Theory to Practice

“How small of all that human hearts endure / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure.”

- Samuel Johnson

So here’s the current “weekend dilemma” that I’ve got to work around: I’m attempting to sell my house here in lovely G-Vegas, NC. Yeah, yeah, I know. But, hey – buy high, sell low – that’s how I roll! Anyway, as any of you who’ve ever sold a home know, there is just a never-ending list of things that have to be fixed, moved, painted, hidden or otherwise “dealt with”. Of course, this not only puts a severe pinch on my workout time, it also alters what I do in a given workout as well as when I do it. Now, weekends for me mean sprints outdoors, since I’m forced most of the week (especially in the winter months), due to my work schedule, to remain indoors. Now, sprinting early in the morning is not a big deal to me time-wise, however, it is a big problem for me temperature-wise. Anyway, it’s doable, but it is a juggle. As I’ve always said, though, it’s finding a way to continue on through times like this that separates those who stay in the game and those who get left by the wayside. “Endeavor to persevere” is my life’s motto.

Sunday’s workout was a sprint and heavy heave thing of beauty. Barefooted sprints and heavy medicine ball heaves in the brutal (for the south, anyway) cold. Can’t get more primal than that!  Of course, this also involved huckin’ the fix about town with the 45-ish pound medicine ball in tow.  Crazy?  Yeah, guilty as charged   Anyhow, here’s what I did once I hit the field:

• 10-second sprints, full-out with full recovery between each sprint x 8 (achieved an approximate 2’ drop-off from best distance). Then,
• 12 or so (I lost count) medicine ball caber tosses for max distance, in a super-set with:
• Press-put for distance, both dual and single (alternating) armed.  Think shot-put motion, here — for the single arm variety anyway.  For the dual-arm press-put, start of with a goblet squat-like motion with the medicine ball held against the chest and just beneath the chin.  Now, from the ATG (ass to grass) position, explode out of the hole, launching the medicine ball in a trajectory so as to achieve maximum distance*.

*I realize that I need to make some video clips of some of my hybrid exercises, and I’m working on trying to put that together.  What I need is a few month’s sabbatical from my real job

I tied the drop-offs in the heave super-set to the caber toss.  If I were being more precise, I would have measured the drop-off for each exercise.  The caber toss, though, is kind of like the vertical jump in that it both can be used as a good, overall measure of fatigue.

Tuesday morning, and back in the gym for this workout — with a little wrinkle added-in the weighted dip portion, as explained, here:

• Weighted Dips, 25 total reps in a rest-pause fashion. So here we go with just one (of the many) dimensions that fall under the all-encompassing umbrella of the “25 for a bigger engine” scheme. The fist 12 reps were done as doubles, the last 13 as singles. There was a 3 to 5 second pause between each “micro set”. I added a bit of a wrinkle here by beginning the first rep of the duals (and by definition, all of the last 13 reps) in the down position, exploding up to the full lockout position with just a tad of a jump (or kipping) start — just enough, though, to get some momentum going; I made sure not to let this digress into a jump squat exercise. Two reasons for beginning this exercise with a kip: (1) I wanted to promote an ultra-high level of CNS stimulation (akin to what would be had in a power modality), and (2) using this mode, I am able to use both a very heavy weight and maintain a good rep speed throughout the course of the extended set.   Kind of a “best of both worlds” idea.

Then I moved on to this super-set:

• 1. Barbell Muscle-ups x 5’s
  2. Russian Lunge Scissor Jumps x 5’s (each leg)

Three rounds of that super-set in approximately 20 minutes.

Moving on to Thursday morning, again in the gym:

The complex below was pretty damn challenging.  Once at working weight, I blasted through these exercises in approximately 30 minutes.  Notice that I doubled-up on the weighted, reverse-grip pull-ups. Also, I threw the goblet squats in more as an inter-workout, ballistic stretch, as I can feel some tightening (possibly due to Sunday’s press-puts for distance) in the hip area coming on. This is more a preventative measure than anything else. I only came up halfway from an ATG (ass to the grass) squat, so it looked like a “bounce” up from the full squat position up to the thighs parallel position, right back into a full squat.  Any form of squat (but usually a regular barbell squat) done in this fashion can be referred to as a “cycle squat”.  So here’s the complex (and it was a killer):

1. DB Split Snatch + Split Jerk combo, x3’s (each arm)
2. Weighted, Reverse-Grip Pull-ups x 4’s
3. Goblet “cycle” Squats x 5’s
4. Russian Lunge Scissor Jumps x 3’s (each leg)
5. Weighted, Reverse-Grip Pull-ups x 4’s

The DB Snatch +Split Jerk, Barbell Muscle-up and Russian Lunge Scissor Jump are discussed/explained in this post.

Three rounds at working weight, 30 tough minutes of power-oriented work. Look at the magic rep scheme of the reverse-grip pull-ups (24 in this case), which, by the way were not performed as were the other exercises in this scheme (i.e., in a ballistic, power oriented manner), though I did attempt to hit max concentric rep speed every time out.

Then, in the afternoon, the good ol’ Red Cross bloodmobile came to visit.  So I took a needle for “Team Human” — it’s the least I can do, since I refuse to participate in the refined carbohydrate evolution experiment — and gave blood. I’m a trooper who can be counted on here, giving every 56 days.  So, tough workout plus giving blood — as predicted, I was totally wiped-out by that evening.

On to Saturday — sprints, hops and heaves while in the middle of a 24-hour fast.  Again, it was quite cold out; the wind was whipping pretty hard as well, which made measuring drop-off in the sprints an act of futility.  On the last sprint, I failed to even get close to any of my prior marks, so I called it quits at that point.  Anyway, here’s how I had things laid out:

First off, I hit 14-second, full-out, barefooted sprints, super-setting each sprint with a set of side-to-side hops over an approximately knee-high bench.  On one set of the hops, I held on to my medicine ball; the other, I did not.  Like this:

1. 14-second, full-out sprint
2. Side-to-Side bench hops (at body weight, for speed, minimizing ground contact time) x 20 hops
3. 14-second, full-out sprint
4. Side-to-Side bench hops while holding onto the 45-ish pound medicine ball x 10 hops

4 rounds of that little jewel.  Now, why 14 second sprints?  No magic here, it’s just that it took me approximately 14 seconds to cover baseline to baseline on the soccer field.

Then, I hit the following medicine ball heave super-set:

1. Overhead Medicine Ball Caber-Toss for distance
2. Press-Put for height + catch x 3

Same idea here with the press-put for height as was explained above.  This time, though, the aim is to launch the medicine ball vertically as high as possible and catch the thing (at just above head level) on the free-fall descent.  Someday I going to sit down and figure the math on this, but empirically I can tell you that a 45-pound object in free-fall  for a good six feet or so packs a hell of a whollup when it’s caught.   Note that the caber toss clip depicts the exercise being performed with a kettle bell.  The only difference when using a medicine ball is that the hand positioning is obviously different.  The rest of the exercise execution is the same.

All in all, a good week’s worth of exercise.

In Health,

Keith

“If you’re going to kill an animal, then it seems only polite to use the whole thing.”

~ Fergus Henderson, in summation of his book “The Whole Beast: Nose to Tail Eating”

Stories like this give me hope that things can, in fact, change for the better. This is the kind of ethical animal husbandry that I was refering to in this post.  The times, they are a chaingin’? We can only hope.

In Health,

Keith

“Being a vegetarian will make you extinct.”

~ Christine Steininger, paleoanthropologist.

An interesting article today, from the The National, pertaining to the estimated 1.8 million year-old relic of Paranthropus robustus that recently went on display at Maropeng museum, in the “Cradle of Humankind”, a region north of Johannesburg, South Africa, that is home to the richest trove of hominid fossils anywhere on Earth.

Taken in isolation, this story isn’t much more than just an interesting aside.  It’s just another small piece of our historical past (out of many such examples) that conspired, through the forces of evolution, to craft our current genome.  It’s not an ethical issue of “right or wrong” that we evolved to thrive best on a protein and fat laden diet, it just is; the proof is there, written by evolution right into our very genome.

Vegetarians will argue this point, of course.  But evolution does not care about ethics, and ethics cannot alter millions of years of evolution.  We are, ultimately, what we’re evolved to be.  My personal stance on vegetarianism is this: I totally understand it from an ethical standpoint; from a human health standpoint, I believe it to be, quite simply, a substandard diet at best — and that’s being giving. People routinely undertake methods and courses of action that are not necessarily healthy in order to realize a “higher cause”; athletes and sports-enhancing drugs, the shear physical toll extracted from some sports, poor eating, sleeping and a the general disregard for overall health that is sometimes endured and as trade-off to achieving loftiness in regards work, business or academia.  I’m not here to judge the merits or trade-offs of these issues, I would simply prefer these folks to go into such endeavors with eyes wide open, with a full understanding of the costs involved.

I agree with the vegetarian movement in their contention that the ethical treatment of livestock is, with few exceptions, wholly lacking in the current “government-industrial food complex”.   However, I feel that totally eschewing the consumption of animal protein is not the answer — nor do I think it is in any way, shape or form, healthy (ok, vegetarianism is healthier than the standard western diet — but that ain’t sayin’ much).  Instead of sacrificing my own health, though, I’d rather bring about change by helping support local farmers who raise animal protein ethically, and under environmentally sustainable conditions.  It’s expensive at the moment, yes — especially as compared to the government supported, Big Ag version — but the potential pay-off is immense, both in terms of improved human health and animal quality of life.

In Health,

Keith

“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”

~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here is the podcast version of the final installment of Super Human Radio’s, Insulin-related discussion with Dr. Scott Connelly. I think you’ll find that while the first three of these interviews were skewed heavily toward the analytical, this interview deals more with real-world applications. And while I find the science behind any phenomenon to be, in just about every instance, fascinating, it’s of little use to me if I can’t realistically implement those theories within the context of my day-to-day life. This segment gets down to where the rubber meets the road. This is the nitty-gritty of the practical methods of controlling insulin levels.

Also, I’d like to send a very special shout-out to Carl Lanor, host of the Super Human Radio show. This is one of my absolute favorite physical culture-related information outlets. I love the podcast format alternative, as the segments fit nicely within the time bounds of my daily “hella-commute”. Just making the most of my idle time (mama would be so proud!) In all seriousness, though, Carl continually hosts highly respected and knowledgeable people from the health and fitness world on his show, and he always asks pertinent, informative questions. And Carl’s guest for these particular discussions, Dr. Scott Connelly, is a class act in his own right. If you want to learn sports performance and recovery science, he’s your man.

Toward the end of this segment, you’ll hear Dr. Connelly sing the praises of raw dairy in general, and whey protein specifically. Whoa! What did he say? Yeah, that’s what I said, too. Now, if there’s one thing I’ve come to know about Dr. Connelly, it’s that he never trumpets a substance without first having done extensive due diligence on that said substance. Dr. Connelly doesn’t get into the specifics of why he believes raw dairy (and whey, specifically) to be superior source of protein, so I took Carl up on his offer to ask Dr. Connelly specifically about this. Carl is planning a follow-up session with Dr. Connelly – a question and answer format segment that should be very interesting. I’ll pass on the good doctor’s answer in a future post. I did ask specifically about the lactose/insulin factor, and about the possible immune/inflammatory problems with dairy. I’m really curious as to what Dr. Connelly has to say on this issue.

In Health,

Keith

“Nothing, to my way of thinking, is a better proof of a well-ordered mind than a man’s ability to stop just where he is and pass some time in his own company.”

- Seneca

So, so, true.  Anyway, I wanted to let everyone in on a fantastic training video resource.  I know I talk quite a bit about the benefits of the Olympic lifts, their derivatives, and “power moves” in general.  I realize that these moves can seem daunting at times, but really, they’re not that hard to become proficient at.  And, contrary to what you might hear from all the rigid technique marms out there, you don’t have to have flawless form to gain from these lifts.  What you need is adequate form.  Sufficient form.  You want to strive for perfection, yes — always! — every rep of every set — but don’t let anyone tell you that you have to have perfect form before you can utilize these lifts.  That’s just bullshit (pardon the French).   I mean, really, just how in the hell are you supposed to ever acquire perfect form, anyway, if not from learning by mistake?  Sure as hell not by tapping out critiques about fuggered-up Oly form on the Internet.  I think this hyper-fear of sub-perfect form stems from the same mindset that would have us all be bad parents for not wrapping up our kids like little Michelin Men before they cruise off on their bikes.  Really, give me a break.  Just get in the damn gym and throw some iron around!  You’ll know good and well when your form has degraded to the point where you need to cease the set.  When you get there, call it quits, go home, or move on to something else.  Adjust your working weight for the next outing as need be.  Believe me, this ain’t rocket science

Oh, and I guess the link would be helpful, huh?  But first, I’d like to give a hat tip to the guys (and gals, too!) over at Elite Track for pointing these fabulous clips out.  Anyway here is the link to Manuel’s video clips.  Very, very good stuff, indeed.  You might want to suscribe to his collection, as I’m sure I’ll be referencing them often.  And thanks, Manuel, for you generosity in sharing them.

In Health,

Keith

“They can because they think they can.”

~ Vergil

NPR affiliate station KQED host Michael Krasny talks to Dr. Daphne Miller, author of The Jungle Effect, in this episode of The Forum. The forum, with its erudite host, Michael Krasy, is one of my favorite shows on NPR, and a big reason behind why I’m an NPR supporter. Oh my, I can already hear the hissing and gnashing of teeth from those on the right. Hey, every media outlet has a bias — though,curiously, I’ve yet to find a Libertarian-leaning, mainstream media outlet.  Maybe that should tell me something, huh?  Anyway, I take each outlet and its associated angle for what it’s worth. Lefty bias doesn’t stop me from listening to the BBC, or the CBC for that matter.  Maybe it helps that I’m a social lefty as opposed to a fiscal lefty.  Anyway, another subject for another time.  On to the subject at hand — Dr. Daphne Miller, and her new book, The Jungle Effect.

Now, Dr. Miller certainly isn’t anywhere near supporting and all-out Paleo diet, but she’s definitely on to something. And that “something”, the common thread throughout all of the indigenous diets she studies for her book, is the complete absence of refined carbohydrates.  And in a strange set of coincidences, there is very little disease of any kind to be found in those populations subsisting on their indigenous diet.  Introduce those same exact same groups to a western, highly refined carbohydrate-laden diet, and all manner of disease hell breaks loose.  Hmmmm.  Hello, USDA, are we picking up a trend here yet?

Of course, all of this this is nothing surprising to the TTP readership.  It is interesting, though, to view the mainstream’s nascent steps toward — and their initial reaction to — the understanding that refined carbohydrates are the root of the obesity epidemic.  Sadly, no talk here of the human genome’s predisposition toward a Paleo diet, evolution, or of the recent (anthropologically speaking) of the advent of agriculture.  Dr. Miller’s findings here, though, do correspond nicely to the TTP first step to better health — namely, shaking free of refined carbohydrates. That initial step is absolutely crucial, in my opinion, to any sibilance of decent health (weight issues aside).  As well, (and also in alignment with Dr. Miller’s findings) is the necessity of physical activity. Why is physical activity so important? Because it increases insulin sensitivity, that’s why. Couple an intelligently programmed exercise routine with an elimination of refined carbohydrates in the diet and you’re well on your way to being a much, much healthier you. As healthy as you can be? Well, in a word, no. For that, you’ll have to refine your workouts and commit to a full-on TTP/Paleo lifestyle.  I do believe though that it is feasible to implement at least these two things on a nation-wide basis.

I think the most telling instance in this interview supporting the fact that refined carbohydrates are the major problem in the obesity epidemic (and an example that is simple enough for the “everyman” to get), is the references made to the Pima Indians of the American southwest and their genetically similar Pima cousins in Mexico, to whom type 2 diabetes is virtually unknown.  Will we convince all people turn Paleo, even a decent percentage of the populace?  I’d like to think so, but let’s be honest — the general public still views anything out of the ordinary (ordinary as defined by their previous experience) as alien and unattainable.  Dumping refined carbohydrates, though, may be something that is more palatable (pardon the pun), and doable on a nation-wide basis.

But how could something like this be done?  How can a nation, as a whole, be influenced to give up the mighty, refined carb?  That’s something I’d like to explore in an upcoming post.  Anyone read the book, Nudge?  That’s the direction I intend to go.

In Health,

Keith

“No one has a finer command of language than the person who keeps his mouth shut.”

~ Congressman Sam Rayburn

We began the week in a rainy slop-fest here in lovely G-Vegas, North Carolina. It was debatable as to whether this was an improvement over the previous few days of bitter cold; I’m not so sure either way. I do know, though, that all the rain but the big kibosh on the sprint workout I had planned for the Sunday.  Enter, then, the alternate plan – no workout at all, and lots of football and reading; the lazier side of “random and varied”.  From rain, we progressed right on in to ice, snow and bone-numbing cold.  Yeah, I know — bone-numbing for a southerner is picnic weather for some — all I know is I am more than ready for summer.

Now I’d rather avoid Monday’s at the gym, especially in January. But since I was itching to get back at something – anything — after a long weekend of doing nothing much physical, I decided to suck it up and deal with the crowd. And actually, it wound-up not being all that bad; didn’t have to alter my workout plans a bit.

As an aside, I skipped breakfast on Saturday morning and didn’t eat “lunch” until roughly 3PM, followed by dinner Saturday night at the normal 8PM-ish. Then I fasted until Sunday at 8PM. As is my usual, the AM workouts here are completed while in a (roughly) 10-hour, fasted state. And in what is also my usual, the workouts are red-eye fueled, and approximately two hours after I’ve rolled out of bed.  Which, by the way, can be somewhat difficult sometime, especially during the winter months.

Here’s how things worked out:

Monday AM, sticking to the power and strength modalities, with a little bit of MetCon urgency thrown in to spice things up:

1. DB Split Snatch x 3 each arm
2. Weighted Russian Lunge* (scissor) Jump x 6 jumps
3. Weighted Regular Grip Pull-ups x 4’s

4 rounds in 30 minutes. The power moves (snatch and scissor jumps) were done at what I would consider a near max weight for the exercise and rep scheme. Cramming this into 30 minutes was a chore.

*The Russian Lunge is demonstrated at the :32 mark in this short clip. The version demonstrated here, though, is a non-weighted, speed-oriented version. I performed the same basic exercise, however, I held a heavy dumbbell to my chest and exploded upward on each jump, for maximum height – which, by the way, wasn’t very high (just enough to complete the scissor move), because I selected a weight that would allow only this. Make sure not to go too heavy, though, or you’ll wind up in an ungainly heap on the floor.

Ice, snow and general foul weather bungled my workout plans for Wednesday morning. Not such a bad thing from a randomness point of view, however, having no physical outlet on Wednesday did leave me a bit itchy for something to do. I wonder how much of this phenomenon (the workout “itch”) is mental, and how much is hormone driven?  Anyway, I was more than ready to hit the gym come Thursday morning; here’s what transpired:

A three-part combination consisting of the following:

1. Clean-Grip Low Pulls x 3’s
2. Muscle-Ups* x 3’s (Note: this was the barbell version of a muscle-up, not the gymnastic ring version)
3. Weighted, Regular-Grip Pull-ups x 3’s

4 rounds of that, at working weight, in 30 minutes.

I looked for a video clip of a properly performed barbell muscle-up, and came away empty handed. If anyone knows of one, please let me know. I’ll attempt, though, as best I can, to explain this exercise. I do think it’s worth mastering this move, as it’s a great power movement that incorporates the entire shoulder/trap girdle. It’s easiest, I think, to break this down into two distinct movements, (1) a Snatch (narrow) Grip High Pull, immediately followed by (2) a front Push-Press – or a Push-Jerk, depending upon your druthers. These two movements should feather together seamlessly, i.e., at the apex of the high pull, with the bar in that split-second of “suspended animation”, quickly flip the grip from that of a “pulling movement” (the snatch grip) to that of the pressing movement.  Try to minimize this transition time; the movement should flow seamlessly so as to appear as one, single movement.  Sometimes a slight stagger stance will alleviate the feeling of falling backwards, or having nothing to “push against”, at the high-pull/jerk transition.

And that was a wrap for the week.  No work Friday or Saturday, though I did engage in a fantastic sprint & heave workout on Sunday.  I’ll cover that little beauty in next week’s post.

In Health,

Keith

Marc, from Feel Good Eating, (chock-full of fantastic Paleo-oriented food ideas), asks what I think about Dr. Doug McGuff’s Body by Science concept.  Well, let’s check it out and see what Doc McGuff is up to.

Let me first come clean by saying that, because I know somewhat (though I have not read the book) of what the good doctor is promoting, I am afflicted with a wee-tad bit of pre-established bias.  I’ve tried best I could to come to the concept anew, with a slate wiped clean as it were.  I like to think that I’ve succeeded in that task, however, I may just be fooling myself.  Also note that I’ve limited my discussion to what information is found in the  link above.  Ultimately, I’d have to say there is more to the Body by Science concept that I agree with than what I disagree with.  Again, though, this idea has been formed with limited knowledge.  Anyway, with that said, here’s my take on the good doctor’s concept, and practical applications thereof:

Dr. McGuff’s assertion that exercise, in and of itself, is not necessarily essential to, and may in fact be detrimental to, the body (and survival, for that matter), I can — with a few caveats, of course — go along with.  I guess I’d have to say my take on exercise is similar to that of water ingestion — it’s got to be of just the right amount, and of the right kind, or things will begin to get ugly in a hurry.  Now, I already feel my pre-concieved biases starting to kick in, so I’ll leave it at that short statement for now.  However, keep in mind that when we are speaking of exercise prescription, it is absolutely essential to also define the potential trainee pool.  Leave out either half of that definition, and the discussion becomes moot.

So, reading on.  I suppose the first real trip-up I came across in this piece was in answer to this question:

Question: When you have people want to
lose fat, has it been your experience that it’s inevitable that on a
below-maintenance calorie diet that one will also probably lose some
degree of muscle tissue – even if paying attention to the principles of
intensity, volume and frequency? Is that just a given?

MCGUFF: I believe it is because you’ve got
to remember that muscle is “metabolically expensive” tissue and if you
are going to be at a calorie deficit you’re body is going to make some
efforts to jettison its most metabolically expensive holdings as a
survival reflex. Now there are things that you can do mitigate that as
much as possible, including applying the appropriate exercise stimulus,
but I do believe it’s [i.e., muscle loss] going to occur to some
extent, especially initially in the process. But I think that will
occur to a certain extent and then stop, if everything else is done
properly.

My initial thought here is, of course, why do we need to be at a forced calorie deficit to lose fat?  What we need is proper Paleo nutrition, and calories (via the natural hunger response) will take care of themselves.  Muscle tissue will be shed, yes, if and only if we give our bodies the signal to do so.  “Cardio” work would be just such a signal.  In the good doctor’s defense, he does mention the fallacy of “cardio work benefits”  earlier in this piece.  Now would be a great time to talk about high-intesity, short duration, power-intensive work. However we’re next subjected to this…

The point I try to make with my fat loss clients is the average
person at age 35 is unhappy because they’ve gained about 35 pounds of
fat since they were 20 years old. If you take that 35 pounds of fat
gain – from age 20 to 35 – and figure that out on a daily basis, that’s
a calorie excess of a single potato chip over that span of time. To
lose bodyfat you’ve got to do the opposite: a very modest calorie
reduction done in a disciplined fashion over a long range of time,
combined with strength training so all the weight loss is discriminated
towards fat loss. That’s our philosophy there.

This is the old calories-in, calories-out, body-as-a-basic-thermodynamic-machine mantra that has been sufficiently laid to rest in the minds of the Paleo-enlightened.  Good Calories, Bad Calories properly dissects decades worth of applicable science relative to weight-control theory.  My results (and the results of many, many others) are proof positive of that science (and the proper interpretation of that science) as applied within the laboratory of the real-world.  Dr. McGuff does tout the benefits of natural, whole foods, and he seems to acknowledge the benefits of limiting carbohydrates, so we’ll have to give him props, there.  But I know I’m preaching to the choir, here, so I’ll move on to the other “issues” I know are to come.  Like this…

Question…In other words, there’s nothing
intrinsically more beneficial in using free weights or rubber balls in
developing the muscles that aid in stability and, in fact, you can
probably train these muscles more efficiently and efficaciously by
using, say, a Nautilus machine.

MCGUFF: Correct. The whole concept of
“stabilizers” or bringing stabilizers into play while you’re actively
working another muscle is just a romantic notion that really doesn’t
bare out in reality at all – there aren’t “just stabilizer” muscles.
Any muscle can be a “stabilizer” if it’s contracting isometrically to
stabilize the body from any opposing movement in the opposite direction.

My first reaction here, was to rant all up, down, sideways and over this statement — until I realized that he’s absolutely right (…and a hush fell over the crowd).  In all seriousness though, to fully and adequately answer this question, we have to address just who the target trainee’s are.  Are we talking about a morbidly obese individual just beginning their fitness quest, or a highly accomplished athlete?  As a correlate to this, consider the whole CrossFit debate.  We absolutely have to define the trainee’s goals before we can properly define the parameters of their overall workout scheme.  Now, just so that we are all on the same page, let me state implicitly that the only machine I would ever routinely put a healthy, non-rehabbing athlete on is a GHR bench.  The musculature and CNS of an athlete — and all reasonably healthy individuals, in my opinion, have to be encouraged to work in unison — and in all dimensions, and planes of movement — to produce high levels of power output.  This, quite simply, and in my humble opinion, cannot be reproduced on a machine.

The following question, though, defines where Dr. McGuff and I take (somewhat) divergent forks in the road:

QUESTION: Let me ask your opinion on why was — or is — Nautilus such a huge advancement in bodybuilding and fitness training?

To be fair to Dr. McGuff, here, the question pertains specifically to Nautilus’s affect on bodybuilding and fitness training; no mention is made to it’s effectiveness as it pertains to athletic endeavors.  Quite simply, my belief is that Nautilus is to athleticism as slow and extended cardio is to sprinting, i.e., highly counter-productive.  If athleticism is not a concern, however, and we limit the talk to purely bodybuilding applications, then I’ll — still with some reservations — go along with the doctor’s concept.  That is, I’ll go along with the concept, however, I still have serious doubts as to whether there can be enough induced fatigue during an exercise bout to justify the extended amount of down time he proposes.  I agree with this  concept in theory; practically, however, I don’t believe it can be done effectively.  This all eventually gets back to the single set to failure, Arthur Jones argument.  Empirically, I can say that I have not seen much progress from anyone I’ve seen pursue this particular route.  Conversely, however, I have seen great progress in people who’ve stuck to different set/reps schemes within the “25 for a bigger engine” umbrella of routines.  And interestingly as well, I have even seen people make phenomenal progress (myself included) using 20 – 25 singles to failure while employing a much narrower recovery window (6 to 12 % drop-off to a 4 to 8 day recovery).  Now, this protocol really isn’t that far removed from what Dr. McGuff is proposing.  This just goes to show you that protocols within the strength and conditioning arena (and I’ll include bodybuilding here, as well) are not as black and white as they may first appear at the onset.  There is always plenty of room for morphing and overlap.

So, what exactly is the difference between an effective 20 -25 reps to failure routine and Dr. McGuff’s, Arthur Jones-inspired, routine?  Well, I think answering that would require a blog post in and of itself.  Briefly, though, let me suggest these things as being detriments to Dr. McGuff’s protocol: (1) too much recovery for too little drop-off , (2) limited CNS stimulation, (3) the inability to initiate instantaneous, supra-maximal muscle tension (i.e., as in the “catch” of a power clean, or a depth drop), (4) over-stimulation (and resultant fatigue) of the slow-twitch fibers, with an accompanying under-stimulation of their fast-twitch counterpart — the “too heavy, too fast” conundrum.  Now, I’m open minded enough to consider that, for certain trainee populations, this protocol would in fact be sufficient.  I do feel comfortable in saying, though, that for athletes, or for those who wish to move like athletes, I would not suggest this type of protocol.

Again, let me state that this post is in reference to the above link, provided by Marc, (as he asked for my thoughts on that post specifically),  and my not be totally indicative of what my thoughts might be on the book, Body by Science. I think it only fair that I provide you with a favorable review of the book, here.  I certainly wouldn’t mind reading the book in it’s entirety — I am open to the fact that my overall opinion of the system my be swayed by a more complete understanding of Dr. McGuff’s ideas.

In Health,

Keith

Reader Bryce asks the following interesting questions. A little background on Bryce will serve to put his questions, and my answers to them, in proper context.

Bryce is a service member (US Navy), currently serving a good portion of his time aboard ship. Of course, this limits his available Paleo choices, both food-wise and workout-wise. Bryce’s training background is CrossFit-oriented — his diet, Zone-oriented – so he’s got a good, solid base from which to phase, where practicable for him, into a more Paleo-like lifestyle.

As a preface to the questions, let’s all remember, as always, that in any given situation, there’s the ideal choice, and then there’s the best available option in that given circumstance. I firmly believe that one of the main pillars to success with the Paleo way is to both realize the difference between the two, followed then, by choosing the best of available options in each given circumstance. I like to envision this as an ongoing wrestling match; each offensive advance, followed by the resultant, defensive counter-move. Punch, reaction, counter-punch, if you will. The next immediate step, then, is to wash your hands of the decision/action – don’t beat yourself up for having to make a sub-par decision in the context of a bad circumstance. Learn from the situation and move on. And, as always, do yourself the favor of limiting, wherever and whenever possible, submersion into sketchy situations.

So here’s Bryce’s questions. I’ve taken the liberty to paraphrase a bit, so I hope he doesn’t mind:

“Keith,

I’m writing because I had some questions about the paleo diet.  I know there are other channels that I could go through, but I’ve come to trust your opinion on these things, and I wanted your advice on a few points.

First, dairy: I know we didn’t evolve to eat dairy, and I could understand about not drinking milk (though it grieves me) because of the lactose, but what about hard cheeses? I haven’t found a satisfactory explanation or why these sources of relatively sugar free animal fat and protein are bad for me. Tonight for dinner I had a .5lb 93% lean burger (no bun of course), with a good slab of feta, mustard, spinach, and a little ketchup (bad I know). If the cheese helps me cope with the paleo diet, especially when I’m onboard my ship, or in another kitchen/grocery diminished capacity, is it that bad to have it? One day I may try to go without dairy, but I’d like to think it was for a good reason first. A potential follow up question would be: is lactose inherently worse for you than fructose? Does it, by itself, induce a more potent insulin response? I know we are ok with eating fruit because the insulin response is muted by the fiber in the fruit.”

Personally, the only dairy I take in is small amounts of (mostly)hard hard cheese now and again, and an occasional bit of yogurt.  Dairy has never been one of my “things” though, so for me, limiting it is no big deal.  I think though, that for those attempting to cut body fat as low as possible — or actively dieting down — it should be treated as a once in a blue moon treat — if not completely eliminated — as it can produce (depending upon form, load, etc.) a significant insulin hike (dependent upon lactose level of the dairy consumed).  We also have the negative auto-immune issues to address, and this is the overriding, in my opinion, knock on dairy.  Overall, I consider dairy as kind of a gray Paleo issue.  My take is, if you really enjoy it, have it sparingly, get it raw (if possible), and consume it full-octane (i.e., the full fat version).  By the way, I love Feta, too.  Limited dairy will neither make nor break you.   As far as lactose being worse/better than fructose, I think that the load of the carrier, the fat and fiber content, all have to be considered.  Here’s what I mean: consider the body’s insulin response to commercial whey protein.  These products will no doubt put the (fat) pounds on you in a hurry.  Why?  Well, these products are basically no more than protein and lactose. Hello insulin response!  The same comparison can be made between whole fruit and fruit juice.  I hate to be flippant, but really the lactose/fructose question is kinda like asking, which is better: a poke in the eye, or a kick in the ribs?  To even begin to choose, we first need to know in what manner, and to what degree.  Personally, I get around this quandary by limiting my intake of both.  This is the only viable real world solution you have.

“Secondly, legumes.  I read something recently suggesting the research condemning them was inconclusive. Thoughts? Because peanut butter has been a big help as a source of monounsaturated fatty acids and protein.”

Whenever I consider what foods are acceptable for my brand — the TTP brand — of the Paleo lifestyle, my first consideration is this: how does (or will) my body respond to the consumption of that food?  Obvious, right?  Well, not so fast.  Many people, both inside and outside the Paleo community, tend to become tunnel-visioned into the exact specifics of what our Paleolithic ancestors may or may not have consumed.  This can obviously lead to confusion and arguments over those said specifics, due to the fact that early man inhabited such a wide range of environments and had access to varying foodstuffs — and, more specifically, varying amounts and types of carbohydrates.  See this post as an example.  For me, though, the question is not simply what the human body can survive on, I want to know what the human body is geared to thrive on.  And this is where science comes into play.  What is the insulin response to a certain food?  The auto-immune response?  What is the resultant C-reactive protein level in the blood system.  How does a specific diet or foodstuff affect athletic and/or cognitive performance?  These are all questions, or screens, if you will, that a foodstuff has to do well on in order to make it to my plate.   Legumes, quite simply, don’t pass that screen due to their resultant and substantial insulin response.  Now, are legumes as “bad for you” as grains?  I honestly don’t know.  My personal feeling is that, although they illicit a substantial insulin response, they probably don’t hammer the auto-immune system to the degree that grains are capable of.  My policy is simply to avoid both legumes and grains whenever possible.  By the way, I have found that fresh cashew butter, if you can get your hands on some, is a good substitute for peanut butter.

And finally, oatmeal.  I know it’s an evil grain, and I’m not married to it, but the Zone crowd seem to have great things to say about it. Are they nuts?

I guess my take on oatmeal would just be,  why even consider it when there are so many other, better, non-grain options?  I think the Zone crowd’s infatuation with oatmeal steams from the fact that most of these people have just come in out the western diet wasteland, and anything — hell, even rank vegetarianism — is an improvement over that.  The Zone diet will still not force the body to covert to being a fat burner, i.e., there will still be a heavy reliance upon glucose as a primary fuel source.  So, I guess the question then becomes “I love oatmeal relative to…?”  What, Lucky Charms?  A bagel?  Donuts?  If those are the options, then hell yeah, by all means opt for the oatmeal.  Personally, given that situation, I would simply fast.  Of course, I’m no longer at the mercy of roller-coaster blood glucose levels, so fasting is a viable option.  Not so for the Zone crowd.

“Anyway, thanks again for being a source of continual, educational, “epistemocratic,” information on diet and exercise. It’s nice to find a voice in the darkness!”

Not a problem, Bryce.  I really enjoy writing, talking and doing the Paleo way.  In fact, get me going, and I have a hard time stopping.  Feel free — and this goes for anyone and everyone — to shoot me any questions you may have to theorytopractice@gmail.com.  Alternatively, you can always leave a question via a comment to a particular post.

In Health,

Keith

Some of you may have already come across this article, either from Art’s Evolutionary Fitness site, or straight from the New York Times.

I think the article’s author (Marlene Zuk) may have misinterpreted the precepts and/or goals of a Paleo/EFit lifestyle. Most adherents of this lifestyle realize (at least, I hope they do) that our mirroring of a Paleo diet is not undertaken in a mindless vacuum devoid of any thoughtful manipulation of “modern” variables. “Paleo” is a benchmark, yes; a launching pad. However, we adherents test out hypothesis against an array of hard measurables (in the way of blood tests, physical performance, lack of disease, etc.). And by all perceivable measures, our “way” has thus far been proven superior. Will a better method/lifestyle come along? Hey, I’m open to all ideas and will consider all possibilities — I wear no blinders, and I’m married to no single philosophy — but any “upgrade” had better be able to produce superior results to what we have achieved with the Paleo way. Build a better mousetrap, prove it to be such with sound science, and I’m in.

And then there’s this amusing blog post from shapely prose – a blog which, by the way, carries the following purpose line: urban, liberal, feminist, latte-drinking, overeducated, intellectual, unapologetically p.c. american patriots. I’ll forgo casting judgment as far as that is concerned, in lieu of a quick musing on the particular post in question.

My first thought is, that all concerned here need to define both the “rapid” — as in “rapid evolution” – as well as to what the specific degree of “evolution” is here, that we’re talking about. Those of the Paleo mindset readily acknowledge the “rapid” evolution, under the sharp dietary pressures precipitated by such things as the transition to agriculture, the cultivation of livestock and the widespread disappearance of certain species of fauna. Remember, however, that there are always biological trade-offs for every evolutionary advance. For instance, the ability by some to effectively digest the lactose found in dairy products does not come free of consequence. The immune system must still mount a defense to the novel (to our genome, at least) proteins found in dairy. This is just one example. There is a huge difference, in my opinion, between an organism’s mere surviving and that same organism’s thriving.

And I whole-heartedly subscribe to the notion that evolution does not stand still. It marches onward, in fact, in spits and starts – and, yes, at times it races ahead. It is wise, though, I believe, to consider what these terms are relative to. Racing ahead, leaps-and-bounds, leap-frogging – relative to what? 50, 000 years of human evolution has produced something like a .2% change in the human genome. Just keep that in mind when cruising the grocery store aisles.

So yes, the ladies are correct — evolution marches on. And I suppose that it is within the realm of consideration that in 50, say, or 100 thousand years, the human species will have evolved to the point of thriving on grains and HFCS, and that the human body will have morphed proportionally to the point of resembling a queen ant. That’s all fine and well, and far be it from me to stand in the way of those who choose to “take a needle for Team Human” in the advance of that evolutionary inevitability. And call me a selfish prick if you will, but I, for one, opt out of that noble pursuit. Just gimme a steak, some berries and leaves, and let me be with my selfish, caveman self.

In Health,

Keith