Reviews
-
Half Marathon
I just finished training for 130 miles and running the Boulder Half Marathon on these shoes. They're Awesome!
Saturday, 13 June 2015
Neo VIVOBAREFOOT
Bill DeSimone - High Intensity Training Interview of the Month -| High Intensity Nation - The Go-To Place On The Internet For High Intensity Training
Bill DeSimone - High Intensity Training Interview of the Month
This month’s interview is definitely one of the most unique, refreshing-and controversial-that I have done so far. Our special guest this month is the author of the new training book Congruent Exercise, Bill DeSimone.
Bill is an experienced personal trainer, having started in 1983, and
now owns his own studio-Optimal Exercise in Cranbury, New Jersey.
His
own training-induced injuries led to his unique approach to exercise,
where he applies textbook biomechanics to conventional free-weight and
machine strength training. He was also a VERY popular speaker at last
year’s HIT Resurgence Conference (I believe he will be at this year’s conference also, which you should definitely plan on attending).
As Bill says in Congruent Exercise: “You can get all the benefits of
weight training, without the risk and frustration, by applying the
appropriate joint movements, postures, moment arms, i.e. biomechanics,
to your exercises. And you’ll be able to apply this anywhere, whether
you are surrounded by the most current, high tech, selectorized
machines, or sewer plates on a rusty bar, or doing chin-ups on a tree,
because the one constant is your body and biomechanics.”
This is no run-of-the-mill training stuff Bill is talking about
here. I have noticed for a very long time that many people who I
considered experts in exercise and/or High Intensity Training were very
weak when it came to utilizing orthopedically friendly, biomechanically
sound techniques and positions.
Bill has spent a lot of time and effort studying this issue, and as a
result he has come up with some fresh and fascinating ideas and
techniques.
Listen now to this thought-provoking interview as Bill challenges strength training dogma and reveals:
This month’s interview is definitely one of the most unique, refreshing-and controversial-that I have done so far. Our special guest this month is the author of the new training book Congruent Exercise, Bill DeSimone.
Bill is an experienced personal trainer, having started in 1983, and
now owns his own studio-Optimal Exercise in Cranbury, New Jersey.
Hisown training-induced injuries led to his unique approach to exercise,
where he applies textbook biomechanics to conventional free-weight and
machine strength training. He was also a VERY popular speaker at last
year’s HIT Resurgence Conference (I believe he will be at this year’s conference also, which you should definitely plan on attending).
As Bill says in Congruent Exercise: “You can get all the benefits of
weight training, without the risk and frustration, by applying the
appropriate joint movements, postures, moment arms, i.e. biomechanics,
to your exercises. And you’ll be able to apply this anywhere, whether
you are surrounded by the most current, high tech, selectorized
machines, or sewer plates on a rusty bar, or doing chin-ups on a tree,
because the one constant is your body and biomechanics.”
This is no run-of-the-mill training stuff Bill is talking about
here. I have noticed for a very long time that many people who I
considered experts in exercise and/or High Intensity Training were very
weak when it came to utilizing orthopedically friendly, biomechanically
sound techniques and positions.
Bill has spent a lot of time and effort studying this issue, and as a
result he has come up with some fresh and fascinating ideas and
techniques.
Listen now to this thought-provoking interview as Bill challenges strength training dogma and reveals:
- How a skating accident shaped his training philosophy
- His perspective on the teachings of Mike Mentzer, from 1976 through 2001 (wow-did he really just say that?)
- Examples of what “congruent exercise” means, and how it can help you
- His take on rep speed and full range of motion
- The relationship between joint function and torque as it applies to exercise (super interesting)
- His “Anti-Inflammation Theme” nutritional philosophy
- What he means by “functional fairy dust” (hilarious)
- And much, much more!
Sunday, 19 April 2015
Heavy physical activity may significantly reduce heart disease deaths, especially after age 45
Health Correlator: Heavy physical activity may significantly reduce heart disease deaths, especially after age 45
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
The idea that heavy physical activity is a main trigger of heart attacks
is widespread. Often endurance running and cardio-type activities are
singled out. Some people refer to this as “death by running”. Others
think that strength training has a higher lethal potential. We know
based on the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study that this is a myth (1)
Here is some evidence that heavy physical activity in fact has a
significant protective effect. The graph below shows the number of
deaths from coronary heart disease, organized by age group, in
longshoremen (dock workers). The shaded bars represent those whose level
of activity at work was considered heavy. The unshaded bars represent
those whose level of activity at work was considered moderate or light
(essentially below the “heavy” level).
The data is based on an old and classic study of 6351 men, aged 35 to 74
years, who were followed either for 22 years, or to death, or to the
age of 75. It shows a significant protective effect of heavy activity,
especially after age 45 (2).
The numbers atop the unshaded bars reflect the relative risk of death
from coronary heart disease in each age group. For example, in the age
group 65-74, the risk among those not in the heavy activity group is 110
percent higher (2.1 times higher) than in the heavy activity group.
It should be noted that this is a cumulative effect, of years of heavy
activity. Based on the description of the types of activities performed,
and the calories spent, I estimate that the heavy activity group
performed the equivalent of a few hours of strength training per week,
plus a lot of walking and other light physical activities. The authors
of the study concluded that “… repeated bursts of high energy output established
a plateau of protection against coronary mortality.”
Heavy physical activity may not make you lose much weight, but has the potential to make you live longer.
is widespread. Often endurance running and cardio-type activities are
singled out. Some people refer to this as “death by running”. Others
think that strength training has a higher lethal potential. We know
based on the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study that this is a myth (1)
Here is some evidence that heavy physical activity in fact has a
significant protective effect. The graph below shows the number of
deaths from coronary heart disease, organized by age group, in
longshoremen (dock workers). The shaded bars represent those whose level
of activity at work was considered heavy. The unshaded bars represent
those whose level of activity at work was considered moderate or light
(essentially below the “heavy” level).
The data is based on an old and classic study of 6351 men, aged 35 to 74
years, who were followed either for 22 years, or to death, or to the
age of 75. It shows a significant protective effect of heavy activity,
especially after age 45 (2).
The numbers atop the unshaded bars reflect the relative risk of death
from coronary heart disease in each age group. For example, in the age
group 65-74, the risk among those not in the heavy activity group is 110
percent higher (2.1 times higher) than in the heavy activity group.
It should be noted that this is a cumulative effect, of years of heavy
activity. Based on the description of the types of activities performed,
and the calories spent, I estimate that the heavy activity group
performed the equivalent of a few hours of strength training per week,
plus a lot of walking and other light physical activities. The authors
of the study concluded that “… repeated bursts of high energy output established
a plateau of protection against coronary mortality.”
Heavy physical activity may not make you lose much weight, but has the potential to make you live longer.
Monday, 23 March 2015
DEXA Scans - muscle/fat ratio and bone density theory
W.O.W. 3/20/15-DEXA Scans Have Brought Me More New Clients Than All the Ads I Ever Bought. »
I got a call from a
prospective client. The call was about one of the most common
issues that brings us new clients….the results of a recent DEXA scan.
People often become very alarmed when their DEXA results return with
poor scores and their doctor recommends starting bisphosphonates
(medications like Fosamax) to try and reverse their bone loss. This
usually triggers an internet search on treating and preventing
osteoporosis, which invariably uncovers some article about SuperSlow and
its genesis in the Osteoporosis Research Project at the University of
Florida. This in return creates some sort of link to Ultimate Exercise
(or many other such facilities).
I have always been a pretty vocal opponent of DEXA scans because I
feel that they alarm patients (a morbidity) and triggers the urge to do
“something”. That something is usually bisphosphonates, a class of
drugs with some pretty gnarly side-effects. Further, the benefits of
increasing bone mineral density have always been a little oversold by
correlating an absolute increase in bone density with a relative
percentage risk reduction of fractures. Further, literature suggests
that the real correlate for fracture risk is your starting level of bone
mineral density, NOT the level you improve to. To me this has always
suggested that bone density was simply a surrogate marker for fracture
risk. I have always suspected the real marker for risk was muscle mass
and the resultant strength level.
If we look at these images lifted from Skyler Tanner’s post on
bending the aging curve, we must ask ourselves if the sedentary person’s
real risk of a fall and subsequent fracture really dependent on the
bone density of his femur? Or…is the real problem the atrophy that has
occurred in his thigh muscles and the fact that if he gets the least bit
off of his center of gravity he is going down. And when he (or she)
does go down, there is not enough shock absorbing skeletal muscle to
protect that frail femur from snapping in two. If you stuck that frail
bone in the middle of all the muscle in the pictures above or below, do
you think it would stand a much better chance all the way around?
But the situation is actually much better than that. Because, when
you improve the muscle mass the bone mineral density tracks right along
(as does all other organ mass). It used to be thought that the bone
mineral density was increasing because of the forces upon the
bone…strain and stress that could also risk a fracture. But I have seen
too many clients improve bone mineral density without exposure to
dangerous force to believe that. As it turns out the increase in bone
density, as well as other improvements in organ mass, are related to
muscle to organ cross talk mediated by myokines. There is even evidence
that myokine exposure can improve bone density in the complete absence
of stress/strain loading. So when someone tells you that slow cadence,
force-controlled exercise does not sufficiently stress the bone to
improve bone density, you can smile and walk away. As it turns out,
training in this way gives you all of the upside and none of the down
side of the traditional notion of “load-bearing exercise”. What the new
research on myokines is demonstrating is that proper strength exercise
is the most profound public health initiative that we have available too
us. The economic implications of a vibrant and productive aging
populace, as opposed to a debilitated and dependent one is almost too
big to imagine.
This is especially true in light of the collapse of our medical and social entitlement systems.
To get further insight into the issue of muscle-bone cross-talk via myokines, check out the interview linked below:
http://www.nature.com/bonekey/community/2012/05/moving-from-bone-to-muscle-and-back-again-an-interview-with-mark-hamrick/
I got a call from a prospective client. The call was about one of the most common
issues that brings us new clients….the results of a recent DEXA scan.
People often become very alarmed when their DEXA results return with
poor scores and their doctor recommends starting bisphosphonates
(medications like Fosamax) to try and reverse their bone loss. This
usually triggers an internet search on treating and preventing
osteoporosis, which invariably uncovers some article about SuperSlow and
its genesis in the Osteoporosis Research Project at the University of
Florida. This in return creates some sort of link to Ultimate Exercise
(or many other such facilities).
I have always been a pretty vocal opponent of DEXA scans because I
feel that they alarm patients (a morbidity) and triggers the urge to do
“something”. That something is usually bisphosphonates, a class of
drugs with some pretty gnarly side-effects. Further, the benefits of
increasing bone mineral density have always been a little oversold by
correlating an absolute increase in bone density with a relative
percentage risk reduction of fractures. Further, literature suggests
that the real correlate for fracture risk is your starting level of bone
mineral density, NOT the level you improve to. To me this has always
suggested that bone density was simply a surrogate marker for fracture
risk. I have always suspected the real marker for risk was muscle mass
and the resultant strength level.
If we look at these images lifted from Skyler Tanner’s post on
bending the aging curve, we must ask ourselves if the sedentary person’s
real risk of a fall and subsequent fracture really dependent on the
bone density of his femur? Or…is the real problem the atrophy that has
occurred in his thigh muscles and the fact that if he gets the least bit
off of his center of gravity he is going down. And when he (or she)
does go down, there is not enough shock absorbing skeletal muscle to
protect that frail femur from snapping in two. If you stuck that frail
bone in the middle of all the muscle in the pictures above or below, do
you think it would stand a much better chance all the way around?
But the situation is actually much better than that. Because, when
you improve the muscle mass the bone mineral density tracks right along
(as does all other organ mass). It used to be thought that the bone
mineral density was increasing because of the forces upon the
bone…strain and stress that could also risk a fracture. But I have seen
too many clients improve bone mineral density without exposure to
dangerous force to believe that. As it turns out the increase in bone
density, as well as other improvements in organ mass, are related to
muscle to organ cross talk mediated by myokines. There is even evidence
that myokine exposure can improve bone density in the complete absence
of stress/strain loading. So when someone tells you that slow cadence,
force-controlled exercise does not sufficiently stress the bone to
improve bone density, you can smile and walk away. As it turns out,
training in this way gives you all of the upside and none of the down
side of the traditional notion of “load-bearing exercise”. What the new
research on myokines is demonstrating is that proper strength exercise
is the most profound public health initiative that we have available too
us. The economic implications of a vibrant and productive aging
populace, as opposed to a debilitated and dependent one is almost too
big to imagine.
This is especially true in light of the collapse of our medical and social entitlement systems.
To get further insight into the issue of muscle-bone cross-talk via myokines, check out the interview linked below:
http://www.nature.com/bonekey/community/2012/05/moving-from-bone-to-muscle-and-back-again-an-interview-with-mark-hamrick/
Friday, 6 March 2015
Q&A: Is Intensity Or Volume More Important?
Q&A: Is Intensity Or Volume More Important? | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
The majority of research shows it makes little difference whether you
perform one set or many. It does, however, show that your intensity of
effort – how hard you are working relative to your ability – makes a
difference.
If you do not train with a high intensity of effort
no amount of exercise will stimulate significant improvements in
muscular strength and size.
The majority of research shows it makes little difference whether you
perform one set or many. It does, however, show that your intensity of
effort – how hard you are working relative to your ability – makes a
difference.
If you do not train with a high intensity of effort
no amount of exercise will stimulate significant improvements in
muscular strength and size.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)