Monday, January 6, 2014
Top crossfit athletes like Annie Thorisdottir and Rich Froning Jr.
(pictured below; photos from Crossfitthestables.com and List09.com) look
like bodybuilders even though their training practices are markedly
different from those of most top natural bodybuilders. It is
instructive, from a human physiology perspective, to try to understand
why.
First of all we should make it clear that what makes Annie Thorisdottir
and Rich Froning Jr. look the way they do is not only crossfit training.
Genetics plays a key role here. Some people don’t accept this argument
at all. Can you imagine someone arguing that top basketball players are
generally tall because the stretching and reaching moves inherent in
playing basketball make them tall? Top basketball players are not tall
because they play basketball; the causality is stronger in the opposite
direction: they play basketball because they are tall. The situation is
not all that different with top crossfit competitors.
Often people will point at before and after photos as evidence that
anyone can achieve the level of muscularity of a champion natural
bodybuilder, if they do the right things. The problem with these before
and after photos is that one can “go down” in terms of muscularity and
definition quite a lot, but there is a clear ceiling in terms of “going
up”. For example, if one goes from competitive marathon running to
competitive bodybuilding, after a few years the difference will be
dramatic if the person has the genetics necessary to gain a lot of
muscle.
In other words, those who have the genetics to become very muscular can
lose muscle and/or gain body fat to the point that they would look like
they don’t have much genetic potential for muscle gain. Someone who
doesn’t have the required genetics, on the other hand, will also be very
effective at losing muscle and/or gaining body fat, but will be much
more limited at the upper end of the scale.
The table below is from a widely cited and classic study by Fryburg and
colleagues on the effects of growth hormone, insulin, and amino acid
infusion on muscle accretion of protein. The article is available online
as a PDF file (1).
The measurements shown on the table were taken basally (BAS) and at 3 h
and 6 h after the start of the infusions, one of which was of a
balanced amino acid mixture that raised arterial phenylalanine
concentration to about twice what it was before the infusion.
Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids present in muscle (2).
There were four experimental conditions, two with only amino acid
infusion, one with insulin and amino acid infusions, and one with
insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and amino acid infusions. Protein
synthesis and breakdown numbers are based on phenylalanine kinetics
inferences. The balance number is based on the synthesis and breakdown
numbers; the former minus the latter. Note that at BAS the balance is
always negative; this implies a net amino acid loss from muscle. At BAS
the measurements were taken after a 12 h fast.
All infusions – of insulin, IGF-1, and amino acids – were continuously
applied during the 6 h period. There was no exercise involved in this
infusion study, and the amino acid mixture was balanced; as opposed to
focused on certain amino acids, such as BCAAs.
The numbers in the table suggest that insulin infusion brings the
balance to positive territory at the 3-h mark, with the effect wearing
down at 6 h. IGF-1 infusion brings the balance to positive territory at 3
h, with the effect increasing and almost doubling at 6 h. Amino acid
infusion alone brings the balance to positive territory a bit at 3 h and
6 h, and much less than when it is combined with insulin or IGF-1
infusions.
The effects of these infusions were due to both reductions in breakdown
(amino acid loss) and increases in synthesis. We see that insulin exerts
its effect on the balance primarily by suppressing breakdown. IGF-1
exerts its effect on the balance primarily by increasing synthesis. The
effect of IGF-1 on the balance is significantly stronger than those of
insulin and amino acid infusions, even when these latter two are taken
together.
While this is an infusion study, one can derive conclusions about what
would happen in response to different types of exercise and nutrients.
Under real life conditions, insulin will increase in response to
ingestion of carbohydrates and/or protein. IGF-1 will increase in
response to growth hormone (GH) elevation, of which a major trigger is
intense exercise.
The type of exercise that leads to the highest elevation of GH levels is
intense exercise that raises heart rate significantly and rapidly.
Examples are sprints, large-muscle resistance exercise, and resistance
exercise involving multiple muscles at the same time. At the very high
end of GH secretion are exercises that use large upper and lower body
muscles at the same time, such as the deadlift. At the low end of GH
secretion are localized small-muscle exercises, such as calf raises and
isolated curls.
Anecdotally it seems that, at least for beginners, those exercises that
lead to the highest GH secretion are the least “comfortable” for them.
That is, those are the exercises that cause the most “huffing and
puffing”. So next time you do an exercise like that, use this as a
motivator: these are the exercises with the biggest return on
investment; whether you are looking for health improvement, muscle gain,
or both.
Competitive crossfit practitioners tend to favor variations of
high-intensity interval training (HIIT), with an emphasis on a blend of
endurance and strength exercises. Endurance and strength are both needed
in crossfit competition. Competitive bodybuilders tend to focus more on
strength, often exercising with more resistance or weight than
competitive crossfit practitioners.
Extrapolating from the infusion study, one could argue that high GH
secretion exercises are critical for amino acid accretion in muscle.
Both groups mentioned above – competitive crossfit practitioners and
competitive bodybuilders – exercise in ways that lead to high GH
secretion. Surprising as this may sound (to some), if you do chin-ups,
you’ll probably have better results in terms of biceps hypertrophy than
if you do isolated bicep curls. This will happen even though the overall
load on the bicep muscles will be lower with the chin-ups. The reason
is that the GH secretion will be significantly higher with the chin-ups,
because more muscles are involved at the same time, including large
ones (e.g. the lats).
It is interesting to see competitive crossfit practitioners talking about needing to lose some weight but not being able to (3).
The reason is that they do not have much body fat to lose, and the
types of exercise that they do create such a powerful stimulus toward
positive nitrogen balance (4) that they end up gaining weight even as they restrict calorie intake.
Carbohydrate ingestion prior to exercise may raise insulin levels, but
will blunt GH secretion; protein without carbohydrate, on the other
hand, will raise insulin levels without blunting GH secretion (5).
Whether ingesting protein immediately before exercising is necessarily
good in the long run is an open question, however, because GH secretion
is likely to be greater for someone who is exercising in the fasted
state, as GH secretion is in part a response to glycogen depletion (6, 7).
And, as we have seen from the infusion study, GH secretion is
disproportionately important as a positive nitrogen balance factor.
Compensatory adaptation applied to human biology (8)
suggests that the body responds to challenges over time, in a
compensatory way. Which scenario poses the bigger challenge: (a) high GH
exercise with more amino acid loss during the exercise, or (b) high GH
exercise with less amino acid loss during the exercise? I think it is
(a), because the message being sent to the body is that “we need more
muscle to do all of this and still compensate for the loss during
exercise”.
Maybe this is why top crossfit practitioners end up looking like
bodybuilders, and cannot lose muscle even when a slightly lighter frame
would make them more competitive in crossfit games. Their bodies are
just responding to the stimuli they are getting.
(pictured below; photos from Crossfitthestables.com and List09.com) look
like bodybuilders even though their training practices are markedly
different from those of most top natural bodybuilders. It is
instructive, from a human physiology perspective, to try to understand
why.
First of all we should make it clear that what makes Annie Thorisdottir
and Rich Froning Jr. look the way they do is not only crossfit training.
Genetics plays a key role here. Some people don’t accept this argument
at all. Can you imagine someone arguing that top basketball players are
generally tall because the stretching and reaching moves inherent in
playing basketball make them tall? Top basketball players are not tall
because they play basketball; the causality is stronger in the opposite
direction: they play basketball because they are tall. The situation is
not all that different with top crossfit competitors.
Often people will point at before and after photos as evidence that
anyone can achieve the level of muscularity of a champion natural
bodybuilder, if they do the right things. The problem with these before
and after photos is that one can “go down” in terms of muscularity and
definition quite a lot, but there is a clear ceiling in terms of “going
up”. For example, if one goes from competitive marathon running to
competitive bodybuilding, after a few years the difference will be
dramatic if the person has the genetics necessary to gain a lot of
muscle.
In other words, those who have the genetics to become very muscular can
lose muscle and/or gain body fat to the point that they would look like
they don’t have much genetic potential for muscle gain. Someone who
doesn’t have the required genetics, on the other hand, will also be very
effective at losing muscle and/or gaining body fat, but will be much
more limited at the upper end of the scale.
The table below is from a widely cited and classic study by Fryburg and
colleagues on the effects of growth hormone, insulin, and amino acid
infusion on muscle accretion of protein. The article is available online
as a PDF file (1).
The measurements shown on the table were taken basally (BAS) and at 3 h
and 6 h after the start of the infusions, one of which was of a
balanced amino acid mixture that raised arterial phenylalanine
concentration to about twice what it was before the infusion.
Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids present in muscle (2).
There were four experimental conditions, two with only amino acid
infusion, one with insulin and amino acid infusions, and one with
insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and amino acid infusions. Protein
synthesis and breakdown numbers are based on phenylalanine kinetics
inferences. The balance number is based on the synthesis and breakdown
numbers; the former minus the latter. Note that at BAS the balance is
always negative; this implies a net amino acid loss from muscle. At BAS
the measurements were taken after a 12 h fast.
All infusions – of insulin, IGF-1, and amino acids – were continuously
applied during the 6 h period. There was no exercise involved in this
infusion study, and the amino acid mixture was balanced; as opposed to
focused on certain amino acids, such as BCAAs.
The numbers in the table suggest that insulin infusion brings the
balance to positive territory at the 3-h mark, with the effect wearing
down at 6 h. IGF-1 infusion brings the balance to positive territory at 3
h, with the effect increasing and almost doubling at 6 h. Amino acid
infusion alone brings the balance to positive territory a bit at 3 h and
6 h, and much less than when it is combined with insulin or IGF-1
infusions.
The effects of these infusions were due to both reductions in breakdown
(amino acid loss) and increases in synthesis. We see that insulin exerts
its effect on the balance primarily by suppressing breakdown. IGF-1
exerts its effect on the balance primarily by increasing synthesis. The
effect of IGF-1 on the balance is significantly stronger than those of
insulin and amino acid infusions, even when these latter two are taken
together.
While this is an infusion study, one can derive conclusions about what
would happen in response to different types of exercise and nutrients.
Under real life conditions, insulin will increase in response to
ingestion of carbohydrates and/or protein. IGF-1 will increase in
response to growth hormone (GH) elevation, of which a major trigger is
intense exercise.
The type of exercise that leads to the highest elevation of GH levels is
intense exercise that raises heart rate significantly and rapidly.
Examples are sprints, large-muscle resistance exercise, and resistance
exercise involving multiple muscles at the same time. At the very high
end of GH secretion are exercises that use large upper and lower body
muscles at the same time, such as the deadlift. At the low end of GH
secretion are localized small-muscle exercises, such as calf raises and
isolated curls.
Anecdotally it seems that, at least for beginners, those exercises that
lead to the highest GH secretion are the least “comfortable” for them.
That is, those are the exercises that cause the most “huffing and
puffing”. So next time you do an exercise like that, use this as a
motivator: these are the exercises with the biggest return on
investment; whether you are looking for health improvement, muscle gain,
or both.
Competitive crossfit practitioners tend to favor variations of
high-intensity interval training (HIIT), with an emphasis on a blend of
endurance and strength exercises. Endurance and strength are both needed
in crossfit competition. Competitive bodybuilders tend to focus more on
strength, often exercising with more resistance or weight than
competitive crossfit practitioners.
Extrapolating from the infusion study, one could argue that high GH
secretion exercises are critical for amino acid accretion in muscle.
Both groups mentioned above – competitive crossfit practitioners and
competitive bodybuilders – exercise in ways that lead to high GH
secretion. Surprising as this may sound (to some), if you do chin-ups,
you’ll probably have better results in terms of biceps hypertrophy than
if you do isolated bicep curls. This will happen even though the overall
load on the bicep muscles will be lower with the chin-ups. The reason
is that the GH secretion will be significantly higher with the chin-ups,
because more muscles are involved at the same time, including large
ones (e.g. the lats).
It is interesting to see competitive crossfit practitioners talking about needing to lose some weight but not being able to (3).
The reason is that they do not have much body fat to lose, and the
types of exercise that they do create such a powerful stimulus toward
positive nitrogen balance (4) that they end up gaining weight even as they restrict calorie intake.
Carbohydrate ingestion prior to exercise may raise insulin levels, but
will blunt GH secretion; protein without carbohydrate, on the other
hand, will raise insulin levels without blunting GH secretion (5).
Whether ingesting protein immediately before exercising is necessarily
good in the long run is an open question, however, because GH secretion
is likely to be greater for someone who is exercising in the fasted
state, as GH secretion is in part a response to glycogen depletion (6, 7).
And, as we have seen from the infusion study, GH secretion is
disproportionately important as a positive nitrogen balance factor.
Compensatory adaptation applied to human biology (8)
suggests that the body responds to challenges over time, in a
compensatory way. Which scenario poses the bigger challenge: (a) high GH
exercise with more amino acid loss during the exercise, or (b) high GH
exercise with less amino acid loss during the exercise? I think it is
(a), because the message being sent to the body is that “we need more
muscle to do all of this and still compensate for the loss during
exercise”.
Maybe this is why top crossfit practitioners end up looking like
bodybuilders, and cannot lose muscle even when a slightly lighter frame
would make them more competitive in crossfit games. Their bodies are
just responding to the stimuli they are getting.
21 comments:
Sam Knox
said...
- Ned:
I think it's misleading to use Crossfit Games competitors as examples of the effects of Crossfit-style training. They don't train for the games by doing WODs, they train in the same way that anyone would for that kind of competition: lifting weights and doing high-intensity intervals.
js290
said...
- Ned,
Nassim Taleb talks about the "Swimmer's Body" in Fooled by Randomness. Also, I think it was George Hackenschmidt (inventor of the 'Hack squat') that said health cannot be divorced from strength.
http://youtu.be/y-ufSYBcZa0?t=3m54s
Thorisdottir and Froning could probably be competitive bodybuilders if they chose to do that instead. Most people probably just have unrealistic expectations of what their own bodies.
john
said...
- Most elite crossfitters are coming from a healthy background, with lots
of training and athletic activity. The average crossfitter is usually
somewhat unmotivated, unfit, and overweight.
I think almost anyone can achieve a good physique, but maybe crossfit is not the optimal way. Hard work in the weight room combined with careful dieting will probably be better than doing WODs.
john
said...
- Oh, also we should consider the naivety of the public to think tested athletes are not using illegal drugs. Those physiques are certainly achievable without gear, but the level of performance is maybe not. Froning gained considerable muscle since starting competitive crossfit.
Anonymous
said...
- These guys - the CF athletes that are actually strong - long ago stopped
doing CF work outs and use standard strength/lifting programming. This
is fairly well known.
Cf doesn't make people strong. It makes them less weak.
johnnyv
said...
- The elite cross fitters got and maintain their physiques via standard
body building hypertrophy work. On its own cross fit makes woman look
good and men look weak as it is mostly endurance and poor form.
A structured resistance training regimen in combination with HIIT is VASTLY superior in terms of promoting hypertrophy.
Martin
said...
- Is the recommendation of eating high carb and protein postworkout meal wrong? Is it reducing the GH response?
goodwinnihon
said...
- cross-fit or not, but i'm doing HIIT push-ups to heat up and to save on heating)...:
http://youtu.be/aBx7sKkjklo
Anonymous
said...
- Nobody in my crossfit gym looks remotely like Annie or Froning, even the
super studs that finish minutes before everyone else or lift 25-50%
more. They work out 5-6 times per week and are religious about diet,
calories, pre and post workout nutrition etc.
Frankly I have no idea how the crossfit competitors achieve these physiques. Froning supposedly eats primarily peanut butter and whole milk and then whatever he wants whenever he wants. This is so obviously BS that we probably have no idea what he really does.
I don't want to say that they are all juicing, but gaining 25-50 pounds of lean muscle is nearly impossible under normal circumstances.
Ned Kock
said...
- Hi Martin. Carbohydrate ingestion PRIOR to exercise is a problem; it may raise insulin levels, but will blunt GH secretion.
rs711
said...
- Hi Ned,
Fasted training for a superlative all-round stimulus makes a lot of sense to me but I'm missing a piece...I wonder about our gluconeogenic capacity: how capable is it for fuelling HIIT style workouts on a ketogenic diet? A lot of the anecdotal evidence one hears about suggests a disadvantage in this state when attempting this sort of exercising...however, on the other hand, glycogen stores don't ever really get totally depleted as far as I understand (except in starvation scenarios of course). How does this all fit together (theoretically at least)?
Matthew Green
said...
- Awesome ideas!
Ned Kock
said...
- Hi rs711. Muscle holds on to glycogen greedily, releasing it only during
glycogen-depleting exercise such as sprints and weight training. Liver
glycogen is another story; it is there to supply the needs of the brain,
so the liver releases it as glucose regularly.
The average body, mostly the brain, consumes about 5 g of glucose per hour. Most of it comes from the liver glycogen tank. Pregnant women are the main exception; they have two (or more) brains to feed.
If liver glycogen reserves are low, the body uses amino acids from muscle for GN, to supply the needs of the brain. Muscle cells are not lost in this case, and those amino acids that are lost are recovered when nitrogen balance becomes positive.
As I’ve said here before, the main stimulus for amino acid loss in muscle is not lack of protein ingestion, it is lack of muscle use (but, of course, dietary protein is important). If one’s arm is immobilized, its muscles will atrophy regardless of how much protein is ingested.
Ned Kock
said...
- There is always a limit to everything, including stimuli for
compensatory adaptation. When it comes to exercising in a fasted state, I
would argue that the limit is reached (or is very close to being
reached) when one starts experiencing orthostatic hypotension; i.e.,
feeling dizzy when going from a sitting to a standing position. See this
post for more details on this and suggestions on how to address the
problem:
http://bit.ly/u0QVd8
raphi
said...
- Thanks for the info Ned. I went back and read http://bit.ly/u0QVd8 - the
only time I experienced orthostatic hypotension is in my pre-Paleo days
always after long bouts of TV-watching, something I don't experience
anymore (the ortho.-hyp. or the long TV-watching).
Just for info: 2 days ago, after 15-16h of fasting + coffee + green tea, I did a short but relatively intense workout (~15min) and took some blood sugar readings. 147 mg/dl (20min after), 124 mg/dl (45min after), 102 mg/dl (1hr after)...and 20min after I ate my typical high-fat, quite low-carb meal my blood sugar was down to 70 mg/dl !
How typical is this? For info I am definitely fat-adapted, 24yrs old, male, and my fasting blood sugars are usually in the mid 70s-80s.
Simba Lion
said...
- Hi Dear.
Your blog is really a Million dollars sharing.
It really helpful for people and always seams a motivational blog for them.
I would like to add one thing more in your blog from my experience.
I tried a Beachbody product named as P90X Challenge Pack by TOny Horton. Its basically a Fitness workout and really it works just within 90 days.
I suggest you all to try it at least one time you'll absolutely love this P90X product.
Gexton
said...
- Great article Lot's of information to Read... Great Man Keep Posting and update to People..Thanks
Buy Peptides
William Read
said...
- Hi Ned
Always enjoy your discussions. I agree with you that genetics are key. I remeber back in my competitive running days in school that we all did the same workouts at the same intensity but the results were wildly different suggesting that some people simply respond better to the training. Speaking of myself, my family has a tendency to become diabetic at a low weight ie become skinny fat. My sister died at 63 years old from complications from diabetes and she was not that heavy and father became prediabetic at 170 lbs which is not that heavy. My distance running I think has kept me getting diabetes but I am fairly thin and under muscled. Then about four years ago I started adding strength training to my training. Today I mostly strength train with my running which is very intermittent being about one third what I used to do. I have gained about 15 lbs with no change in my waist which I think is really good. I still only weigh 162-165 lbs at 5-10. I have noticed significant improvement in my health also except I get orthostatic hypotension often when I get up from a laying or sitting position, sometimes rather severe, sometimes during the workout also. I am 56 years old and I am wondering if I should be having more protien before the workout might help?
Ned Kock
said...
- Hi raphi. You may want to take a look at this:
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/07/our-bodys-priority-is-preventing.html
Ned Kock
said...
- Hi William. OH is associated with an abnormal elevation of stress
hormones; sometimes people push themselves too far in their workouts.
You remind me a bit of Jeff O’Connell, Editor-in-Chief for Bodybuilding.com. I reviewed his book, which I think you’d find very relevant to your case:
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-sugar-nation.html
Leroy DAvis
said...
- wow!! that was an awesome result! i wanna try it!.. http://preserveyoursexyhealth.com/blog/
