What to Look for in Good Trainer

I don't work as a trainer, but I work with them, and I used to work as one. I also consult with and learn from other trainers. After watching Alywn Cosgrove's Program Design for the 21st Century, I've come to a few conclusions about training, and what good makes a good trainer.

1. Constant contact. The trainer should either have a newsletter, or at least contact his clients with e-mail once a week. Not talking with clients outside of the health club or studio is a mistake.

2. Not watching form. My first trainer used to watch SportsCenter while I was training. He would watch TV while I was lifting heavy weights. The trainer should always show the client certain cues and pointers to make sure the exercise is performed correctly. When the client works on his own, he'll be able to do it correctly after doing it right so many times.

3. Mobility work. If your trainer is still telling you to warm up with jumping jacks and 10 minutes of easy jogging on the treadmill, ask them when the last time he's actually questioned this protocol. Most good trainers these days recognize the importance of mobility work, or exercises that activate or and strengthen muscles that are underused or weak (think glutes), or are overtight (hip flexors). Skip the treadmill and do some mobility work.

4. Core work. Most people have weak cores. And by core, I don't mean just the abs. I'm talking about everything from the lats to the hips. A weak core means you're predisposed to back pain. A weak core means everything you do will be harder. A weak core means you'll run slower. Core work is not crunches. If you're trainer has you doing crunches, ask how that will help your back pain and improve your posture. Serious core work means rotational and stability exercises.

5. A reason for every exercise. Ask your trainer why you're doing a particular exercise. And the answer should be better than, "because it's cool," or "I saw someone else doing it." In fact, you should do an exercise because no-one else is doing it.

6. Continuing education. A good trainer will invest in conferences, seminars, DVDs, and books to help him develop a more functional, safer, and more effective program. Trainers who don't are slackers and are cheating their clients. They should be investing their income in educational products created by those with years of experience. The initial price might be high, but in the long run a good trainer will get more results, and more referrals. Good trainers are constantly finding new protocols, new exercises, or new routines. One of the main reasons people don't see results is that they don't get enough variety in their program. Continuing education means the trainer needs to analyze what he knows and what he's doing. At some point, he will have to admit that what he has known until now is wrong. A good example is Mike Boyle's recent admission that his core program in Functional Strength Training published in 2003 needs to be rewritten. Show some humility and admit that you were wrong. Just don't keep doing those wrong things.

7. Injury prevention and rehabilitation. Today's lifestyle predisposes us to injuries. We have so many weak and overused muscles, and asymmetries in our bodies that it's little wonder that 80% of our population suffers some kind of back pain. A good trainer prescribes exercises that not only make the client stronger, but also more functional.

8. Enthusiasm. A good trainer can transfer his passion for exercise science and anatomy to the client. Trainers know that strength and functional training benefits everyone, but their clients might not see the benefit or understand why trainers are so passionate. I'm not saying a good trainer is a cheerleader, but rather knows how to motivate and excite the client. This takes a particular personality and effective communication skills, and not everyone has it. It's probably the one reason why I would never be a top trainer.

9. Nutritional guidance. I can't tell you how many trainers I've seen that are out-of-shape or outright fat. Many trainer eat fast food, and food that is inconsistent with a healthy lifestyle. A good program is worthless without solid nutrition advise. You can't overcome bad nutrition. It's that simple.

10. Outsourcing. Good trainers need to learn that they cannot train every client. You cannot train a teenage athlete who's trying pack on 20 pounds of muscle, and a 35-year-old postnatal woman. It doesn't work. Too many people have disparate needs, and no trainer can properly create a program for every kind of client. So what does a good trainer who do when he confronts a potential client that doesn't fit his niche? He outsources to another trainer who does. A trainer who doesn't is cheating his client, and doesn't believe in the golden rule. If you outsource, other trainers will outsource to you. And if a trainer knows nothing about nutrition, then have the client talk to someone who does.

11. The right amount of variety. I've established that variety is good, but a trainer can go too far. Changing reps, weights, sets, rest time, exercises, routines, and equipment every day can actually stagnant growth. Why? Because your body never has time to adapt to an exercise. It's constantly exposed to new stimuluses, and never has a chance to adapt or improve. Subtle changes are okay, such as grip or stance, but frequent drastic changes will not lead to drastic results.

12. Assessing needs. Good trainers review a client's history, occupation, goals, abilities, and everyday activities. Every client should have a different routine. Some clients are trying to lose fat, some are trying to gain size, some are looking for functional exercises, and others simply can't or shouldn't do particular exercises. My old trainer pretty much gave me exercises that I know were totally inappropriate for my goals. Preacher curls, smith machine squats, and hamstring curls will not make you a faster runner! Band work will not add a lot of muscle! And 6o seconds of rest between sets will not help you lose fat!

13. The right mindset. This might be the most important of all, even more than enthusiasm. Why is a trainer training? Is he training clients to make extra cash on the side to pay for school? Is he training because he wants a free membership? Or is he training clients to help them reach their physical goals? It better be the last one. And a good trainer should expect
to be a trainer for the foreseeable future.

14. Behavior modification. A trainer works with his client, at most, three hours per week. The other 165 hours are critically important, because a client can completely reverse the benefits of his exercise program with bad posture, repetitive motion, poor diet, etc. A client has 23 hours per day to screw things up! If a client complains of shoulder injury, and wears his backpack on that shoulder all the time, then behavior modification is required. Behavior modification will probably account for 90% of results. Yes, 90%. 165/168 is 98%, so I'm actually underestimating!

15. Proper stretching. Forget static stretches that you learned in school. A few static stretches of 15 seconds at the end of the day might have some benefit, but a good trainer should teach his client how to use a foam roller or Trigger Point technology to smooth out adhesions in the muscles. Most people have very tight IT bands, hip flexors, and piriformis muscles (butt muscles). Active-isolated stretching also has been shown to increase range of motion. Active Release Therapy is a little more advanced, but a trainer should at least recommend this.

There you go. There are 15 things to look for in a good trainer. Notice that I never mentioned certification. I think a certification shows some level of knowledge and skill, but I'd rather work with a trainer who exhibits these 15 characteristics than one that read a textbook and answered 75% of the questions correctly on a test. Certification lends some credibility, but it can never replace enthusiasm, a desire to learn, and the ability to communicate effectively with the client.

Kevin

Summer Solstice and Vitamin D

Winter is here and the days are short. A lack of sunlight is not only depressing, but it’s actually unhealthy. Sunlight provides us with the greatest source of vitamin D, which is one of the most important vitamins for the body. It’s also a common deficiency. The benefits of vitamin D are still being discovered, and awareness of its deficiency is becoming more common. Trainers, coaches, dermatologists, and chemists are recommending that we get more. The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends 400 IU per day and the FDA will more than likely increase its recommendations in 2010. But there are some myths, facts, and half-truths that you need to know before you start supplementing.

Claim: Vitamin D is a hormone
True

Vitamin D is actually a misnomer; it’s not a vitamin. Some doctors wouldn’t consider it a hormone, but calcitdiol (25D3) is the metabolic product of cholecalciferol, or D3, which is made at the skin. When sunlight hits the skin it converts 7-dehydrocholesterol to vitamin D3, which then turns into 1.25 d3 in the kidneys. Calcidiol (1, 25D3) is what’s actually measured in a drug test and is a prehormone. Calcitriol is made in the kidneys and a steroid hormone

Claim: 400 IU is enough
False

The government’s recommendation was made almost 40 years ago. 400 IU is just enough to maintain bone health and prevent rickets, but even this is probably far too low. Recommendations from most dermatologists are at least 1,000 IUs. The vitamin D council recommends 5,000 IU or 50 ng/dl. Robert Heaney at Crieghton University recommends 3,000 IU per day. A healthy level of vitamin is about 35-50 ng/ml, although the vitamin D council recommends up to 80 ng/dl. 3000 IU would be the minimum to reach 35 ng/ml. To find your level of vitamin D, measure 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D (calcidiol) in your next blood test. Reinhold Vieth, a leading researcher of vitamin D at the University of Toronto, recommends 4,000 IU.

Claim: Vitamin D can boost athletic performance
Maybe

German swimmers actually used sunlamps 80 years ago to increase performance. Athletes have used sunlamps since to increase endurance, speed, muscle strength, and improve reaction time. The American Council of Sports Medicine published a study showing that vitamin D enhanced athletic performance. Vitamin D, along with calcium, helps strengthen bones, which could help runners and prevent osteoporosis in swimmers, cyclists, and other athletes in non-weight-bearing sports. The Russians and German both showed improvements in their athlete’s performance in the 1930s and ‘40s. German children were given large doses of vitamin D showed improvements in strength and fitness. The theory is that vitamin D can increase protein synthesis.

Claim: Vitamin D can facilitate fat loss
Maybe

Dermatologist Shalamar Sibley says that vitamin D can help with fat loss on a reduced-calorie diet, and even preserve muscle mass. Preserving muscle mass would help prevent any decrease in metabolism. Vitamin D might also stabilize insulin levels and reduce cravings for junk food. Vitamin D can decrease the release of insulin and maintain blood glucose levels. UV-B and vitamin can regulate blood sugar and appetite. A healthy weight is correlated with adequate amounts of vitamin D. Obesity is linked with impaired production of vitamin D from UV-B radiation. The theory is that low levels can increase the production of free fatty acids. This means calories turn into fat. Vitamin D and calcium can help prevent fatty acid synthesis. Therefore, if you want to burn fat, get more vitamin D. However, most evidence for these roles comes from in vitro, animal, and epidemiological studies. Findings presented at the Endocrine Society's 91st Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, showed that higher levels of vitamin D were inversely related to weight loss. Researchers cautioned that “it is not clear whether or not inadequate vitamin D causes obesity or the other way around. Higher baseline vitamin D levels of both 25(OH) D and 1,25 (OH)2D were linked to increased loss of abdominal fat. UVB stimulates melanocytes to produce melanin and melanocyte--stimulating hormone, which is important in weight loss and energy production.

Claim: Vitamin D can be easily obtained in food
False

The best sources of vitamin D include eggs, halibut, salmon, mackerel, cheese, beef , and fortified milk. Just to get 400 IU, you’d have to drink four glasses of milk. If it’s so hard to get vitamin D through diet, then how did human ancestors obtain it? They used to eat shellfish, oily fish, and insects but today we don’t eat those foods for social reasons. Humans would eat the fur and skin of animals, which was loaded with vitamin D. They would eat the tissues and organs of their animals but organs are not a part of modern society’s diet. It also hurts that many people avoid egg yolks, which contain all the D in an egg. Vegetarians get almost no vitamin D naturally. Human ancestors, it is estimated, obtained 3000-6000 IU daily. Best sources per 100 grams:

Cod Liver Oil: 10000 IU
Pork fat: 2800 IU
Herring: 680 IU
Oyster 640 IU
Catfish: 500 IU
Sardines: 480 IU
Mackeral 450 IU
Smoked Chinook Salmon: 320 IU
Sturgeon Roe: 232 IU
Shrimp, canned and drained 172 IU
Egg yolk: 150 IU
Almond Milk: 100 IU
Orange juice, fortified 100 IU

Claim: Vitamin D can increase longevity
Maybe

The New England Journal of Medicine recently showed a correlation between several diseases and vitamin D deficiency. Other studies clearly show that a supplementing with vitamin D can reduce mortality. The vitamin D council says that a D deficiency is a factor in 17 forms of cancer. Vitamin D is inversely proportional to the rates of diabetes. High levels can reduce fatigue, depression and season affective disorder (SAD). Increasing vitamin D can also reduce your risk of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. A study in the Archieves of Internal Medicine linked vitamin D to lower mortality rates. In a miraculous study, Dr. Anu Prabhala treated five paralyzed patients with 50000 IU of vitamin D and all become mobile within six weeks. Vitamin D has also been show to contribute to immune health, muscle strength and hormone production. In the 2000s researchers have shown that vitamin D is one of the most potent antioxidents. Low vitamin D is associated with Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, thyroiditis and Crohn’s disease, all common auto-immune disorders. Breast, prostate, skin and colon cancer are linked to low levels of vitamin D. Vitamin D can improve fertility and increase production of dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine, which means vitamin D can treat Seasonal Affective Disorder with just two hours of exposure to a light box. However, the Women's Health Initiative, in which 36,282 postmenopausal women of various races and ethnicities were randomly assigned to receive 400 IU vitamin D plus 1,000 mg calcium daily or a placebo, found no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of colorectal cancers over 7 years. However, more recently, a clinical trial focused on bone health in 1,179 postmenopausal women residing in rural Nebraska found that subjects supplemented daily with calcium (1,400-1,500 mg) and vitamin D3 (1,100 IU) had a significantly lower incidence of cancer over 4 years compared to women taking a placebo. The different result could be attributed to the higher doses in the Nebraska study.

Claim: Vitamin D can prevent heart disease
Maybe

Again, correlation is not cause. Research in the last ten years have shown that low levels of vitamin D can contribute to syndrome X, the combination of hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. When high levels of calcium, but low levels of D are present in the blood, leads to calcification of arteries, joints, and kidneys. Deposition of calcium in the arteries can cause atherosclerosis. This might be the missing link between industrial society and high levels of cardiac disease. Even the Vitamin D council warns that associations are not causes. While there are correlations between vitamin D and a litany of ailments, it’s impossible to pinpoint a single deficiency as a cause of any disease.

Claim: Vitamin D Enhances Bone Health
True

If you are predisposed to osteoporosis, than calcium is not enough. It’s recommended that you supplement with vitamin D. Not only does it control calcium levels in the blood, but it also aids in absorption of magnesium, iron, and zinc, minerals that are commonly deficient in our diet. Without sufficient vitamin D, bones can become thin, brittle, or misshapen. Osteomalacia is the result of weak muscles and bones.
Claim: Tanning/sunlight is a good way to get vitamin DTrueLying in a tanning bed for just 10-20 minutes can provide several thousand IUs of vitamin D. Tanning too long can burn the skin and cause cancer if done repeatedly. Going outside to get your vitamin D is probably the easiest, cheapest, and most effective way to get vitamin D. Length of exposure ranges from 5-30 minutes, and depends on cloud cover, the color of your skin, and pollution. It’s important to get sunlight during the late morning and early afternoon to get UVB exposure. Brief exposure to the sun probably is not enough. Tanning beds usually contain UV-A and a little UV-B. UV-A is now linked to non-melanoma skin cancers. UV-B interacts with cholesterol to produce vitamin D. To get maximum exposure, 85% of the body needs exposure during midday. Dark-skinned people need up to two hours per day! During the winter UV-B is less prolific. Living above 34 degrees north or south (almost all of North America and Europe) means that for several months per year, exposure to sunlight isn’t enough. The key is to get moderate amounts on a consistent basis. Single bouts of intense exposure can cause burn and suppress the immune system. A Sperti sun lamp provides just the right amount of UV-A and UV-B. Make sure your tanning bed contains more UV-B than UV-A. Humans can make up to 10,000 units of vitamin D within 30 minutes of full body exposure to the sun.

Claim: You Should Supplement with Magnesium and Calcium along with Vitamin D
True

High levels of Vitamin D without calcium can lead to calcium leaching. That is, vitamin D will take calcium from the bone, not from the blood. Accumulation of toxic materials can occur without magnesium and zinc. Aim for at least 1200 mg of calcium and at least 600 mg of magnesium. Calcium and magnesium should be taken several times per day, not once. Limit your intake of polyunsaturated fats (found in vegetables oils) and eat some fat when you take vitamin D, as vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin (or hormone). Too little vitamin D can reduce the number of binding proteins

Claim: Too much vitamin D is bad
Maybe

Some dermatologists believe anything higher than 65 ng/ml is too much. Dr. Reinhold Veith, a nutritional scientist at University of Toronto, and one of the world’s leading authorities on vitamin D believes 20000 IU can be toxic and recommends an upper limit of 10000 IU. Chronic supplementation should not exceed 4000 IU. High levels of D can lead to heart rhythm abnormalities, raise blood levels of calcium , and increase the chance of kidney stones. Veith reports human toxicity probably begins to occur after chronic daily consumption of approximately 40,000 IU/day (100 of the 400 IU capsules).

Claim:
You Should Supplement with Vitamin D
True

This should be clear by now. Because most people spend most of their days indoors, live in northern latitudes, use excessive sunscreen, and eat foods that are poor in vitamin D, supplementation is necessary. The Vitamin D council now recommends about 50 ng/dl, but 35 ng/dl should be the minimum. The daily recommended value of 400 IU is far too little. Taking a supplement of at least 3-5,000 IUs in the winter, and making a habit of exposing most of your body outside between 10 AM and 2 PM during the spring and summer for at least 10 minutes, should give you adequate amounts of vitamin D. While research hasn’t proved that vitamin D will prevent any disease, the number of correlations is hard to ignore. It’s important to get regularly tested for 25-hydroxyvitamin D, not 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D.

Claim: Absorption is based on many factors
True

Recommendations regarding supplementation and exposure to UVB sunlight depends on the following:-Height-Weight-Race-Gender-Age-Location-Season-Pollution levelsTaller people need more. Heavier people need more. Black and Hispanic people need more. Females need more than males. Old people need more than young people. People in northern latitudes need more. Everybody needs more during the summer. And people in cities with pollution and tall buildings need more. Keep in mind that UVB cannot penetrate glass, so standing in a sunroom is not beneficial.

Kevin

P.S.- I just got my first tan yesterday. Tanning is a safe way to get vitamin D in the winter. Too bad Congress wants to tax it. Policy-makers obviously don't read this blog.

Get Rid of Trans Fat

If you’re going to eat a lot of sugar this holiday season, at least don’t eat trans fat. I can’t imagine putting this into your body. Trans fat, a.k.a. partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (the world partially is key. Don’t worry about the chemistry. Just avoid that word in the foods you eat) is designed to keep foods solid at room temperature for a long period of time. It’s also designed to increase your risk of type-II diabetes, heart disease, and atherosclerosis.

How can you avoid trans fat?

Do not eat anything fried in oil with trans fat (or anything fried for that matter). Pop your own popcorn, which can actually be healthy snack.

Avoid processed foods like chips, cookies, crackers, cereals, dairy products, deserts, and energy bars.

Avoid eating at restaurants. Even salads can contain hidden trans fat. Where is it? It’s usually in the sauce or cheese.

Boycott Dairy Queen. You want ice cream? Eat something natural at Whole Foods. Dairy Queen’s malts, shakes, and Blizzards all have trans fat. Try the Xtreme Blizzard with 6.5 grams of trans fat, three times what you should eat, and 165 grams of sugar. That’s more than 6 packs of M&Ms!

Boycott Denny’s. The double cheeseburger has 7 grams of trans fat an 1500 calories. But that can’t beat Bob Evans’ caramel banana pecan hotcakes with 9 grams of trans fat, 109 grams of sugar and 1500 calories! That’s before syrup, and bacon, and sausage, and…apple pie. Get the one at Bob Evan’s with 13 grams of trans fat.

Don't fall for claims on products that say "zero trans fat." The FDA permits that label as long as the product contains less than half a gram, so it could have .4 grams. Look for products that say "no partially hydrogenated oil." That's the key. Look at the ingredients. If you find that word, find another product.

It's really simple. Do what I say and you'll never worry about Trans Fat.

In Defense of Jogging

Trainers in the fitness industry have turned against steady-state jogging recently. Everybody these days is touting the benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), which refers to a form of cardio that undulates between intense periods of exercise interspersed with moderate or easy periods. For example, you would run hard for 30 seconds and then run easy for 1 minute. Rest-to-work periods vary, but the principal is the same.

I’m not going to deny the benefits of interval training. I incorporate it myself and I find it beneficial to increasing my top speed. Everybody should include it, whether you are a recreational “jogger” or an elite runner, or whether you specialize in the one mile, the 10k, or the marathon.

Jogging gets a bad reputation for several reasons. It takes a lot of time. To get any kind of results, you have to run for a sustained period of time to accrue any kind of benefit. Despite the recommendations by the World Health Organization to get 30 minutes of exercise per day, that’s the bare minimum, and it seems more like an inducement to get people to exercise. If the WHO told people they had to do 45-60 minutes each day, people would say they don’t have enough time. The thinking is that 30 minutes is better than nothing.

Long, slow jogging can also be boring. Doing the same form of exercise at the same speed, at the same intensity every day can get monotonous. This might explain one reason why people can’t adhere to an exercise program.

Another reason is that the body adapts to any form of exercise and that benefits diminish. This is simply the law of diminishing returns. When you first start exercising, the benefits come right away. Then they slowly diminish over time. That’s why some people can’t seem to lose any more weight. Their bodies have adapted to the form of exercise they’re doing.

Jogging also doesn’t elevate metabolism long after the workout is completed. In other words, you only burn calories during the workout but nothing after the workout. So if you jog for 45 minutes, the caloric burn stops as soon as you end the workout. On the other hand, HIIT workouts elevate your metabolism well after the workout has ended. This is called EPOC, or excess post-oxygen consumption. So not only does HIIT burn more calories per minute, but the afterburn of the workout will burn more calories. Jogging has no such after effect.

So fitness professionals have been telling people to do nothing but HIIT. Forget jogging. It’s inefficient. Your body just adapts to jogging. It’s an ineffective way to burn fat. It’s so common in the fitness industry to take things too far. This is another example. Trainers completely abandon one methodology for another. A few studies show the after effects of HIIT and all the sudden HIIT is the latest rage.

I’m not denying the benefits of HIIT: more efficient, more calories burned afterwards, etc. But rarely do trainers ever discuss the downside to HIIT. People who are just new to jogging and haven’t ever exercised should not do HIIT. They should instead establish an aerobic base (which they don’t have). After they have established that base, then they can slowly incorporate HIIT into their program. Prescribing hit to someone who has never jogged or ran in their life is a recipe for disaster. It’s like taking a high-school pitcher and sending him to the major leagues. He needs to progress through single, double and triple AAA before he’s ready for the big leagues. Non-exercisers need to progress in the same way. They need to establish a routine first, and then start doing short intervals. Eventually they increase the speed, incline or time of the interval.

But it’s important not to completely disregard the benefits of steady-state aerobic exercise. Women’s Health had a great article just last month about the benefits of jogging. It reports the following:

Researchers at Stanford University discovered that regular runners have a 39 percent lower risk of dying an early death compared with healthy adults of the same age.

Running can help prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis, and even cancer

Most recently, a 2009 study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research found that running is as good a bone-builder as strength training.

The Journal of Anatomy found that running does not increase your risk of osteoarthritis, the cartilage decay that causes pain and inflammation in hip and knee joints. Nor does it wreck your back, according to a research review in the Southern Medical Journal. Researchers suggest that because running builds stronger muscles and ligaments.

Tom Holland, an exercise physiologist in Darien, Connecticut. "The reason runners can sometimes appear weathered is that they're thinner— low body fat makes fine lines more visible— and they're out in the sun more. Jogging also relieves stress and forces you to focus. Believe me, some of my best ideas have come on the treadmill!

Opponents also criticize the lack of muscle that marathoners and joggers have. They are contradicting themselves when they say this. On the one hand, they say that jogging is an inefficient way to burn fat. On the other hand, they like to point out how joggers look frail and weak. You know why? Because running burns so many calories that it’s almost impossible to gain muscle! I know that first hand. I can’t tell you how many trainers have told me to limit my cardio to gain muscle. Limiting cardio would impair my performance in triathlon. But if jogging doesn’t burn fat, then why can’t runners gain muscle?

The physiques of marathoners and sprinters are often compared to convince people that HIIT is the only solution to burning fat. Marathoners look weak and skinny, while sprinters look muscular and sleek. First of all, unless you train like Olympic sprinters, you’re not going to look like one. You don’t have the time, genetics, or inclination to train like them. So you’re not going to look like them when you do HIIT. Marathoners look skinny, but they have extremely low amounts of body fat, which is what people want. It’s a myth that marathoners have higher percentages of body fat. Proponents of HIIT say it’s because their levels of a hormone called cortisol are higher. This is false. Most marathoners have extremely low percentages of body fat.

I’d also like to remind you of what marathoner Bill Rodgers said, “if you want to win something, win a 100 m sprint. If you want to accomplish something, win a marathon.” I don’t care how sleek and muscular sprinters look. I’d rather look weak and have the endurance to run for several hours than to run for 100 meters.

If jogging is such a poor way to lose fat, then why have so many people lost weight doing it? I’ve talked to so many people who say they lose weight simply by exercising. They didn’t do any kind of HIIT. They would have lost weight faster had they incorporated HIIT, but the extra jogging create the energy deficit they needed to lose weight.

Even seasoned runners spend much of their winter training establishing an aerobic base. While many have questioned this methodology as well, there aren’t many runners who don’t do a significant amount of “base” training during the offseason as well. In fact, a study of marathoners just a few years ago showed that more than 80% of the training was at an “easy pace” while the other 20% consisted of threshold runs, hill repeats and speed work.

The opponents of steady-state jogging also fail to realize that jogging burns a significant amount of calories. It burns more than swimming, cycling, rowing, and the elliptical because of its high-impact nature. So if somebody who has never exercised before starts to jog 30 minutes every day and doesn’t increase his caloric intake, then that person will lose weight. At first the amount of weight he loses will be significant, and will eventually reach a plateau. He will reach a plateau only when the body becomes so efficient at jogging for 30 minutes that it negates the original caloric gap between expenditure and intake.

Opponents of jogging say that once the body adapts, then you will have to jog farther at the same pace to get the same effect. But if you start jogging for 30 minutes at 6.0 MPH, then eventually you will be able to run farther in the same amount of time at the same intensity. In other words, running one mile today will be just as easy as running 1.5 miles in the future. A mile is insurmountable to people who have never jogged before. But marathoners can run an “easy” mile in 6:00 minutes, believe it or not.

HIIT also has the same limitations. Even though the EPOC of interval training is higher, if somebody does the same workout over and over, he will eventually stop losing weight because the body will adapt. This is what enthusiasts of HIIT never mention. The body will adapt to interval training too. That’s why it’s important to increase the speed, duration, or intensity of the interval. Joggers need to challenge their bodies in the same way.

So how do you incorporate HIIT? In depends on your history, available time, and frequency that you run. If you’ve just started to run, I’d start jogging at an easy pace for 3-4 weeks and establish a base. If you can’t run a mile, you have no reason doing HIIT. Once you feel comfortable jogging for 30 minutes, add some intervals to your program. A typical program would look like this for somebody who can run just three times per week:

Weeks 1-41.
1.30-40 minutes easy
2.30-40 minutes easy
3. 30-40 minutes easy

Weeks 5-8

1. 10 min warm up 10x (20 seconds hard, 60 seconds easy), 10 min cool down
2. 30-40 minutes easy
3. 10 min warm up 10x (20 second hill sprint, 60 seconds easy) 10 min cool down

Weeks 9-12
1.10 min warm up, 5 min moderate, 5 min hard, 10 min cool down
2. 40-50 minutes easy
3. 10 min warm up 10x (30 seconds hard, 60 seconds easy)

After you’ve been running for 12 weeks, you can then start to increase the length of the intervals, decrease the rest time, increase the speed or incline, and increase the duration of the entire workout.

I hope I’ve brought sanity to the argument about HIIT vs. jogging. HIIT is certainly sexy while jogging is not, but both have their place. Neither one will bring optimal results by themselves. They need to be incorporated into a program. Without HIIT, you’ll become a slow jogger. With no jogging, you’ll burn out and you’ll never increase endurance.

Kevin

The Health Conspiracy

I was reading Dave Soucy’s blog the other day and I saw a video of Bill Maher berating the health care industry (you can see the video here). Bill Maher is openly progressive. He voted for Ralph Nadar, loves Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington, and was vehemently critical of George W. Bush during the 2000s. His views on health care, drug legalization, war, and the role of government are obvious to anyone who watches him.

The thesis of his rant was that the health care industry wants people to be sick and frail so that they can make billions selling expensive drugs. If people were healthy and had no pain, they’d have no reason to buy drugs that lower cholesterol, kill pain, unclog arteries, etc. If people were healthy, they’d n ever buy drugs. The logic seems simple. If people didn’t buy drugs, then the companies who sell them would go out of business.

This argument is false for several reasons. Does Bill Maher really believe that the creators of these drugs and the people who market them wake up every morning and hope that people are sick and broken? Do they hope they don’t find alternative treatment? If so, then they truly are monsters who deserve to go to hell. But I don’t think these CEOs of these companies really believe that. They honestly believe that they’re selling a product that people need and that will make them better.

Maher’s right that we as people can take a lot of precautions. We can eat right. We can exercise regularly. We can do strength training. We can stretch, brush our teeth, drink tea, have a strong purpose in life, and have plenty of social activity. I agree that a healthy lifestyle can preclude the use of prescription drugs almost all the time. And I agree we should do everything we can before we resort to expensive pills and medications. But there are instances when we need drugs and prescriptions. Diet and exercise don’t seem to be doing much for my testosterone levels. Many women such hypothyroidism despite leading a healthy lifestyle. Some people are predisposed to heart disease. Just recently one of the best triathlete’s in the world ended his career due to a rare heart condition that could kill him. Some people are born with type-I diabetes and need to inject insulin everyday.

Not everyone will take care of themselves the way they should. Nobody does all the time. How many people overate on Thanksgiving? Was that healthy? How many people will get wasted on New Year’s Day? Is that healthy? How many people strength train like they should? How many people have more than one person to confide in? Nobody is perfectly healthy.

This debate can also apply to anyone. I asked a couple of physical therapists the other day at my health club about this argument. They said there will be always be broken people, bad posture, and injuries. They’re simply providing a solution to that problem. Do they hope people are sick and injured? No, but there will always be demand for rehab. Chiropractors don’t want people to have bad backs, but they know people will have bad backs. Do personal trainers like me hope people never lose fat? No. I want people to get results. But there will always be overfat people in our society. And even if they were in good shape, they’d want to be in better shape. People are never satisfied. The fitness industry is serving a need to get into better shape. Nobody is perfect shape. And until everybody is in perfect shape, the fitness industry isn’t going anywhere.

To take this argument to the extreme would be to say that grocery stores hope people don’t learn how to grow their own food. If they did, they’d never shop at a grocery store. But nobody grows all their food, and only a few people actually grow a fraction of their food. The car industry sells cars, but does it hope that people don’t start walking or riding a bike everywhere, even though that would be healthier?

Should pharmaceuticals therefore deny drugs to people who didn’t care of themselves properly? Who’s to define what is proper care? At one point does someone become responsible? I agree that responsibility and preventive health care is lost in this whole debate, but the defintion of preventive care is elusive and fuzzy.

Imagining a world in which people don’t’ need drugs is a fantasy. If everybody in this country started to take care of themselves as best as possible, the number of prescriptions would gradually fall. Pharmaceuticals would either cut staff, or adapt.

How could they adapt? When people are healthy and don’t need drugs, they would start to demand something else that would improve their lives: drugs that improve mental clarity; supplements; protein powder; multivitamins, drugs that improve intelligence; drugs that prevent fatigue. The idea that pharmaceuticals would go out of business assumes that people’s wants and needs are static. As soon as we satisfy our needs and wants of today, we’ll be perfectly happy.

If people’s wants and needs were static, our economy would never grow. As we accumulate and build wealth, our wants and needs expand to meet that available wealth. Our economy is predicated on consumption of goods and services. How many people want nothing? The answer is zero, even though the average person today is far wealthier than our forebears generations ago. People will always want something. Wants change, but there will always be wants.

Kevin

How I Learned to Love the "Dread"mill

Until last year you wouldn’t see me on a treadmill, which I often called the “dreadmill”. I called it that because I thought it was a monotonous form of exercise. I couldn’t stand running in one place for a long duration of time. I always preferred to run outside. Sometimes I still do, but I’ve learned to love the treadmill for reasons I explain below.

I understand negative attitudes to treadmills (or Stairmasters, ellipticals, Concept 2 Rowers, and stationary bikes). It can be dull and boring. It’s not as scenic. It’s not as “natural.” You don’t get to run through nature or see the neighborhood.

But I can counter all those claims, and then enumerate the benefits of running on a treadmill that running on land simply cannot replicate.

I’ve been riding my bike on a trainer for three years now, and I never had problem with riding for an hour or even two hours. The concept is the same as running on a treadmill. You stay in one spot for a long duration of time and tax your cardiovascular system. For some reason I never applied this rational to running in a stationary position. Somehow riding indoors was tolerable but running in place was not.

When I started to follow a plan to prepare for my triathlon this year, it called for a lot of treadmill running. At first I wanted to do these workouts on land as much as possible. But I realized that to get the full benefit of the proven program, I had to spend time on the treadmill.
Over time, I came to like and love the treadmill for the following reasons:-I never had to worry about the weather. I never had to worry about rain, lightning, wind, or worse, cold air. I hated running in freezing temperatures. I hated spending money on winter clothing that only made running outside tolerable at best. I hate running with a lot of clothes. On the coldest days, I could run in my tri-suit and still wipe sweat off my face. This is one of the best benefits of the treadmill. I never have to worry about the forecast (except on race day).

-I could do whatever workout I wanted. If a workout called for hills, I could increase the incline to any grade I wanted for any length of time. Since my goal is to live in Florida in the near future, I will have to like running on the incline on the treadmill. I could do endurance work, progressive runs, intervals, and anything else I liked.

-I could watch TV and run at the same time. Most gyms these days have Cardio Theater, which is a service that delivers television to all the cardio machines. My gym, XSport, has TVs on every one of the 140 machines we have. They don’t have as many channels as I’d like, but they have my favorite channels. I can now do two things at once: get the news and workout. Someday, I’d like to have my own treadmill in my home, and watch movies. Watching TV and movies can be a good distraction during stressful workouts. It usually removes any negative thoughts I might have.

-I don’t have to worry about what I will eat and drink during a run. When you run outside, you have to carry water and food (if you choose to carry any at all). There are no aid stations and nobody to give you rations. The treadmill has a convenient cup holder. I can also put small amounts of food there. I don’t have to stash anything in my pocket. When I run out of water, I simply refill at the water fountain.

-The treadmill is a controlled environment. Weather is never an issue. There are no dogs. No stop lights. No pedestrians. No leaf blowers or other lawn equipment. No cyclists. The treadmill is always your own. You never have to share it with anyone. You don’t have to pass anyone. There are no potholes or cracks into which you can trip.

Downsides

I will admit there are a few downsides to the treadmill. As running coach Jack Daniels notes, perceived exertion is higher at any given speed on the treadmill, even though oxygen update is lower. I can attest to this. When I run at 8:30 per mile outside, my heart rate might be 125-130 beats per minute. My heart rate would be 10-15 beats higher on the treadmill, and it would seem much harder to run at that speed. The world record for the marathon, held by Ethiopian Haile Gebrselassie, is just under 2:04. The world record for the marathon on a treadmill is 2:31. You can see that running on a treadmill means we have to run slower. Nonetheless, we can still get a great workout and run at any intensity or heart rate we want.

Another downside is doing long, endurance runs on the treadmill. I still can’t imagine running more than 90 minutes at one time. However, I couldn’t run more than 30 minutes on the treadmill last year. Until I have to run more than 90 minutes either outside or inside, I won’t worry about exceeding that length.

Running outside has a few perceived advantages, but I don’t think they’re really based on reality. One claim is that it’s healthier to run in nature and breath fresh air. First, the air outside isn’t necessarily healthier than it is inside. In fact, many times it is worse, especially if you live in the city. The air quality index in the summer time can be atrocious. There are tons of particles and pollutants in the air. Running indoors means we are running in filtered, air-conditioned air. How refreshing.

We often hear that running allows us to connect with nature. Many runners have dreams of running through forests and parks. But this image is based on myth more than reality. How many people have access to such beautiful areas? How many people actually live on a lake, or next to a trail that goes through pristine forests? The nearly trail to me isn’t very long. Not only is it treacherous, but it starts on a street and ends in a parking lot. The Washington & Old-Dominion Trail is about 10 miles from my house. It’s nothing more than a long bike path with shrubs and bushes along the side. It also crosses several major roads. My point is, unless you live in the middle of nowhere, or in a national park, we don’t really run with nature. We run along congested highways, through neighborhoods, or on busy city streets.

Running outside doesn’t necessarily make you a faster runner. The best runners and triathletes effectively use the treadmill to do workouts that they simply can’t do outside. Some have proposed that treadmills aren’t as effective as running outside. But clearly, if Olympians and the top runners in the world use them, then they are certainly effective for your average runner!

I do almost all my running on the treadmill now. In the winter, I hardly run outside, except when I run immediately after dismounting my bike (a brick run). Until it’s light and warm outside, you won’t see me running. Even then, I’ll do most of my key workouts on a treadmill.
If you don’t like the treadmill, at least try it. Try one run per week. I think you’ll find that you can tolerate it, and even prefer it. Do your long runs outside. But I highly recommend that you do your interval, hill, and speed work on the treadmill. It’s much easier logistically and nothing can interfere with your workout.

Happy training.

Kevin

Not so Splendid: Part II

Last week I shared with you my awful experience with Splenda and the effects it has had on me: weight gain due to water retention, and a increased desire for carbohydrates and sweets. This week I look at more anecdotal evidence that SPlenda and artificial sweeteners are associated with fat gain and overfatness.

I was at Giant, my local supermarket, the other day, and as I was leaving, the young bag lady asked me how I liked my SoBe water. Sobe water is flavored with PureVia, which is natural sweetener made from Stevia. I told her I liked it and that I prefered a beverage with no artificial sweeteners. I told her I upset my digestive system (it doesn’t, but it has affected my digestive patterns), and that it didn’t agree me. The lady next to me agreed, and said she couldn’t tolerate much sucralose.

The bag lady said she loved Splenda. She said it allowed her to eat her 100-calorie cheesecakes. I noticed that she was 30-40 pounds overfat. Clearly, adding Splenda to her diet hasn’t helped achieve her ideal weight. This could be for several reasons. She could be overcompensating. She could be eating more cheesecakes because each cheesecake has fewer calories than a typical cheesecake. Thus, she doesn’t feel guilty eating them, since they are calorie. If she ate regular cheesecakes, then she would only eat one, not several. But I have no evidence that she’s eating more of these cheesecakes.

I suspect two other things are happening that explain her overfatness. Using Splenda has increased her cravings for carbs and other foods that have a lot of sugar, or that taste like sugar. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that she eats cheesecakes and liberally uses Splenda.

I also suspect that Splenda is somehow interrupting her hormonal system, and disrupting her natural metabolism. Again, I have no scientific evidence for this, but I have read plenty of stories and have seen preliminary evidence that Splenda can negatively affect our hormonal systems.

Here’s another observations I’ve made. I’ve never seen anyone who uses a lot of Sucralose that is actually in good shape. Think about it. How many people do you know drink a lot of diet soda, use artificial sweeteners, and are good shape? I see a direct correlation between diet soda consumption (and regular soda consumption) and fat. People who drink diet soda are either overweight, or are futilely trying to lose weight. People who are in good shape rarely consume diet soda.

Here’s the bottom line. If you’re trying to lose fat, then quit drinking diet soda. Even if you don’t overcompensate when you drink diet soda, keep in mind that it could be ruining your metabolism and hormonal system. If you want to lose weight, then you need to do what healthy people do, and that’s not drinking diet soda. If you don’t want to be overfat, then don’t do what your overfat counterparts are doing: drinking diet soda!