doug doesn't specifically prescribe SuperSlow, it does seem that he favors slow repetition speeds for the workout. The book gives a lot of backing for his ideas, with excellent chapters like "Global Metabolic Conditioning".
On a couple websites, the book's method was criticized for not producing any high-level physiques. In other words, if this method is so great then why aren't the top athletes/bodybuilders using it? Doug has pointed out that there is a thinking error here - correlation doesn't equal causation. The workouts that the top athletes are doing may not be the reason they are top athletes.
I have a different take on this subject of high-level physiques. I think the top athletes are choosing the workouts that best suit them. I believe the missing variable here is recovery ability. My hypothesis is that there is a positive link between athleticism/muscularity and recovery speed. In other words, someone with a genetic predisposition towards being more muscular and more athletic also has a genetic predisposition towards faster recovery. This idea has been proposed in the world of endurance sports over at Power Running:
"the untrained muscles of elites are able to initially reach and maintain a higher work load than non-elites and then to recover nearly twice as fast as non-elites."
I believe that this holds true in the area of resistance training as well. For example, do I think Arnold Schwarzenegger would have reached his potential by working out once per week? No way. For another example, Lou Ferrigno still works out five days in a row, even at his older age. If this high-frequency training was bad for him, I'm sure he would have burned out long ago. There are also many pre-drug era bodybuilders who worked out for 3 or more days per week for their entire lifetimes and never had any problems.
The book mentions this concept in one section as a trainer points out that roughly 3 percent of his clients respond better to more frequent training. However, this is a skewed sample. If I'm working out 3 days per week (a frequency that is prescribed by many books and magazines) and gaining lots of muscle, why would I pay money for a personal trainer? Those seeking a personal trainer most likely do not have a predisposition towards muscularity.
What you probably have is a bell curve situation in regards to genetics for muscularity. You have the top 10 to 20 percent that are high responders. I believe this group responds well to higher frequency training. I would even go so far as to say that within this group, those closer to the top might respond better to even more frequent training.
On the lower end of the bell curve, you have those who are low responders. This group may not have ever attempted muscle training, because they intuitively know that they aren't cut out for it. People in this group probably don't show up in the scientific studies or any gyms for that matter.
To be continued...
Here's a new study on the roots of allergy. Researchers found that lower cholesterol in infants lead to higher rates of allergy over the following 20 years. The effect wasn't due to early childhood or infant diet, because cholesterol was measured right at birth. Instead, the effect was due to genetics and/or maternal diet.
This is why progressive doctors now have preganant women supplementing with omega-3 fish oil throughout pregnancy. This type of "preventive medicine" can help put a child on a healthy trajectory.
Just for fun, yesterday I followed the plan in Diet Evolution exactly as laid out in the book. The plan is focused on green vegetables and lean meat only. Overall, this doesn't lead to much of anything - some protein, few carbs, and lower fat.
Today I woke up feeling like I was about 80 years old. I also measured my waist and found that it had increased! As with any diet book, it says to give it six weeks and you'll see the results. I reject this type of thinking. If you are giving your body what it needs, why would it take six weeks to see a positive response? Unless you are detoxing from massive amounts of caffeine or sugar, I don't see why there should be a long period of adaptation.
I have also been thinking more about the role of dietary fat. I think there is a large genetic component involved. I know some people do well on a lower or moderate fat plan. Conversely, I seem to be able to eat a good amount of fat with no problem. Sometimes it seems as if eating more fat actually leads to a lower weight on the scale for me, even though I am not trying to lose weight.
I wonder if a person's skin color is connected to preferred dietary fat levels. I am more pale-skinned, which would place my ancestors in northern latitudes. Naturally, there is less plant food available in northern latitudes and more reliance on animal products. I'm not sure if there has been any research done on skin color and dietary fat preference.
I have been reading Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution, a book that is based on Paleo diet principles. I didn't have any expectations for the book, but it really has some unique and inovative ideas. The book looks at many things from the perspective of our genes, saying that while something may be good for our genes (in terms of reproduction), it is not very good for us as individuals. For example, our genes may direct us to sugar, fat, and salt. These things may help us reproduce while young but may hasten our exit from the planet.
The dietary plan is problematic in my view. The initial "Teardown Phase" might as well be a starvation phase. You eat only green vegetables along with mostly lean meat. Looking at the sample menu, a person would be lucky to get 1,000 calories a day with this plan. Of course a person will initially lose weight with this type of setup, but so what! 1,000 calories is simply not enough. The long-term maintenance plan has a person phasing out meat in favor of even more vegetables. This is not because meat is "bad", but precisely because meat is "good" in an evolutionary sense. He reasons that the foods that may help you reproduce are not the same foods that will increase longevity.
There is a neat section on hormesis in the book. Gundry lists a few of the intermittent stressors that may increase longevity - exposure to hot and cold, fasting, etc. He also points out how vitamin dosage might be related to hormesis - vitamins are helpful in lower doses but become toxic in higher doses.
Overall, I recommend this book, not because I agree with all of it, but because the book contributes a number of unique ideas. As with any book, a person should take what is useful and leave the rest. I think any reader will find a useful idea or two in this book.
