Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Training Sept 1
function
A. weighted mixed grip chin up 31X0; 2-3 x 6; rest 2 min
B. KBS x 21 light; rest 1 min x 3
C. FLR on floor - 3 min accumulated
being
A. Front Squat - 3 x 3 @ 80%; rest 2 min
B. 5,10,15,10,5,10,15,10,5 COVP Chin Ups; rest 30 sec b/t sets
C. Tabata Sit Up - no abmat, anchored, hands at temples - total divided by 8 is score
will
3 rounds for time:
25 KBS - 2pd/1.5 pd
25 box jumps - 20"/14"
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Gym Jones Wisdom, and 8/30 Training
'You could quit now. You could zig and zag and to evade the pain. But the hard way ALWAYS produces the better result. You said you wanted it.' - Gym Jones
Function
A1. Single Arm DB Power Clean x 1/Single Arm DB Push Press x 5 – L; rest 20 sec
A2. Single Arm DB Power Clean x 1/Single Arm DB Push Press x 5 – R; rest 20 sec
A3. Single Arm DB Power Row Standing – L @ 20X0; 5-8/arm; rest 20 sec
A4. Single Arm DB Power Row Standing – R @ 20X0; 5-8/arm; rest 120 sec
(3 sets – try to add weight per set)
+
AMRAP Double Unders in 30 sec; walk 30 sec rest x 10 for total reps
Being
100 TGU not for time – 16/12 kg – slow and steady
Will
Part 1:
7 sets:
5 tough thrusters
10 burpees AFAP
Row 25 sec @ 90%
Rest 6 min actively
Rest 6+ hours
Part 2:
Run 400 m @ 90%
Walk rest 5 min actively x 3
(rest 12 min working on handstand walk)
Run 400 m @ 90%
Walk rest 5 min actively x 3
Post notes to comments
Function
A1. Single Arm DB Power Clean x 1/Single Arm DB Push Press x 5 – L; rest 20 sec
A2. Single Arm DB Power Clean x 1/Single Arm DB Push Press x 5 – R; rest 20 sec
A3. Single Arm DB Power Row Standing – L @ 20X0; 5-8/arm; rest 20 sec
A4. Single Arm DB Power Row Standing – R @ 20X0; 5-8/arm; rest 120 sec
(3 sets – try to add weight per set)
+
AMRAP Double Unders in 30 sec; walk 30 sec rest x 10 for total reps
Being
100 TGU not for time – 16/12 kg – slow and steady
Will
Part 1:
7 sets:
5 tough thrusters
10 burpees AFAP
Row 25 sec @ 90%
Rest 6 min actively
Rest 6+ hours
Part 2:
Run 400 m @ 90%
Walk rest 5 min actively x 3
(rest 12 min working on handstand walk)
Run 400 m @ 90%
Walk rest 5 min actively x 3
Post notes to comments
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Training Aug 25
function
A. back squat @ 4011; 4-6 x 5; rest 3 min
B. HSPU practice - 12 min (negatives, E-ROM, strict reps, kipping, etc..based on where you are at)
C. AMRAP Double Unders in 10 min
being
Run 30 sec @ 80% effort
rest 30 sec
Burpees in 30 sec @ 80% effort/speed
rest 30 sec x 10
will
part 1:
A. Squat Snatch - 2,2,2,2,2 @ 90%; rest 2 min
B. Front Squat - 3 x 3 @ 80%; rest 2 min
C. GHD sit ups x 20; rest 1 min x 3
rest 6+ hours
5 sets:
10 tough russian swings
10 burpees AFAP
25 double unders AFAP
rest 3 min
+
5 sets:
Row 35 sec @ best 500 m race pace
Rest 2:35
A. back squat @ 4011; 4-6 x 5; rest 3 min
B. HSPU practice - 12 min (negatives, E-ROM, strict reps, kipping, etc..based on where you are at)
C. AMRAP Double Unders in 10 min
being
Run 30 sec @ 80% effort
rest 30 sec
Burpees in 30 sec @ 80% effort/speed
rest 30 sec x 10
will
part 1:
A. Squat Snatch - 2,2,2,2,2 @ 90%; rest 2 min
B. Front Squat - 3 x 3 @ 80%; rest 2 min
C. GHD sit ups x 20; rest 1 min x 3
rest 6+ hours
5 sets:
10 tough russian swings
10 burpees AFAP
25 double unders AFAP
rest 3 min
+
5 sets:
Row 35 sec @ best 500 m race pace
Rest 2:35
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Training Aug 23
function:
AMRAP Push Ups
rest 30 sec
15 GHD back extensions
rest 30 sec
20 jump switch lunges (JSL)
rest 3 min x 5
(get hips to full extension on switch in air for lunges)
+
FLR on floor - 2 min accumulated
(front leaning rest - top of push up, shoulders down and back, belly up and in, tight throughout)
being
A. clean grip dead lift @ 11X1; 60% 1RM; 8 sets of 3; rest 45 sec
B1. high hang power clean - 3 x 3 @ 80%; rest 2 min
B2. close grip bench press @ 30X1 - 5,5,5; rest 2 min
C. GHD raises - 12 x 5; rest 1 min
will
part 1:
AMRAP E-ROM HSPU
Run 400 m @ 90%
rest walk 5 min x 5
+
AMRAP Triple Unders in 1 min
1 min rest x 4
rest 6+ hours
part 2:
A. Clean and Jerk - 3 on the minute for 6 minutes @ 75% 1RM
B. Power Snatch - build to a tough single in no more than 4 sets
+
for time:
row 500 m
15 squat clean thruster - 155#/105#
row 500 m
15 squat clean thruster - 155#/105#
row 500 m
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Turn down the lights
http://balancedbites.com/2010/07/turn-down-the-lights-turn-up-your-metabolism.html
Turn Down the Lights, Turn Up Your Metabolism
Are you struggling with sugar and carb cravings that seem to just take over? Are you trying to lose excess body fat but feel it’s an uphill battle when foods you know you shouldn’t eat are practically screaming at you to eat them? Do you feel like you just can’t seem to get your body to burn fat no matter how much you exercise, what diet you try or what you’re eating? We’ve talked about the sugar and carb craving hurdle before when I introduced my 21-Day Sugar Detox Manual (eBook available for download here), but this time I’m going to talk about a way to work on getting your body out of fat storage mode and kicking cravings that actually DOESN’T INVOLVE FOOD AT ALL. It’s one simple rule for attacking your cravings and one big reason why your body wants to store fat at it’s root. Are you ready for this?
TURN THE LIGHT’S OUT! You heard me. Turn the lights off. Get some shut-eye. Hit the hay. Give up the ghost. GO TO SLEEP!
Wow. This might just be some groundbreaking news for some of you. I’m sure you’ve thought of a million reasons why you should get more sleep or want to get more sleep, but this time, it’s really compelling. You’ve also then thought of a million things you can be doing instead of sleeping; working, working out, watching television, doing chores, surfing the web or even eating a snack. Well, I’m going to say it now: you can lose weight by sleeping.
The thing is, we’re a lot more like our distant ancestors than we like to think. Sure, we’ve adapted and evolved and have invented lots of amazing devices to make life easier for ourselves. Heck, we’ve even “created” more hours in the day during which we can be productive. The problem is that, biologically, we’re still wired to rise and fall with the sun. Since the advent of the electric lightbulb (the “created” hours to which I was referring), we’ve been suffering the consequences of man-made daylight in many ways, not the least of which is our waistlines.
Don’t believe me? Well, according to T.S. Wiley and Bent Formby, authors of “Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar, and Survival,” (a fantastic book, by the way- I highly recommend grabbing a copy) following our natural circadian rhythms and sleeping when it’s dark outside and waking when it’s light could be the real key to naturally maintaining a healthy, ideal body weight. How is this possible, you ask? Isn’t it all about calories in and calories out? Don’t I just need to eat right, exercise and drink enough water and I’ll be healthy and in shape? Well, it’s not that complicated, actually. The mechanism that triggers us to crave sweets and carbs could actually be short-circuited if we slept more! And if we didn’t crave those things, how many people do you think would be struggling to kick their unhealthy eating habits?
According to Wiley and Formby:
“We have always ‘feasted’ to endure the ‘famine’ that always followed – until now. Unfortunately, the truth in our time is that we eat carbohydrates now and die sooner. Your body translates long hours of artificial light into summertime. Because it instinctively knows that summer comes before winter, and that winter means no available food, you begin to crave carbohydrates so you can store fat for a time when food is scarce and you should be hibernating.
This is the formula:
A. Long hours of artificial light = summer in your head.
B. Winter signifies famine to your internal controls.
C. Famine on the horizon signifies instinctive carbohydrate craving to store fat for hibernation and scarcity.
This storage is accomplished by:
1. Increasing carbohydrate consumption until your body responds to all the insulin by becoming insulin-resistant in muscle tissue.
2. Ensuring that the carbohydrates taken in end up as fat pad;
3. Prompting the liver to dump the extra sugar into cholesterol production, which will keep cell membranes from freezing at low temperatures.”
I created this diagram based on the above information to help clarify that formula a bit for the visual people out there like myself.
I know what you’re thinking, there’s no way you can get yourself to bed when the sun goes down. Well, it doesn’t have to be quite that extreme. Here are some quick tips for ways to get your body to be more aligned with natural light and dark cycles and to work on getting to bed earlier:
When the sun gets lower outside, keep lights a bit lower inside. Use small lamps and turn off the overhead lights, especially the fluorescent varieties. Gradually reduce the amount of light you’re using as the evening gets later and avoid TV or bright computer screens for an hour or more before bed.
Set a time and stick to it. If you have an earlier bed time in mind, you’re more likely to focus on that as your stopping-point for work, chores, television, etc. Set a time that’s just 30 minutes earlier than your usual time each week until you can get into bed and asleep by around 10pm. I find that it helps to focus on getting into bed about 30 minutes before I want to be asleep, this allows time for reading or just some relaxed time before sleeping.
Build your plan for the evening around your planned bed time. If you have a lot of chores to tackle, do the most critical few first, then leave some for the morning. It’s more important to your circadian health to get yourself to sleep and wake when it’s daylight. Do chores that require less light in the evening and more light in the morning. I know it may sound crazy to some of you who consider yourselves “night owls,” but human beings are not “night owls” by nature. Clearly if we were, we’d also have night vision.
I don’t know about you, but this is compelling enough to remind me to keep the lights low in the evenings, try to avoid tv or my computer screen too late at night, and for the sake of my waistline… GO TO SLEEP! For help figuring out how to create sound sleep habits for yourself, contact me today.
Cognitive benefits of fish oil
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817120220.htm
Fish Oil's Impact On Cognition and Brain Structure Identified in New Study
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2011) — Researchers at Rhode Island Hospital's Alzheimer's Disease and Memory Disorders Center have found positive associations between fish oil supplements and cognitive functioning as well as differences in brain structure between users and non-users of fish oil supplements. The findings suggest possible benefits of fish oil supplements on brain health and aging.
The results were reported at the recent International Conference on Alzheimer's Disease, in Paris, France.
The study was led by Lori Daiello, PharmD, a research scientist at the Rhode Island Hospital Alzheimer's Disease and Memory Disorders Center. Data for the analyses was obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), a large multi-center, NIH-funded study that followed older adults with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease for over three years with periodic memory testing and brain MRIs.
The study included 819 individuals, 117 of whom reported regular use of fish oil supplements before entry and during study follow-up. The researchers compared cognitive functioning and brain atrophy for patients who reported routinely using these supplements to those who were not using fish oil supplements.
Daiello reports that compared to non-users, use of fish oil supplements was associated with better cognitive functioning during the study. However, this association was significant only in those individuals who had a normal baseline cognitive function and in individuals who tested negative for a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's Disease known as APOE4. This is consistent with previous research.
The unique finding, however, is that there was a clear association between fish oil supplements and brain volume. Consistent with the cognitive outcomes, these observations were significant only for those who were APOE4 negative.
Daiello says, "In the imaging analyses for the entire study population, we found a significant positive association between fish oil supplement use and average brain volumes in two critical areas utilized in memory and thinking (cerebral cortex and hippocampus), as well as smaller brain ventricular volumes compared to non-users at any given time in the study. In other words, fish oil use was associated with less brain shrinkage in patients taking these supplements during the ADNI study compared to those who didn't report using them."
Daiello continues, "These observations should motivate further study of the possible effects of long-term fish oil supplementation on important markers of cognitive decline and the potential influence of genetics on these outcomes."
The research team included Brian Ott M.D., director of the Rhode Island Hospital and Memory Disorders Center, Assawin Gongvatana Ph.D., Shira Dunsiger Ph.D. and Ronald Cohen Ph.D. from The Miriam Hospital and the Brown University Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (Gonvatana and Cohen), and Department of Behavior and Social Sciences (Dunsiger).
Daiello is a research scientist at Rhode Island Hospital, a member hospital of the Lifespan health system in Rhode Island and an assistant professor of neurology (research) at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Direct financial and infrastructure support for this project was received through the Lifespan Office of Research Administration. The study was supported by career development grants from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (Daiello) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Gongvatana).
Fish Oil's Impact On Cognition and Brain Structure Identified in New Study
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2011) — Researchers at Rhode Island Hospital's Alzheimer's Disease and Memory Disorders Center have found positive associations between fish oil supplements and cognitive functioning as well as differences in brain structure between users and non-users of fish oil supplements. The findings suggest possible benefits of fish oil supplements on brain health and aging.
The results were reported at the recent International Conference on Alzheimer's Disease, in Paris, France.
The study was led by Lori Daiello, PharmD, a research scientist at the Rhode Island Hospital Alzheimer's Disease and Memory Disorders Center. Data for the analyses was obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), a large multi-center, NIH-funded study that followed older adults with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease for over three years with periodic memory testing and brain MRIs.
The study included 819 individuals, 117 of whom reported regular use of fish oil supplements before entry and during study follow-up. The researchers compared cognitive functioning and brain atrophy for patients who reported routinely using these supplements to those who were not using fish oil supplements.
Daiello reports that compared to non-users, use of fish oil supplements was associated with better cognitive functioning during the study. However, this association was significant only in those individuals who had a normal baseline cognitive function and in individuals who tested negative for a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's Disease known as APOE4. This is consistent with previous research.
The unique finding, however, is that there was a clear association between fish oil supplements and brain volume. Consistent with the cognitive outcomes, these observations were significant only for those who were APOE4 negative.
Daiello says, "In the imaging analyses for the entire study population, we found a significant positive association between fish oil supplement use and average brain volumes in two critical areas utilized in memory and thinking (cerebral cortex and hippocampus), as well as smaller brain ventricular volumes compared to non-users at any given time in the study. In other words, fish oil use was associated with less brain shrinkage in patients taking these supplements during the ADNI study compared to those who didn't report using them."
Daiello continues, "These observations should motivate further study of the possible effects of long-term fish oil supplementation on important markers of cognitive decline and the potential influence of genetics on these outcomes."
The research team included Brian Ott M.D., director of the Rhode Island Hospital and Memory Disorders Center, Assawin Gongvatana Ph.D., Shira Dunsiger Ph.D. and Ronald Cohen Ph.D. from The Miriam Hospital and the Brown University Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (Gonvatana and Cohen), and Department of Behavior and Social Sciences (Dunsiger).
Daiello is a research scientist at Rhode Island Hospital, a member hospital of the Lifespan health system in Rhode Island and an assistant professor of neurology (research) at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Direct financial and infrastructure support for this project was received through the Lifespan Office of Research Administration. The study was supported by career development grants from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (Daiello) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Gongvatana).
Type 2 diabetes resolved in 1 week on lowcarb
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=16721831571j7360&size=largest
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Testing Aug 17
Yikes
function
for reps:
30 sec amrap strict chin ups supinated
30 sec amrap cals (airdyne)
30 sec amrap goblet squat (1.5/1pd)
1 min amrap strict chin ups pronated
1 min amrap cals (airdyne)
1 min amrap goblet squats (1.5/1pd)
90 sec amrap strict chin ups mixed grip
90 sec amrap cals (airdyne)
90 sec amrap goblet squats (1.5/1pd)
being
for time:
Run 1 mile
BWT bench press x 30 reps
will
for time:
30 man makers - 35/25#/h
rest 5 min
for time:
50 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 40 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 30 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 20 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 10 Double Unders, 10 burpees
rest 5 min
for time:
50 KBS - 2pd/1.5 pd
Row 350 m
rest 5 min
for time:
Max Cals - AirDyne - 3:30
function
for reps:
30 sec amrap strict chin ups supinated
30 sec amrap cals (airdyne)
30 sec amrap goblet squat (1.5/1pd)
1 min amrap strict chin ups pronated
1 min amrap cals (airdyne)
1 min amrap goblet squats (1.5/1pd)
90 sec amrap strict chin ups mixed grip
90 sec amrap cals (airdyne)
90 sec amrap goblet squats (1.5/1pd)
being
for time:
Run 1 mile
BWT bench press x 30 reps
will
for time:
30 man makers - 35/25#/h
rest 5 min
for time:
50 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 40 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 30 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 20 Double Unders, 10 burpees, 10 Double Unders, 10 burpees
rest 5 min
for time:
50 KBS - 2pd/1.5 pd
Row 350 m
rest 5 min
for time:
Max Cals - AirDyne - 3:30
SPEED
Sure they're all amazingly strong, but the biggest thing that you notice with weightlifters of this caliber is how fast they get under the bar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3Qjx6RQXSY&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3Qjx6RQXSY&feature=player_embedded
Monday, August 15, 2011
Training Aug 16
function
A1. Paused Standing Press @ 12X2; 4-6 x 4; rest 90 sec
A2. Clean Grip Dead Lift @ 3211; 3-5 x 4; rest 90 sec
B. Depth Push Ups - elevate hands - 20/set x 3; rest 1 min only b/t sets
(fraction as needed)
C. GHD Sit Ups - 20 x 4; rest 90 sec
being
part 1:
Run 5-10 min easy @ Z1 warm up
then...
Run 3K time trial
then...
Walk 5-10 min easy cool down
rest 4+ hours
part 2:
A. back squat @ 30X1; 2-3 x 7; rest 3 min
B. Chin Ups Mixed Grip Shoulder Width @ 21X0; 1,1,1,1; rest 2 min
C. gh raises @ 2010; 10 x 5; rest 1 min
will
A. Back Squat - 6 sets of 2 @ 30X1; rest 2 min - 90-92% 1RM
B. Squat Clean - build to a tough single where you're fast out of bottom but challenging; speed is key here
C1. 30 chin ups COVP; rest 1 min
C2. 15 thrusters - 115#/80#; rest 3 min x 3
A1. Paused Standing Press @ 12X2; 4-6 x 4; rest 90 sec
A2. Clean Grip Dead Lift @ 3211; 3-5 x 4; rest 90 sec
B. Depth Push Ups - elevate hands - 20/set x 3; rest 1 min only b/t sets
(fraction as needed)
C. GHD Sit Ups - 20 x 4; rest 90 sec
being
part 1:
Run 5-10 min easy @ Z1 warm up
then...
Run 3K time trial
then...
Walk 5-10 min easy cool down
rest 4+ hours
part 2:
A. back squat @ 30X1; 2-3 x 7; rest 3 min
B. Chin Ups Mixed Grip Shoulder Width @ 21X0; 1,1,1,1; rest 2 min
C. gh raises @ 2010; 10 x 5; rest 1 min
will
A. Back Squat - 6 sets of 2 @ 30X1; rest 2 min - 90-92% 1RM
B. Squat Clean - build to a tough single where you're fast out of bottom but challenging; speed is key here
C1. 30 chin ups COVP; rest 1 min
C2. 15 thrusters - 115#/80#; rest 3 min x 3
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Great primer on nutrition/lifestyle
http://samipaju.com/7-day-crash-course/
For those open to new thoughts on nutrition/lifestyle, and willing to put in the time to learn more, this is a great collection of videos and articles from a variety of sound sources.
For those open to new thoughts on nutrition/lifestyle, and willing to put in the time to learn more, this is a great collection of videos and articles from a variety of sound sources.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Good post on common food myths
http://www.liftbigeatbig.com/2011/08/debunking-my-favorite-food-myths.html
Training Aug 11
function
A. Clean Grip Dead Lift - take up to a tough triple; NOT a 3RM, compare effort getting there to Aug 6
B. Chin Ups pronated weighted strict @ 31X0; 2-3 x 4; rest 2 min - get head through at top
C. Airdyne Sprints - 25 sec @ just below top end effort; rest 2:35 x 5
being
part 1
Row 1K time trial
rest 6+ hours
part 2
As many rounds in 6 min:
7 burpees
7 clean and jerk - 95#/65#
will
20 rope ascents for time - leg less - 20'
(when you are resting b/t attempts it must be in a FLR on the floor; when you break the FLR you must climb immediately; if you fail on rope asent, add 1 more rep to the total you must complete; if you break in the FLR and do not attempt rope ascent, add 1 more rep to the total you must complete)
rest 20 min
Run 400 m @ 90%
rest 3 min x 3
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Training Aug 10
function
running clock burpees
(1 on the 1st minute, 2 in the 2nd, 3 in the 3rd...its a sleeper for a few minutes, then a nightmare quickly after that; goal is to "dig in" for the tough parts and try to discover what the limiter is; was is the breathing, anxiety, muscle endurance...etc...?; at some ponit you'll ask yourself as well, "should I do one more to finish the set in time" - the answer is YES!)
being
8 sets:
20 DU's AFAP
20 push ups AFAP
Row 125 m @ 95%
walk rest 2 min b/t sets actively
will
A. Hang Squat Snatch x 1/OHS x 3; build to a tough 3 in the OHS; rest as needed
B. Front Squat - 2 on the minute @ 90% 1RM for 6 minutes
C. 3 sets of 50 unbroken wall balls for time; you MUST break b/t sets, the time resting is up to you
D. 15 unbroken toes to bar x 5 sets; rest as needed
running clock burpees
(1 on the 1st minute, 2 in the 2nd, 3 in the 3rd...its a sleeper for a few minutes, then a nightmare quickly after that; goal is to "dig in" for the tough parts and try to discover what the limiter is; was is the breathing, anxiety, muscle endurance...etc...?; at some ponit you'll ask yourself as well, "should I do one more to finish the set in time" - the answer is YES!)
being
8 sets:
20 DU's AFAP
20 push ups AFAP
Row 125 m @ 95%
walk rest 2 min b/t sets actively
will
A. Hang Squat Snatch x 1/OHS x 3; build to a tough 3 in the OHS; rest as needed
B. Front Squat - 2 on the minute @ 90% 1RM for 6 minutes
C. 3 sets of 50 unbroken wall balls for time; you MUST break b/t sets, the time resting is up to you
D. 15 unbroken toes to bar x 5 sets; rest as needed
Monday, August 8, 2011
Training Aug 9
function
3 rounds (fast and furious) for time:
15 chin ups
15 front squat - 95#/65#
30 double unders
being
part 1:
2 min run @ Z1
20 sec fast pace pick up
1 min @ Z1
20 sec fast pace pick up
1 min @ Z1
then...
5 min run - add speed per minute so last minute is threshold pace
(you CANNOT slow in last minute)
walk rest 3 min x 3
then...
5 min Z1 run cool down
rest 4+ hours
part 2:
A. back squat @ 30X1; 3,3,3,3,3,3; rest 4 min
B. Chin Ups Mixed Grip Shoulder Width @ 21X0; 2-3 x 4; rest 2 min
C. gh raises @ 2010; 12 x 5; rest 1 min
will
A. Power Clean - 2-3 x 5; rest 2 min
B. Clean Pulls @ 120% max clean; 2,2,2,2,2; rest 90 sec
C. Bench Press Close Grip @ 30X1; 2-3 x 4; rest 2 min - 80%
+
5 sets:
10 CTB chin ups
Airdyne 20 sec @ 90%
30 double unders AFAP
rest walk 3 min b/t sets
Are traditionally prepared grains healthy?
Write up by Mark Sisson, marksdailyapple.com
“People from Africa, Asia, and Latin America eat lots of grains and manage to stay skinny, so what’s the deal?”
You know this line of questioning. We’ve all heard it. We’ve probably all pondered it. It may have even stumped a few of you, left you stuttering and stammering for a quick explanation. But by the time you think of a reply (if you even have one), the moment has passed and they have “won” the argument. A briefly open mind was now closed.
But let’s be honest: it’s a valid question, and a tough one at that. We can’t just avoid the tough questions. So let’s take this head on.
Like always, the answer is multifaceted. Health is not reliant on a single feature. It’s not just diet, it’s exercise, stress, sleep, family, community, genetics, infectious burden. Within diet, it’s not just what is eaten, but also what isn’t eaten. It’s how food is prepared, whether it’s cooked or eaten raw. Find me a culture who thrived on grains as a staple food, and I’ll find you a culture who came up with some elaborate preparation method to mitigate the antinutrients and enhance the nutrient bioavailability of those grains. Find me a culture whose health thrived on toxin-rich grains as a staple without mitigating said toxins, and I’ll be waiting a long time (and observing the United States through smug Primal shades while I wait).
In today’s post, I’m going to explore the primary reason for why so many traditional cultures who ate grains managed to stay thin and relatively free of degenerative diseases: traditional grain preparation, including soaking, sprouting, and fermentation. If you’re familiar with the Weston A. Price Foundation‘s stance on grains, you’re probably aware of these preparation methods. Each step alters the nutritional experience of the grain to varying degrees, making it more digestible, less toxic, and tastier. I for one am not willing to go through hoops to make grass babies go down easier, but the process is nonetheless extremely interesting. And in the future, if any of my readers want to give grains a shot, at least they’ll do it right, or as right as it can get. As I always say, the only reason to make grains any part of your diet is as a cheap source of calories that converts to glucose very quickly.
You know how cool parents will drink or smoke with their teens to teach them mature consumption of potentially illicit substances before they learn to do it all wrong it in the wild world? This post is kinda like that.
Let’s first do a quick rundown of what exactly we’re trying to avoid, deactivate, or mitigate. We gotta know what we’re up against.
Phytic acid: Phytic acid is the main storage form of phosphorus in grains. That’s awesome for the grain, which needs phosphorus, but there’s a catch. Phytate also binds to many minerals, including zinc, magnesium, calcium, and iron, to name several. And, since non-ruminants don’t possess phytase, which digests phytate and releases the bound minerals for easy absorption, eating large quantities of phytate-containing foods results in mineral deficiencies for meat-eating apes. These deficiencies, taken to an extreme, can manifest as tooth decay, which might explain why early grain eating populations had worse teeth than the hunter-gatherers who preceded them.
Enzyme inhibitors: Grains are seeds that require certain wet, nutrient rich conditions for proper growth. Spontaneous germination is counterproductive (you don’t want your children settling down in an area with high crime and high unemployment, do you?), so enzyme inhibitors prevent it. When moisture abounds (like, when soaking grains), the inhibitors are deactivated and sprouting occurs. So why should we care? Certain other enzyme inhibitors also inhibit our ability digest the grains. If you’re relying on grains as a dietary staple, you can’t afford not to wring every last drop of nutrition out of them.
Lectins: I covered lectins fairly comprehensively in a previous post, so I’ll keep it brief. Lectins are nature’s pesticides, protecting the tiny grain from predation. They can perforate the intestinal lining, disrupt our immune systems, and there’s even evidence that they bind to leptin receptors in the hypothalamus (potentially triggering leptin resistance).
Gluten: You know this guy. Found in wheat, rye, and barley, he’s a real bastard of a protein – and possibly not just to celiacs. There’s some evidence that true fermentation can break down gluten, but not all of it. Some Italian researchers used a unique blend of bacterial species to break down 99% of the gluten in sourdough bread, but it was under strict, extremely contrived laboratory conditions. More on that later.
So, how do traditional cultures take care of the aforementioned?
Soaking and Sprouting
I’ve written about soaking nuts and seeds before, and soaking grains is the same idea. The grains are covered with water, placed in a preferably warm place, and soaked for between 12 and 24 hours. There’s not much more to it than that. After soaking, you drain them, rinse them, and let the grains sit out for a couple days. To get grains to sprout, rinse and drain them a couple times each day until sprouts emerge.
Effect on phytate: If the grain contains phytase, some of the mineral-binding phytic acid will be deactivated, but not much. And if the grain has been heat-treated, which destroys phytase, or it contains very little phytase to begin with, the phytic acid will remain completely intact. Overall, neither soaking nor sprouting deactivates a significant amount of phytate.
Effect on enzyme inhibitors: Well, since the seed has been placed in a wet medium and allowed to sprout, the enzyme inhibitors are obviously mostly deactivated. Digestion is much improved (cooking will improve it further).
Effect on lectins: The evidence is mixed, and it seems to depend on the grain. Sprouted wheat, for example, is extremely high in WGA, the infamous wheat lectin. As the wheat grain germinates, the WGA is retained in the sprout and is dispersed throughout the finished plant. In other grains, sprouting seems more beneficial, but there’s always some residual lectins that may need further processing to deactivate.
Effect on gluten: Sprouting reduces gluten to some extent, but not by very much. Don’t count on it. A little bit goes a long way.
Fermentation
After soaking and grinding, grains are traditionally mixed with a starter culture or allowed to wild ferment. Starter cultures often include whey, kefir, yogurt, or left over fermentation medium from the previous batch. Wild fermentation occurs when the grain mixture employs bacteria already present on the grains, or picks up wild yeasts and bacteria from the environment. Both methods are far more effective than just soaking and sprouting at deactivating antinutrients and improving digestibility. Plus, fermentation lends interesting flavors to and enhances the shelf-life of the resultant food (which was extremely valuable in the days before refrigeration and canning).
Effect on phytate: Remember phytase? It’s the enzyme that deactivates phytate, and it really gets cooking during fermentation. In grains that contain high amounts of phytase, like wheat, rye, and buckwheat (technically a pseudo-cereal, but close enough), a day of fermentation deactivates most of the phytate. To degrade the phytate in low-phytase grains, however, the fermentation time must be extended. Adding small amounts of phytase-containing grain to the mix will also speed up the process. Increasing the temperature also improves phytate breakdown. In millet, a low-phytase grain, it took 72 hours to completely degrade the phytate. In wheat, it took ten hours to reach a maximum of 88.8% phytate reduction using a specific bacterial strain. Other strains resulted in reductions of between 28% and 86% (with most reaching above 80%). Standard quick rise baker’s yeast only reduced 16% of phytate (that’s what 99% of wheat eaters are eating nowadays, remember!). Ten hours may not always be enough, however – another fermentation study found that at 48 hours, phytate in wheat was still degrading.
Effect on enzyme inhibitors: Fermentation also significantly reduces enzyme inhibitor activity. A few examples would be prudent, since fermentation has different effects on different enzyme inhibitors in different grains. In 24 hour traditional sorghum fermentation, both trypsin inhibitor and amylase inhibitor (which impedes starch digestion) were reduced by up to 58% and 75%, respectively. In millet, a 48 hour fermentation was required to completely deactivate amylase inhibitor. As I mentioned in the last section, one study found that 48 hours of fermentation resulted in maximum wheat starch digestibility, presumably by deactivating amylase inhibitor.
Effect on lectins: Fermentation reduces lectin load fairly comprehensively across the board, but it might take longer than you can spare. In lentils (I know, not a grain, but with similar antinutrient issues), 72 and 96 hours of fermentation at 42 degrees C eliminated 98% and 97.8% of the lectins, respectively. Specific info on grain lectin breakdown due to fermentation is sparse. Overall, fermentation appears to be pretty effective at reducing lectins (and cooking reduces them further).
Effect on gluten: No store bought garden variety sourdough you find is going to be gluten-free. A team from Italy was able to produce a gluten-free sourdough wheat bread by using specific bacterial strains from all over the world and subjecting the bread to many days of fermentation. The process was totally unfeasible for the home or average commercial baker. There’s also a guy who sells monthlong fermented sourdough bread out of LA-area farmers’ markets and claims celiacs can eat it without issue. Reviews on Yelp seem to corroborate. Maybe I’ll swing by his stand and give it a shot, but I’m skeptical. And besides, I’m personally more worried by WGA, which is biologically active at nanomolar concentrations and which may not be fully degraded by fermentation.
To Eat, or Not to Eat
Some may turn up their noses at agrarian people for relying on a “sub-optimal” grain as staple food, but not me. Yeah, I’m definitely no fan of grains, and I think avoiding them is one of the biggest positive steps a person can take for their overall health. That’s beside the point. As a technical feat, I find the taming of the grain incredibly impressive, a testament to mankind’s awesome ability to adapt to and overcome adversity. Any other animal that switches over to a new staple food that prevents nutrient absorption, causes intestinal perforation, and increases inflammation had better develop some physiological adaptions to deal with the antinutritive factors, and quickly, if it doesn’t want to die out or be forced to move to a new habitat. A human, though? Humans figured out a way to preserve the toxic food, make it palatable, drastically reduce its antinutrient content, and make it more digestible, thanks to the big efficient brain inside our skulls. It’s not physiology (well, kind of), it’s not some advantageous mutation that’s naturally selected and saves the day. It’s human ingenuity, knowhow, knowledge, and wisdom. It is manipulation of the environment to suit our immediate needs. That gets us into trouble on occasion, but you can’t say it isn’t impressive.
That said, will I start soaking, sprouting, and fermenting big batches of grains in my kitchen? No. It’s way too much work and it’s unclear whether the toxins are fully mitigated (and in the case of wheat, they almost certainly are not). I’ll admit that crusty sourdough bread can be a nice occasional treat when eating out, but it’s not something I’m interested in eating on a regular basis. Furthermore, I’m not missing out on any magic nutrient by avoiding grains, but I am avoiding the elaborate prep work required to make them moderately edible (and the toxins that may or may not be deactivated). For the billions that rely on grains for sustenance, these traditional preparation methods are necessary. Choosing between potentially toxic food and starvation, you choose the food – no question – and then you do your best to make it more nutritious. For those of us who don’t need to make that choice, for whom bread is an extracurricular treat, I think removing the risk altogether by simply avoiding the potentially toxic food is a better move. And if it’s carbohydrate you’re after, stick with safe starch sources like roots, tubers, or even white rice (the sole grain that requires no elaborate processing).
But at least you know there’s a better way than what most people do with grains nowadays. At least there’s somewhat of a middle ground for people who won’t relinquish the grass babies.
“People from Africa, Asia, and Latin America eat lots of grains and manage to stay skinny, so what’s the deal?”
You know this line of questioning. We’ve all heard it. We’ve probably all pondered it. It may have even stumped a few of you, left you stuttering and stammering for a quick explanation. But by the time you think of a reply (if you even have one), the moment has passed and they have “won” the argument. A briefly open mind was now closed.
But let’s be honest: it’s a valid question, and a tough one at that. We can’t just avoid the tough questions. So let’s take this head on.
Like always, the answer is multifaceted. Health is not reliant on a single feature. It’s not just diet, it’s exercise, stress, sleep, family, community, genetics, infectious burden. Within diet, it’s not just what is eaten, but also what isn’t eaten. It’s how food is prepared, whether it’s cooked or eaten raw. Find me a culture who thrived on grains as a staple food, and I’ll find you a culture who came up with some elaborate preparation method to mitigate the antinutrients and enhance the nutrient bioavailability of those grains. Find me a culture whose health thrived on toxin-rich grains as a staple without mitigating said toxins, and I’ll be waiting a long time (and observing the United States through smug Primal shades while I wait).
In today’s post, I’m going to explore the primary reason for why so many traditional cultures who ate grains managed to stay thin and relatively free of degenerative diseases: traditional grain preparation, including soaking, sprouting, and fermentation. If you’re familiar with the Weston A. Price Foundation‘s stance on grains, you’re probably aware of these preparation methods. Each step alters the nutritional experience of the grain to varying degrees, making it more digestible, less toxic, and tastier. I for one am not willing to go through hoops to make grass babies go down easier, but the process is nonetheless extremely interesting. And in the future, if any of my readers want to give grains a shot, at least they’ll do it right, or as right as it can get. As I always say, the only reason to make grains any part of your diet is as a cheap source of calories that converts to glucose very quickly.
You know how cool parents will drink or smoke with their teens to teach them mature consumption of potentially illicit substances before they learn to do it all wrong it in the wild world? This post is kinda like that.
Let’s first do a quick rundown of what exactly we’re trying to avoid, deactivate, or mitigate. We gotta know what we’re up against.
Phytic acid: Phytic acid is the main storage form of phosphorus in grains. That’s awesome for the grain, which needs phosphorus, but there’s a catch. Phytate also binds to many minerals, including zinc, magnesium, calcium, and iron, to name several. And, since non-ruminants don’t possess phytase, which digests phytate and releases the bound minerals for easy absorption, eating large quantities of phytate-containing foods results in mineral deficiencies for meat-eating apes. These deficiencies, taken to an extreme, can manifest as tooth decay, which might explain why early grain eating populations had worse teeth than the hunter-gatherers who preceded them.
Enzyme inhibitors: Grains are seeds that require certain wet, nutrient rich conditions for proper growth. Spontaneous germination is counterproductive (you don’t want your children settling down in an area with high crime and high unemployment, do you?), so enzyme inhibitors prevent it. When moisture abounds (like, when soaking grains), the inhibitors are deactivated and sprouting occurs. So why should we care? Certain other enzyme inhibitors also inhibit our ability digest the grains. If you’re relying on grains as a dietary staple, you can’t afford not to wring every last drop of nutrition out of them.
Lectins: I covered lectins fairly comprehensively in a previous post, so I’ll keep it brief. Lectins are nature’s pesticides, protecting the tiny grain from predation. They can perforate the intestinal lining, disrupt our immune systems, and there’s even evidence that they bind to leptin receptors in the hypothalamus (potentially triggering leptin resistance).
Gluten: You know this guy. Found in wheat, rye, and barley, he’s a real bastard of a protein – and possibly not just to celiacs. There’s some evidence that true fermentation can break down gluten, but not all of it. Some Italian researchers used a unique blend of bacterial species to break down 99% of the gluten in sourdough bread, but it was under strict, extremely contrived laboratory conditions. More on that later.
So, how do traditional cultures take care of the aforementioned?
Soaking and Sprouting
I’ve written about soaking nuts and seeds before, and soaking grains is the same idea. The grains are covered with water, placed in a preferably warm place, and soaked for between 12 and 24 hours. There’s not much more to it than that. After soaking, you drain them, rinse them, and let the grains sit out for a couple days. To get grains to sprout, rinse and drain them a couple times each day until sprouts emerge.
Effect on phytate: If the grain contains phytase, some of the mineral-binding phytic acid will be deactivated, but not much. And if the grain has been heat-treated, which destroys phytase, or it contains very little phytase to begin with, the phytic acid will remain completely intact. Overall, neither soaking nor sprouting deactivates a significant amount of phytate.
Effect on enzyme inhibitors: Well, since the seed has been placed in a wet medium and allowed to sprout, the enzyme inhibitors are obviously mostly deactivated. Digestion is much improved (cooking will improve it further).
Effect on lectins: The evidence is mixed, and it seems to depend on the grain. Sprouted wheat, for example, is extremely high in WGA, the infamous wheat lectin. As the wheat grain germinates, the WGA is retained in the sprout and is dispersed throughout the finished plant. In other grains, sprouting seems more beneficial, but there’s always some residual lectins that may need further processing to deactivate.
Effect on gluten: Sprouting reduces gluten to some extent, but not by very much. Don’t count on it. A little bit goes a long way.
Fermentation
After soaking and grinding, grains are traditionally mixed with a starter culture or allowed to wild ferment. Starter cultures often include whey, kefir, yogurt, or left over fermentation medium from the previous batch. Wild fermentation occurs when the grain mixture employs bacteria already present on the grains, or picks up wild yeasts and bacteria from the environment. Both methods are far more effective than just soaking and sprouting at deactivating antinutrients and improving digestibility. Plus, fermentation lends interesting flavors to and enhances the shelf-life of the resultant food (which was extremely valuable in the days before refrigeration and canning).
Effect on phytate: Remember phytase? It’s the enzyme that deactivates phytate, and it really gets cooking during fermentation. In grains that contain high amounts of phytase, like wheat, rye, and buckwheat (technically a pseudo-cereal, but close enough), a day of fermentation deactivates most of the phytate. To degrade the phytate in low-phytase grains, however, the fermentation time must be extended. Adding small amounts of phytase-containing grain to the mix will also speed up the process. Increasing the temperature also improves phytate breakdown. In millet, a low-phytase grain, it took 72 hours to completely degrade the phytate. In wheat, it took ten hours to reach a maximum of 88.8% phytate reduction using a specific bacterial strain. Other strains resulted in reductions of between 28% and 86% (with most reaching above 80%). Standard quick rise baker’s yeast only reduced 16% of phytate (that’s what 99% of wheat eaters are eating nowadays, remember!). Ten hours may not always be enough, however – another fermentation study found that at 48 hours, phytate in wheat was still degrading.
Effect on enzyme inhibitors: Fermentation also significantly reduces enzyme inhibitor activity. A few examples would be prudent, since fermentation has different effects on different enzyme inhibitors in different grains. In 24 hour traditional sorghum fermentation, both trypsin inhibitor and amylase inhibitor (which impedes starch digestion) were reduced by up to 58% and 75%, respectively. In millet, a 48 hour fermentation was required to completely deactivate amylase inhibitor. As I mentioned in the last section, one study found that 48 hours of fermentation resulted in maximum wheat starch digestibility, presumably by deactivating amylase inhibitor.
Effect on lectins: Fermentation reduces lectin load fairly comprehensively across the board, but it might take longer than you can spare. In lentils (I know, not a grain, but with similar antinutrient issues), 72 and 96 hours of fermentation at 42 degrees C eliminated 98% and 97.8% of the lectins, respectively. Specific info on grain lectin breakdown due to fermentation is sparse. Overall, fermentation appears to be pretty effective at reducing lectins (and cooking reduces them further).
Effect on gluten: No store bought garden variety sourdough you find is going to be gluten-free. A team from Italy was able to produce a gluten-free sourdough wheat bread by using specific bacterial strains from all over the world and subjecting the bread to many days of fermentation. The process was totally unfeasible for the home or average commercial baker. There’s also a guy who sells monthlong fermented sourdough bread out of LA-area farmers’ markets and claims celiacs can eat it without issue. Reviews on Yelp seem to corroborate. Maybe I’ll swing by his stand and give it a shot, but I’m skeptical. And besides, I’m personally more worried by WGA, which is biologically active at nanomolar concentrations and which may not be fully degraded by fermentation.
To Eat, or Not to Eat
Some may turn up their noses at agrarian people for relying on a “sub-optimal” grain as staple food, but not me. Yeah, I’m definitely no fan of grains, and I think avoiding them is one of the biggest positive steps a person can take for their overall health. That’s beside the point. As a technical feat, I find the taming of the grain incredibly impressive, a testament to mankind’s awesome ability to adapt to and overcome adversity. Any other animal that switches over to a new staple food that prevents nutrient absorption, causes intestinal perforation, and increases inflammation had better develop some physiological adaptions to deal with the antinutritive factors, and quickly, if it doesn’t want to die out or be forced to move to a new habitat. A human, though? Humans figured out a way to preserve the toxic food, make it palatable, drastically reduce its antinutrient content, and make it more digestible, thanks to the big efficient brain inside our skulls. It’s not physiology (well, kind of), it’s not some advantageous mutation that’s naturally selected and saves the day. It’s human ingenuity, knowhow, knowledge, and wisdom. It is manipulation of the environment to suit our immediate needs. That gets us into trouble on occasion, but you can’t say it isn’t impressive.
That said, will I start soaking, sprouting, and fermenting big batches of grains in my kitchen? No. It’s way too much work and it’s unclear whether the toxins are fully mitigated (and in the case of wheat, they almost certainly are not). I’ll admit that crusty sourdough bread can be a nice occasional treat when eating out, but it’s not something I’m interested in eating on a regular basis. Furthermore, I’m not missing out on any magic nutrient by avoiding grains, but I am avoiding the elaborate prep work required to make them moderately edible (and the toxins that may or may not be deactivated). For the billions that rely on grains for sustenance, these traditional preparation methods are necessary. Choosing between potentially toxic food and starvation, you choose the food – no question – and then you do your best to make it more nutritious. For those of us who don’t need to make that choice, for whom bread is an extracurricular treat, I think removing the risk altogether by simply avoiding the potentially toxic food is a better move. And if it’s carbohydrate you’re after, stick with safe starch sources like roots, tubers, or even white rice (the sole grain that requires no elaborate processing).
But at least you know there’s a better way than what most people do with grains nowadays. At least there’s somewhat of a middle ground for people who won’t relinquish the grass babies.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Why tempo is important
Tempo Training Revisited
Another look at how the science of speed of contraction can increase the effectiveness of your workouts
by Charles Poliquin
One aspect of my training programs that distinguishes them from the conventional workouts of other strength coaches is that I focus on precisely controlling all aspects of the tempo prescription. I accomplish this by defining the exact amount of muscular stimulus during the concentric, isometric and eccentric contractions of every repetition. I consider it vital to address tempo as a loading parameter in all my workouts; here’s how I do it.
Let’s start with some definitions. Speed of contraction refers to the rate of movement of the implement or limb involved in any given strength exercise. In sport science circles, it is normally described or measured in terms of degrees per second. For simplicity, I measure speed of contraction as the amount of time it takes to complete each phase of a repetition. I use the term tempo collectively to describe the total amount of time it takes to complete an entire repetition.
When I first started prescribing strength training programs, I encountered the problem that simply prescribing a specific number of repetitions for a set does not ensure that the appropriate stimulus is being applied. For example, back then if I told two athletes to perform a dumbbell row for 10 reps, one athlete might perform each repetition slowly and finish the set in 45 seconds, whereas the other athlete might perform the exercise as though they were trying to start a lawnmower and finish the set in 8.2 seconds before dropping the weight to the floor. Such variations made it difficult for me to determine the effectiveness of my workouts, as obviously each athlete was receiving a different training stimulus despite performing the same number of reps.
My interest in manipulating the speed of contraction of exercises was heightened in the early ’80s after I spent a day with German strength experts Rolf Feser and Lothar Spitz. During our discussions, they explained how athletes not only need to perform explosive ballistic contractions to create central nervous adaptations but also need to use other types of training protocols to create muscular adaptations. Also at that time Pierre Roy, a national weightlifting coach in Canada, told me he was using five-second eccentric contractions for sets of six when he wanted one of his lifters to gain size in preparatory training periods.
Olympic weightlifting champion David Rigert of Russia broke 68 world records. He was coached by Michael Rudolf Plugfelder, who was a proponent of varying the tempo prescription for strength enhancement. Photo by Bruce Klemens.
There were also the writings of Soviet lifting coach Michael Rudolf Plugfelder, who had trained Olympic weightlifting champions Vasily Alexeev and David Rigert. Alexeev was the first man to clean and jerk 500 pounds, and he broke 80 world records. Rigert started training with Plugfelder in 1969, set his first world record in 1971 and went on to break 68 world records and win Olympic gold. Plugfelder was also a proponent of varying the tempo for strength enhancement, and his ideas were supported by Professor Alexei Medvedev, head coach of the Russian weightlifting team.
As I evolved as a strength coach, I came across many weightlifting coaches from the Eastern Bloc who all believed in varying the speed of contraction, whether they were Hungarian, Polish, East German or Romanian. One problem, however, was that researchers often were aiming to find one precise – “ideal” – tempo prescription. For example, Soviet researchers S.I. Lelikov and N.N. Saxanov published a paper in 1976 entitled “The Rate of Increase in Leg Strength Depending on the Tempo of Performing Squats.” The purpose of the four-month-long study, which involved 32 subjects of various strength levels, was to determine the best tempo prescription for increasing strength in the back squat.
In introducing the purpose of the study, the authors noted, “There is no experimental research in either the weightlifting literature (or for other types of sports, for that matter) dealing with a comparative analysis of whether a fast, moderate, or slow tempo of performing exercises, under the natural conditions of training, is the most effective means for increasing strength.” Incidentally, one result of the study was that the group that trained using a moderate tempo achieved the best improvement in strength gains.
While the authors are to be commended for recognizing the importance of manipulating the speed of contraction of repetitions, we have to be careful about inferring practical information from this study. Let me explain with an analogy.
Many sport scientists, particularly in the US, have tried to find “the one” precise combination of sets and reps to produce the best gains in strength. They would compare, for example, a protocol of 10 reps for three sets to a protocol of five sets of five reps. Instead, as Dr. Mike Stone and his colleagues did in the late ’70s, they should have been experimenting with workouts that varied set/rep protocols over the duration of the study. The truth is that there is no one single, perfect, “best” speed-of-contraction protocol. In the Soviet study, it would have been interesting to have one of the experimental groups perform a slow speed of contraction for the first half of the experiment, and then a fast speed of contraction for the second half (again, a system that Pierre Roy used with much success).
When designing tempo prescriptions, there are some general guidelines you can follow that are backed by sport science. Slow-speed lifting brings about more metabolic adaptations than high-speed lifting. High-intensity, slow-speed training using isokinetic loading is also associated with increases in muscle glycogen, CP, ATP, ADP, creatine, phosphorylase, PFK, and Krebs cycle enzyme activity. Training at faster speeds does not induce these changes. Also, slow reps build the connection between the mind and the muscle, and they make a great finishing-off set.
Unlocking the Tempo Code
By the early ’80s I was prescribing a two-digit, two-letter tempo formula in my workout programs that specified the time for concentric and eccentric contractions. For example, I would write 1C:4E, meaning a one-second concentric contraction and a four-second eccentric contraction. Australian strength coach Ian King further refined the formula by adding a third number to indicate the isometric contraction, such as 421, which could have meant for a bench press that you would lower the bar to your chest in four seconds, pause for two seconds with the bar on the chest, and then press it to extended arms in one second. However, it did not specify where the pause was taken: at the disadvantageous part or the advantageous part.
So I took it one step further with a four-digit formula that allows you to determine where where the pause took place. For example, 4212 means you would lower the barbell in four seconds, pause for two seconds at the chest, raise the bar in one second, and then pause for two seconds with the bar at extended arms before beginning the next rep.
Many of you may have seen this formula before, but it deserves a more detailed explanation again for any coaches or athletes who are confused. In fact, I recently came across a popular strength training certification program that referenced my work but prescribed bizarre three-digit protocols such as “XXX for the power clean” (more on this nonsense later). Obviously, the writers of this certification did not attend any of my PICP courses. The formula that should be used is broken down as follows:
The first number refers to the eccentric part of the exercise. An eccentric contraction occurs when a muscle lengthens, such as when you lower the resistance during the descent of the squat. Eccentric training is often neglected by American strength coaches, to the detriment of their strength training programs. In fact, research by renowned biomechanist Tom McLaughlin showed that the most successful powerlifters are the ones who have the best control of the load eccentrically.
The second number refers to the isometric pause in the stretched position. This pause usually occurs between the eccentric (lowering) phase and the concentric (lifting) phase of a repetition, such as when the barbell makes contact with the chest during the bench press. Pauses in the “disadvantageous” position (i.e., poor leverage) of a lift, such as the bottom position of a squat, increase intramuscular tension, which can further boost strength development.
The third number refers to the concentric contraction. The concentric contraction occurs when a muscle shortens, such as when you curl a barbell to your shoulders. If X is used in the formula, it implies explosive action with full acceleration. Obviously, it would be dangerous to use X for the eccentric contraction of exercises such as squats and bench presses, so you will only see the X used as the third number in my prescriptions. Likewise, using an “XXX” prescription for a power clean, such as recommended in that misguided strength coaching certification, would suggest that the athlete would pull the weight off the floor as fast as possible, bounce it off their shoulders and then slam it to the floor – not exactly a safe training recommendation.
The fourth number refers to the isometric pause in the shortened position. This is the type of contraction that occurs at the end of the concentric phase, such as when a bench press is locked out. Pauses in this “advantageous” position (i.e., good leverage) also increase the recruitment of more fast-twitch fibers, which are the fibers that will provide the most increases in strength and power. In my early years as a strength coach I used a three-digit formula that ignored this pause, but I eventually concluded that it is essential in the formula to determine the precise training stimulus.
Putting it together, a 4213 tempo prescription for the bench press would mean you would lower the barbell to your chest in four seconds, pause for two seconds when the bar makes contact with your chest, press the weight to extended arms in one second, then rest three seconds when the barbell is locked out before performing another repetition.
Of all loading parameters that can be manipulated in program design for resistance training, speed of contraction is probably the most misunderstood and neglected aspects of training. But if you master the application of tempo prescription, you will enjoy greater control of your program, which will in turn bring faster and greater gains in strength and muscle development.
Another look at how the science of speed of contraction can increase the effectiveness of your workouts
by Charles Poliquin
One aspect of my training programs that distinguishes them from the conventional workouts of other strength coaches is that I focus on precisely controlling all aspects of the tempo prescription. I accomplish this by defining the exact amount of muscular stimulus during the concentric, isometric and eccentric contractions of every repetition. I consider it vital to address tempo as a loading parameter in all my workouts; here’s how I do it.
Let’s start with some definitions. Speed of contraction refers to the rate of movement of the implement or limb involved in any given strength exercise. In sport science circles, it is normally described or measured in terms of degrees per second. For simplicity, I measure speed of contraction as the amount of time it takes to complete each phase of a repetition. I use the term tempo collectively to describe the total amount of time it takes to complete an entire repetition.
When I first started prescribing strength training programs, I encountered the problem that simply prescribing a specific number of repetitions for a set does not ensure that the appropriate stimulus is being applied. For example, back then if I told two athletes to perform a dumbbell row for 10 reps, one athlete might perform each repetition slowly and finish the set in 45 seconds, whereas the other athlete might perform the exercise as though they were trying to start a lawnmower and finish the set in 8.2 seconds before dropping the weight to the floor. Such variations made it difficult for me to determine the effectiveness of my workouts, as obviously each athlete was receiving a different training stimulus despite performing the same number of reps.
My interest in manipulating the speed of contraction of exercises was heightened in the early ’80s after I spent a day with German strength experts Rolf Feser and Lothar Spitz. During our discussions, they explained how athletes not only need to perform explosive ballistic contractions to create central nervous adaptations but also need to use other types of training protocols to create muscular adaptations. Also at that time Pierre Roy, a national weightlifting coach in Canada, told me he was using five-second eccentric contractions for sets of six when he wanted one of his lifters to gain size in preparatory training periods.
Olympic weightlifting champion David Rigert of Russia broke 68 world records. He was coached by Michael Rudolf Plugfelder, who was a proponent of varying the tempo prescription for strength enhancement. Photo by Bruce Klemens.
There were also the writings of Soviet lifting coach Michael Rudolf Plugfelder, who had trained Olympic weightlifting champions Vasily Alexeev and David Rigert. Alexeev was the first man to clean and jerk 500 pounds, and he broke 80 world records. Rigert started training with Plugfelder in 1969, set his first world record in 1971 and went on to break 68 world records and win Olympic gold. Plugfelder was also a proponent of varying the tempo for strength enhancement, and his ideas were supported by Professor Alexei Medvedev, head coach of the Russian weightlifting team.
As I evolved as a strength coach, I came across many weightlifting coaches from the Eastern Bloc who all believed in varying the speed of contraction, whether they were Hungarian, Polish, East German or Romanian. One problem, however, was that researchers often were aiming to find one precise – “ideal” – tempo prescription. For example, Soviet researchers S.I. Lelikov and N.N. Saxanov published a paper in 1976 entitled “The Rate of Increase in Leg Strength Depending on the Tempo of Performing Squats.” The purpose of the four-month-long study, which involved 32 subjects of various strength levels, was to determine the best tempo prescription for increasing strength in the back squat.
In introducing the purpose of the study, the authors noted, “There is no experimental research in either the weightlifting literature (or for other types of sports, for that matter) dealing with a comparative analysis of whether a fast, moderate, or slow tempo of performing exercises, under the natural conditions of training, is the most effective means for increasing strength.” Incidentally, one result of the study was that the group that trained using a moderate tempo achieved the best improvement in strength gains.
While the authors are to be commended for recognizing the importance of manipulating the speed of contraction of repetitions, we have to be careful about inferring practical information from this study. Let me explain with an analogy.
Many sport scientists, particularly in the US, have tried to find “the one” precise combination of sets and reps to produce the best gains in strength. They would compare, for example, a protocol of 10 reps for three sets to a protocol of five sets of five reps. Instead, as Dr. Mike Stone and his colleagues did in the late ’70s, they should have been experimenting with workouts that varied set/rep protocols over the duration of the study. The truth is that there is no one single, perfect, “best” speed-of-contraction protocol. In the Soviet study, it would have been interesting to have one of the experimental groups perform a slow speed of contraction for the first half of the experiment, and then a fast speed of contraction for the second half (again, a system that Pierre Roy used with much success).
When designing tempo prescriptions, there are some general guidelines you can follow that are backed by sport science. Slow-speed lifting brings about more metabolic adaptations than high-speed lifting. High-intensity, slow-speed training using isokinetic loading is also associated with increases in muscle glycogen, CP, ATP, ADP, creatine, phosphorylase, PFK, and Krebs cycle enzyme activity. Training at faster speeds does not induce these changes. Also, slow reps build the connection between the mind and the muscle, and they make a great finishing-off set.
Unlocking the Tempo Code
By the early ’80s I was prescribing a two-digit, two-letter tempo formula in my workout programs that specified the time for concentric and eccentric contractions. For example, I would write 1C:4E, meaning a one-second concentric contraction and a four-second eccentric contraction. Australian strength coach Ian King further refined the formula by adding a third number to indicate the isometric contraction, such as 421, which could have meant for a bench press that you would lower the bar to your chest in four seconds, pause for two seconds with the bar on the chest, and then press it to extended arms in one second. However, it did not specify where the pause was taken: at the disadvantageous part or the advantageous part.
So I took it one step further with a four-digit formula that allows you to determine where where the pause took place. For example, 4212 means you would lower the barbell in four seconds, pause for two seconds at the chest, raise the bar in one second, and then pause for two seconds with the bar at extended arms before beginning the next rep.
Many of you may have seen this formula before, but it deserves a more detailed explanation again for any coaches or athletes who are confused. In fact, I recently came across a popular strength training certification program that referenced my work but prescribed bizarre three-digit protocols such as “XXX for the power clean” (more on this nonsense later). Obviously, the writers of this certification did not attend any of my PICP courses. The formula that should be used is broken down as follows:
The first number refers to the eccentric part of the exercise. An eccentric contraction occurs when a muscle lengthens, such as when you lower the resistance during the descent of the squat. Eccentric training is often neglected by American strength coaches, to the detriment of their strength training programs. In fact, research by renowned biomechanist Tom McLaughlin showed that the most successful powerlifters are the ones who have the best control of the load eccentrically.
The second number refers to the isometric pause in the stretched position. This pause usually occurs between the eccentric (lowering) phase and the concentric (lifting) phase of a repetition, such as when the barbell makes contact with the chest during the bench press. Pauses in the “disadvantageous” position (i.e., poor leverage) of a lift, such as the bottom position of a squat, increase intramuscular tension, which can further boost strength development.
The third number refers to the concentric contraction. The concentric contraction occurs when a muscle shortens, such as when you curl a barbell to your shoulders. If X is used in the formula, it implies explosive action with full acceleration. Obviously, it would be dangerous to use X for the eccentric contraction of exercises such as squats and bench presses, so you will only see the X used as the third number in my prescriptions. Likewise, using an “XXX” prescription for a power clean, such as recommended in that misguided strength coaching certification, would suggest that the athlete would pull the weight off the floor as fast as possible, bounce it off their shoulders and then slam it to the floor – not exactly a safe training recommendation.
The fourth number refers to the isometric pause in the shortened position. This is the type of contraction that occurs at the end of the concentric phase, such as when a bench press is locked out. Pauses in this “advantageous” position (i.e., good leverage) also increase the recruitment of more fast-twitch fibers, which are the fibers that will provide the most increases in strength and power. In my early years as a strength coach I used a three-digit formula that ignored this pause, but I eventually concluded that it is essential in the formula to determine the precise training stimulus.
Putting it together, a 4213 tempo prescription for the bench press would mean you would lower the barbell to your chest in four seconds, pause for two seconds when the bar makes contact with your chest, press the weight to extended arms in one second, then rest three seconds when the barbell is locked out before performing another repetition.
Of all loading parameters that can be manipulated in program design for resistance training, speed of contraction is probably the most misunderstood and neglected aspects of training. But if you master the application of tempo prescription, you will enjoy greater control of your program, which will in turn bring faster and greater gains in strength and muscle development.
Coconut water claims questioned
Disappointing read, love coconut water as a post-workout drink, sometimes mixed in with some recovery powder and raw milk.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/05/coconut-water-label-claims-questioned/?hpt=he_c2
Coconut water label claims questioned
Coconut water, which came to fame as a celebrity health fad, has become an increasingly popular way to stay hydrated or recover after a workout.
Filled with electrolytes like sodium and magnesium, the slightly sweet water has come to be seen as a natural alternative to sports drinks like Gatorade.
That reputation may not be entirely deserved. According to a report released today by an independent health-product testing firm, the nutritional content of some brands of coconut water doesn't live up to what's on the label.
Researchers at ConsumerLab.com tested the sodium, potassium, magnesium, and sugar content of three leading brands of coconut water, and they found that only one, Zico Natural, contained the stated amount for all four ingredients.
Health.com: POM-boozled: Do health drinks live up to their labels?
The sugar and potassium content in the other two brands, Vita Coco and O.N.E., also matched the label. But the amounts of sodium and magnesium—two nutrients key to hydration—were as much as 82% and 35% lower, respectively, than the listed amount.
Since the electrolyte content is one of the main selling points of these drinks, thirsty consumers may not be getting what they paid for, says Bonnie Taub-Dix, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association.
"When something like this becomes wildly popular, people have a tendency to look at the claims rather than reality," says Taub-Dix, the author of Read It Before You Eat It. "If you're working out and sweating a lot, this isn't going to do the trick."
Taub-Dix recommends hydrating with water instead and getting nutrients like sodium and potassium from foods such as bananas and almond butter. And unless you're running a marathon or climbing mountains, she adds, you probably don't need a sports drink.
Health.com: Best superfoods for weight loss
Tod Cooperman, the president of ConsumerLab.com, says the growing popularity of coconut water got the company's attention and prompted the testing. "This was really the first look into what's really in these bottles and whether or not they live up to their claims," he says.
"If you enjoy the taste of coconut water, they're fine, but I wouldn't rely on them for rehydrating after strenuous exercise," he adds.
Arthur Gallego, the director of communications for Vita Coco, said in a statement that he could not comment specifically on the report, as the company has not thoroughly reviewed it.
He noted, however, that Vita Coco is derived from coconuts grown in multiple locations in Brazil and Southeast Asia, and that the individual cartons tested by ConsumerLab.com aren't necessarily representative of Vita Coco's average nutritional content.
The company routinely conducts its own tests, and some variation in electrolytes between batches (or lots) is normal, he added.
Health.com: Health products you don't need
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not test the nutrient content of foods itself, and the agency does not specify how companies should do so. Nor do they do prohibit food and drink manufacturers from using average values if the nutrient content varies from batch to batch, as long as "a manufacturer is confident that the values obtained meet FDA's compliance criteria."
The test results don't mean that consumers should pass on coconut water altogether. Though some cartons may contain lower-than-expected electrolyte levels, the drinks are a healthy, low-calorie alternative to soda or fruit juice, Taub-Dix says.
"If you're looking to cut your calories and looking for something tropical, sure, but when it comes to hydration, it may not work as well as some other fluids," she says.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/05/coconut-water-label-claims-questioned/?hpt=he_c2
Coconut water label claims questioned
Coconut water, which came to fame as a celebrity health fad, has become an increasingly popular way to stay hydrated or recover after a workout.
Filled with electrolytes like sodium and magnesium, the slightly sweet water has come to be seen as a natural alternative to sports drinks like Gatorade.
That reputation may not be entirely deserved. According to a report released today by an independent health-product testing firm, the nutritional content of some brands of coconut water doesn't live up to what's on the label.
Researchers at ConsumerLab.com tested the sodium, potassium, magnesium, and sugar content of three leading brands of coconut water, and they found that only one, Zico Natural, contained the stated amount for all four ingredients.
Health.com: POM-boozled: Do health drinks live up to their labels?
The sugar and potassium content in the other two brands, Vita Coco and O.N.E., also matched the label. But the amounts of sodium and magnesium—two nutrients key to hydration—were as much as 82% and 35% lower, respectively, than the listed amount.
Since the electrolyte content is one of the main selling points of these drinks, thirsty consumers may not be getting what they paid for, says Bonnie Taub-Dix, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association.
"When something like this becomes wildly popular, people have a tendency to look at the claims rather than reality," says Taub-Dix, the author of Read It Before You Eat It. "If you're working out and sweating a lot, this isn't going to do the trick."
Taub-Dix recommends hydrating with water instead and getting nutrients like sodium and potassium from foods such as bananas and almond butter. And unless you're running a marathon or climbing mountains, she adds, you probably don't need a sports drink.
Health.com: Best superfoods for weight loss
Tod Cooperman, the president of ConsumerLab.com, says the growing popularity of coconut water got the company's attention and prompted the testing. "This was really the first look into what's really in these bottles and whether or not they live up to their claims," he says.
"If you enjoy the taste of coconut water, they're fine, but I wouldn't rely on them for rehydrating after strenuous exercise," he adds.
Arthur Gallego, the director of communications for Vita Coco, said in a statement that he could not comment specifically on the report, as the company has not thoroughly reviewed it.
He noted, however, that Vita Coco is derived from coconuts grown in multiple locations in Brazil and Southeast Asia, and that the individual cartons tested by ConsumerLab.com aren't necessarily representative of Vita Coco's average nutritional content.
The company routinely conducts its own tests, and some variation in electrolytes between batches (or lots) is normal, he added.
Health.com: Health products you don't need
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not test the nutrient content of foods itself, and the agency does not specify how companies should do so. Nor do they do prohibit food and drink manufacturers from using average values if the nutrient content varies from batch to batch, as long as "a manufacturer is confident that the values obtained meet FDA's compliance criteria."
The test results don't mean that consumers should pass on coconut water altogether. Though some cartons may contain lower-than-expected electrolyte levels, the drinks are a healthy, low-calorie alternative to soda or fruit juice, Taub-Dix says.
"If you're looking to cut your calories and looking for something tropical, sure, but when it comes to hydration, it may not work as well as some other fluids," she says.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Training Aug 4
Perseverance
function
A. Standing Press @ 22X2; 3-5 x 5; rest 3 min
(2 sec down to rack, pause 2 sec on rack, ecplode up, 2 sec pause overhead)
B. GHD Sit Ups - 20,15,10,5; rest 45 sec
(try to complete unbroken)
C. As many Double Unders in 10 min
being
A. Hang Power Clean - 3,3,2,2,2; rest 2 min
B. Clean Pulls @ 13X0 - 120% Max clean - 2-3 x 5; rest 2 min
C. Power Clean - 2,2,2,2; rest 3 min
D. As many dips + 1/2 BWT added in 8 min
will
A. Clean - build to a tough single in 10 min
B. Press - 5,5,5; rest 2 min
+
5 sets:
1 rope ascent - 20' legless
5 TnG Jerk - 155#/100#
6 x 24" box jump overs
Airdyne 20 sec @ 100%
rest 6 min actively
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Training Aug 2 - New Groups!
First day of the new OPT groups. If you plan on following this programming, pick a group now and do your best to stick with it strictly. Each one has been laid out with a purpose in mind. Can see this post for an explanation http://optexperience.com/blog/item/july-23-2011
function
rowing:
for 5-7 min row easy warming up
every 1 min sprint somewhat challenging for 10 sec
then...
sprint 40 sec @ just below your top end effort
rest 3:20 off the rower walking actively
(repeat this for 6 total repetitions)
- ensure PERFECT form - record as needed for one set and post video
- work on drive through whole foot, keep lats down and locked on start of drive
- oar over knees 1st before knee bend on recovery
being
part 1:
hill runs
45-60 sec grinder pace - work on arm drive and high knees
run down easy x 6
(walk rest 4 min)
45-60 sec uphill fast pace
walk down 3 min x 3
(includes d-rom warm up and good cool down)
rest as needed
part 2:
A. back squat @ 30X1; 3-4 x 5; rest 5 min
B. Chin Ups Medium Grip Pronated @ 21X0; 2-3 x 7; rest 2.5 min
C. gh raises @ 2010; 12 x 4; rest 1 min
will
A. behind the neck jerk - singles on the minute - add till -10-15% of 1RM
(no more than 5 tough sets)
B. power snatch x 1/snatch balance x 1/OHS x 1 - 80% effort; rest 90 sec x 4
C. on the minute for 8 min:
3 clean and jerk - 185/135#
6 KBS - 88#/55#
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)