In the immortal words of the short-lived marketing misstep that was Talking Barbie, "Math is hard." With a physique that would defy the physics of walking upright not to mention in heels, it's no wonder her creators found math challenging. But sometimes you just have to slog through the tough material just to know that you can rely on data that's proven. What I learned from Mrs. Lindsey, my 9th grade Elementary Functions teacher, is that proving theories with the 'Gibbons Theorem' just to imply I had a vague grasp of the material doesn't bring home the 'A', and hard candy for right answers doesn't make the task any more enjoyable. All that just to welcome you to the science of fat loss so that you can exercise strategically.
When reading scientific explanations there are two things to avoid. First, don't read with Carl Sagan-like inflection. Do try to liven up the material with zippy little exclamation points as necessary. Second, for the sake of retention, don't try to sing the text to the tune of any 'School House Rock' songs. The Declaration of Independence shouldn't have been reduced to a mere ditty and neither should the serious business of fat metabolism. So, put on your serious face and, for my Microsoft clients, pretend this is a Power Point presentation:
"Conjunction junction, what's your function . . . ."
We've talked about fast-twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers and no, this is not defined by relative coffee consumption. Fast Twitch, Type II, and Slow Twitch, Type I, needs little explanation. As Bruce W. Craig, PhD, Column Editor for NSCA's Strength and Conditioning Journal (Volume 28, Number 5, pages 70-71) and author of 'Fat Burning', "In short, your type I fibers have a slower chemistry than your type II fibers, and are the fiber of choice when the workload is lower." From here, Craig takes over to explain fat metabolism and the roll type I and type II fibers play:
Type I muscle fibers are classified as aerobic fibers and contain numerous mitochondria. Mitochondria contain a series of aerobic enzymes that represent a metabolic pathway called the Krebs cycle. The Krebs cycle within each mitochondrion is able to produce 1 ATP molecule directly and 8 hydrogen ions every time it cycles. The hydrogen ions this system produces then enter the electron transport system of the mitochondria, and their energy is used to rebuild the ATP broken down during muscle contraction. The metabolic pathways of the mitochondria can supply the ATP demands of the muscle at rest and during aerobic exercise if adequate oxygen is available. In the presence of oxygen, these 2 mitochondrial systems can make 12 ATP molecules for every turn of the Krebs cycle. The compound that starts the the Krebs cycle is called acetyl-CoA, and it can be formed from either carbohydrates or fats. The carbohydrate your muscles metabolize is a simple sugar called glucose, and it is either imported (blood glucose from dietary intake or liver) or taken from a local storage form (muscle glycogen) as a modified version of glucose. Glucose molecules consist of 6 carbons, and their complete breakdown produces 2 acetyl-CoA molecules. If both acetyl-CoA molecules enter the Krebs cycle, the ATP yield is 24. Fat, on the other hand, contains a lot more carbon and can produce more ATP than carbohydrates. The fat your muscle uses can come form many sources, such as plasma free fatty acids (FAs) and triglycerides, or the triglycerides stored within the muscle. Free FAs can be used directly, but triglycerides need to be broken down first. Triglycerides consist of glycerol molecule (alcohol compound) and 3 FA molecules. When you exercise, the body releases hormones that activate a fat cell enzyme that breaks triglycerides into glycerol and FA. The FA molecules that are released following this breakdown contain from 16 to 18 carbons, and the metabolism of just one 16-carbon palmitic acid (saturated FA) by the mitochondria will give you 129 ATP molecules. Given that there are 3 FA molecules per triglyceride, fats represent a major source of energy.
As indicated above, Type 1 Fibers can metabolize either carbohydrates or fats, and are more involved when exercise intensity is at or below 70% of your maximal aerobic capacity (VO2 max). If aerobic exercise is above 70% of VO2 max or you perform resistance training, the nervous system recruits more anaerobic muscle fibers (type II), which produce more and metabolize more carbohydrates. Type II muscle fibers do not contain as many mitochondria as type I fibers and use muscle glycogen as their primary fuel, so they are not as dependent on oxygen. The breakdown of glucose in type II fibers is faster than its usage in type I fibers because it occurs outside the mitochondria and does not produce as many acetyl-CoA molecules. The end result of glucose metabolism in type II fibers is lactic acid, and only 2 ATP molecules are produced per molecule of glucose. Therefore, when you increase exercise intensity, the muscle tends to burn (metabolize) more carbohydrate than fat because of the type of muscle fiber being used.
If your ability to burn fat were dependent solely on its progression through its metabolic pathways, 15 minutes of aerobic exercise might be adequate. However, fat metabolism is also dependent on the delivery of FAs to an active muscle, and the primary factor that influences fat usage during exercise is the time it takes to metabolize fats. The metabolization of fat represents its release from fat cells, and is hormonally regulated. Two hormones in particular, epinephrine from the adrenal gland and glucagon from the pancreas, are released into the bloodstream at the onset of exercise and activate hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL) in fat cells and muscle. Once activated, this enzyme breaks triglycerides into 3 FA molecules and glycerol, and the FA molecules enter the bloodstream (fat cells) or are available to the muscle (intramuscular triglyceride stores). The breakdown and usage of intramuscular stores of triglyceride during exercise is not well understood, and estimates of how much fat the muscle uses from this source are not possible with current research techniques. However, based on the appearance of FAs in the blood during steady-state aerobic exercise (70% of VO2 max) it takes approximately 20-30 minutes to get FAs to an active muscle, which represents the time it takes to release the HSL-activating hormones, the action of the HSL, and the transit time required for FAs to reach the muscle fromm fat cells. Even after FAs reach the muscle, they must cross the cell membrane, enter the mitochondria, and be converted into acetyl-CoA via a metabolic process called beta oxidation before they can be metabolized in the Krebs cycle. All of these steps increase the exercise time needed to utilize fat for ATP production from an external source. During this time, the muscle can use other fuels, and most likely metabolizes intramuscular fat, any free FAs in the blood, or glucose, but does not utilize a high percentage of the fat within the fat cells that diets and exercise programs target. Therefore, if your exercise goal is to reduce fat, exercising aerobically at 60 to 70% of your VO2 max for at least 20 minutes per day is one way to achieve that goal.
Well, that was one windy answer . . . .
It's likely that the clever little brainiacs who figured this out could easily be wrestled to the floor and robbed of their lunch money by bigger, stronger, faster hooligans who haven't listened to a word published about fitness. Though test tubes and microscopes are handy tools, so are dumbbells and a good sweat. As soundly reasoned as the above explanation is, it's the same thought process that brought us Nautilaus equipment - it's a localized approach that ignores the global result.
When queried in Fat Loss and Fitness, Patrick J. O'Shea, Ed.D, Professor Emeritus of exercise and sports science at Oregon State University and author of the book 'Quantum Strength and Power Training (Gaining The Winning Edge) (1996), talks about his observation that "Statistically, there is a close relationship between V02max and lean body mass." Note that O'Shea sees a forest where Craig only sees trees.
When asked in a Q&A by Clarence Bass about the research done by Angelo Tremblay that short intervals (30-90 Seconds) produced substanially more fat loss for each calorie burned exercising, O'Shea responded, "I was not surprised by Tremblay's findings showing that low intensity, long duration exercise is not as effective as short intense intervals in reducing body fat. It is relatively easy to explain why this is so. During strenuous exercise, the rate of metabolism rises, going to about 15 times the basal metabolic rate (BMR) and even higher during intense interval work. For example, running 5 mi/hr the oxygen uptake required is 28 ml 02/min/kg of body weight with 3.7 cal/hr./lb burned, while a short burst of intense interval work may require 100 ml 02/min/kg with 13.8 cal/hr/lb burned. By maintaining the high level of training over a 5 or 6 week period one would expect a significant increase in the ratio of lean body mass to fat."
"Intense interval work utilizes a greater percent of the body's muscles, both slow and fast twitch. Also, performing high intensity work places added energy demands on the respiratory system, cardiovascular system and nervous system. Thus more fat and glycogen are burned to support the expanding energy demands of the body during - and after - intense exercise. In other words, the cost of short intense interval exercise is very high in terms of energy demands in comparison to low intensity aerobic exercise. What's more, while at rest trained active muscles burn more fat night and day, contributing to further fat loss."
Hmmm, how many ways can I say this . . . .
Since Angelo Tremblay was referenced above, I dutifully tracked down the data and mercifully reprinted only the conclusion and results. You'll note you've read this before:
Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness
A Tremblay, Division of Kinesiology, Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada
RESULTS: Results from Study 1 showed that men who regularly take part in intense physical activities display lower fat percentage and subcutaneous adiposity than men who never perform such activities, and this was true even if the latter group reported a lower energy intake (917 kJ/day, P<0.05). In Study 2, the high-intensity exercise stimulus produced a greater post-exercise post-prandial oxygen consumption as well as fat oxidation than the resting session, an effect which disappeared with the addition of propranolol. In addition, the increase in post-prandial oxygen consumption observed after the high-intensity exercise session was also significantly greater than that promoted by the low-intensity exercise session.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that high-intensity exercise favors a lesser body fat deposition which might be related to an increase in post-exercise energy metabolism that is mediated by -adrenergic stimulation.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
That's what he SAID
"High frequency training results in faster muscle growth."
— Chad Waterbury
'Nothing could be worse in life than to be perfectly understood.' I can't remember who said it but I believe I stole it out of 'Quotable Quotes' in Reader's Digest and put it in my sister's yearbook because it seemed to sum things up rather nicely at the time. It applies here because yet again I'm pulling something out of Testosterone and frankly that clashes with all the pieces of me that eschew glossy, sexist gym publications. For the sake of clarity, I occasionally read Testosterone, I have an unexplained ability to bake fantastic cakes which satisfies my unhealthy fascination for frosting and I like dressing like a girl. There, now can we move on?
Specificity. I say it all the time and only partly because it just rolls off the tongue nicely. I say it over and over again because it's a simple way to sum up a huge concept. In order for your body to adapt to any specific stimulus, it must first be exposed to that stimulus. Sounds simple until you see basketball players trying to improve vertical leap on the calf raise machine (if they'd only use it as an obstacle to leap over they'd be on to something).
CrossFit is a varied stimulus therefore your specific adaptation is to chaos. Very liberating, don't you think? Can you imagine yard work or carrying boxes to a moving van in the framework of 3 sets of 12 reps at limited ranges of motion? On the plus side, once you fade out on the 13th box or fail to get it off the floor, nobody you know will ask you to help them move again.
Most of my clients get this right away but, this being a gym and all, I'm inevitably asked the question, "yes, but can I build muscles training like that?" Mr. Olympia muscles, no. That requires supplementation with, uh, 'Vitamin S'. But a real human physique with muscles, yes. Here's Chad Waterbury, again from Testosterone with his perspective:
It's a travesty we don't have more science focusing on muscle growth in humans. I can't blame the National Institute of Health (NIH), though. After all, given the plethora of life-threatening diseases that can surface or invade our bodies, it's probably better that funds be directed toward more humane endeavors. But damn, I sure wish we had more than rats, cats, and cows to demonstrate what's possible in terms of human muscle growth.
But all is not lost. The fact that the vast majority of hypertrophy-focused studies employed four-legged creatures only makes us coaches think a wee bit harder with regard to faster ways to build muscle.
Indeed, people like me are blessed with many clients from all walks of life that have become my "lab rats." And let me tell ya, I think I'm stumbling onto something big — something that no NIH study has effectively tackled, or will tackle, in the near future.
What is this "something big," you ask? It's High Frequency Training (HFT). What I mean by HFT is a system where muscle groups are trained more than four times per week. If fatigue and volume are managed — and that's specific to each person — no method will build muscle faster.
It's been said that science is the act of observing the world around us. And if we follow this example we'll see that the world around us is slapping us in the face with many powerful muscle-building demonstrations. For those who train a muscle group with enough intensity and frequency, hypertrophy always occurs faster than traditional bodybuilding methods.
I've had clients fail to make substantial gains with 10x3, 5x5, triple drop sets, and virtually every other method you can name. But in my world, one thing's for certain: I've never failed to build a person's muscles faster than ever if he follows my HFT methods to the letter.
A simpleton is constrained to the general postulates that were devised by non-training scientists. Specifically, these scientists have attempted to qualify muscle breakdown, fatigue, and recovery by postulating that after a muscle group is trained, performance drops (fatigue sets in), and muscle growth only occurs after a period of recovery and subsequent supercompensation. But what happens if you re-train a muscle group before it's recovered?
What if you performed 1000 calf raises every day for the next month? At the end of the month, do you think your calves would be bigger or smaller? Listen, no scientist on earth would argue that the human body is an organism that adapts to the demand that's placed on it. This is known as Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand — the SAID principle.
When you starve yourself, your metabolism slows. When you overfeed yourself, your metabolism increases. When you're dehydrated, you hold more water. When you're over-hydrated, your body releases water. When you practice Chopin on the piano, your nervous system builds neural connections that enhance finger control. If you don't practice piano, your nervous system doesn't build those neural connections because there's no reason to.
So when you train muscles frequently, your body must adapt to the imposed demand. What we currently know is that a muscle group becomes more neurologically efficient and grows bigger with training. These processes occur because the nervous system enhances those motor pathways, and new proteins are inserted into the muscles.
What I can't do is reference a human-based, hypertrophy-focused study that incorporates the type of training that I'm talking about. But what I can do is tell you to look at the delts of boxers, the thighs of speed skaters, and the lats of swimmers.
Sure, I can't prove that training with a high frequency results in the faster muscle growth because the NIH doesn't prioritize such information. But I can tell you to observe the world around you. After all, that's what science is all about.
— CW
— Chad Waterbury
'Nothing could be worse in life than to be perfectly understood.' I can't remember who said it but I believe I stole it out of 'Quotable Quotes' in Reader's Digest and put it in my sister's yearbook because it seemed to sum things up rather nicely at the time. It applies here because yet again I'm pulling something out of Testosterone and frankly that clashes with all the pieces of me that eschew glossy, sexist gym publications. For the sake of clarity, I occasionally read Testosterone, I have an unexplained ability to bake fantastic cakes which satisfies my unhealthy fascination for frosting and I like dressing like a girl. There, now can we move on?
Specificity. I say it all the time and only partly because it just rolls off the tongue nicely. I say it over and over again because it's a simple way to sum up a huge concept. In order for your body to adapt to any specific stimulus, it must first be exposed to that stimulus. Sounds simple until you see basketball players trying to improve vertical leap on the calf raise machine (if they'd only use it as an obstacle to leap over they'd be on to something).
CrossFit is a varied stimulus therefore your specific adaptation is to chaos. Very liberating, don't you think? Can you imagine yard work or carrying boxes to a moving van in the framework of 3 sets of 12 reps at limited ranges of motion? On the plus side, once you fade out on the 13th box or fail to get it off the floor, nobody you know will ask you to help them move again.
Most of my clients get this right away but, this being a gym and all, I'm inevitably asked the question, "yes, but can I build muscles training like that?" Mr. Olympia muscles, no. That requires supplementation with, uh, 'Vitamin S'. But a real human physique with muscles, yes. Here's Chad Waterbury, again from Testosterone with his perspective:
It's a travesty we don't have more science focusing on muscle growth in humans. I can't blame the National Institute of Health (NIH), though. After all, given the plethora of life-threatening diseases that can surface or invade our bodies, it's probably better that funds be directed toward more humane endeavors. But damn, I sure wish we had more than rats, cats, and cows to demonstrate what's possible in terms of human muscle growth.
But all is not lost. The fact that the vast majority of hypertrophy-focused studies employed four-legged creatures only makes us coaches think a wee bit harder with regard to faster ways to build muscle.
Indeed, people like me are blessed with many clients from all walks of life that have become my "lab rats." And let me tell ya, I think I'm stumbling onto something big — something that no NIH study has effectively tackled, or will tackle, in the near future.
What is this "something big," you ask? It's High Frequency Training (HFT). What I mean by HFT is a system where muscle groups are trained more than four times per week. If fatigue and volume are managed — and that's specific to each person — no method will build muscle faster.
It's been said that science is the act of observing the world around us. And if we follow this example we'll see that the world around us is slapping us in the face with many powerful muscle-building demonstrations. For those who train a muscle group with enough intensity and frequency, hypertrophy always occurs faster than traditional bodybuilding methods.
I've had clients fail to make substantial gains with 10x3, 5x5, triple drop sets, and virtually every other method you can name. But in my world, one thing's for certain: I've never failed to build a person's muscles faster than ever if he follows my HFT methods to the letter.
A simpleton is constrained to the general postulates that were devised by non-training scientists. Specifically, these scientists have attempted to qualify muscle breakdown, fatigue, and recovery by postulating that after a muscle group is trained, performance drops (fatigue sets in), and muscle growth only occurs after a period of recovery and subsequent supercompensation. But what happens if you re-train a muscle group before it's recovered?
What if you performed 1000 calf raises every day for the next month? At the end of the month, do you think your calves would be bigger or smaller? Listen, no scientist on earth would argue that the human body is an organism that adapts to the demand that's placed on it. This is known as Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand — the SAID principle.
When you starve yourself, your metabolism slows. When you overfeed yourself, your metabolism increases. When you're dehydrated, you hold more water. When you're over-hydrated, your body releases water. When you practice Chopin on the piano, your nervous system builds neural connections that enhance finger control. If you don't practice piano, your nervous system doesn't build those neural connections because there's no reason to.
So when you train muscles frequently, your body must adapt to the imposed demand. What we currently know is that a muscle group becomes more neurologically efficient and grows bigger with training. These processes occur because the nervous system enhances those motor pathways, and new proteins are inserted into the muscles.
What I can't do is reference a human-based, hypertrophy-focused study that incorporates the type of training that I'm talking about. But what I can do is tell you to look at the delts of boxers, the thighs of speed skaters, and the lats of swimmers.
Sure, I can't prove that training with a high frequency results in the faster muscle growth because the NIH doesn't prioritize such information. But I can tell you to observe the world around you. After all, that's what science is all about.
— CW
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Logical Leaps
A while back I watched a shamelessly terrible television show once a week to which I would never admit. Even now I won't tell you what it was. I felt so guilty that the only way I could justify wasting chunks of my life that way was to do something useful during the commercials. I jumped rope and did lots of sit-ups. Though that counts as neither a 'home gym' or a workout, I at least cleared my conscious. I still apply that same 'Useful' rule to reruns of 'Alias' but not the ABBA documentary on PBS which seems to run every weekend (L-sits instead - there are no commercial breaks and I can't miss 'Waterloo').
Most of my clients like the flexibility of a workout at home though I hope it has nothing to do with junk TV and an equally junk-filled post-workout carb load in front of the tube. And though the concept of home workouts is admittedly convenient, most people don't want a PRO Club in the living room - especially if it comes with the carpet. We like exercise equipment but it clashes with the drapes, it doesn't make a good coffee table, and it will generally cause at least one argument with a spouse (results may vary).
Please consider the lowly jump rope, however, which may actually match the drapes and is one of the cheapest pieces of cardio equipment you could ever buy for a home workout. There are options: heavy ropes, speed ropes, beaded ropes, etc. I've been jumping with a 3-pound heavy rope and I assure you that 3 pounds will never feel heavier. You can choose ropes with handles that are weighted or weight distributed in the rope. I prefer the latter though not when I'm barefoot.
Your jump rope workouts may look something like this:
W/O1
Jump Rope - 50 Jumps
10 Push-ups
10 Rounds
W/O2
1 Minute Jump Rope
25 Overhead Squats - hold jump rope overhead using a snatch grip
25 Sit-ups
4 Rounds
W/O3
30 Seconds Jump Rope
20 squat jumps
15 Divebomber Push-ups
5 Rounds
W/O4
3 Minutes Jump Rope
10 Jump lunges per side
30 Knees to Chest per side
2 Minutes Jump Rope
20 Jump Lunges per side
20 Knees to Chest per side
1 Minute Jump Rope
30 Jump Lunges per side
10 Knees to Chest per side
Please note that downstairs neighbors will hate this additional to your workout repetoire. As you will soon find out, there will be no successful completion of workouts started after 10p.
Most of my clients like the flexibility of a workout at home though I hope it has nothing to do with junk TV and an equally junk-filled post-workout carb load in front of the tube. And though the concept of home workouts is admittedly convenient, most people don't want a PRO Club in the living room - especially if it comes with the carpet. We like exercise equipment but it clashes with the drapes, it doesn't make a good coffee table, and it will generally cause at least one argument with a spouse (results may vary).
Please consider the lowly jump rope, however, which may actually match the drapes and is one of the cheapest pieces of cardio equipment you could ever buy for a home workout. There are options: heavy ropes, speed ropes, beaded ropes, etc. I've been jumping with a 3-pound heavy rope and I assure you that 3 pounds will never feel heavier. You can choose ropes with handles that are weighted or weight distributed in the rope. I prefer the latter though not when I'm barefoot.
Your jump rope workouts may look something like this:
W/O1
Jump Rope - 50 Jumps
10 Push-ups
10 Rounds
W/O2
1 Minute Jump Rope
25 Overhead Squats - hold jump rope overhead using a snatch grip
25 Sit-ups
4 Rounds
W/O3
30 Seconds Jump Rope
20 squat jumps
15 Divebomber Push-ups
5 Rounds
W/O4
3 Minutes Jump Rope
10 Jump lunges per side
30 Knees to Chest per side
2 Minutes Jump Rope
20 Jump Lunges per side
20 Knees to Chest per side
1 Minute Jump Rope
30 Jump Lunges per side
10 Knees to Chest per side
Please note that downstairs neighbors will hate this additional to your workout repetoire. As you will soon find out, there will be no successful completion of workouts started after 10p.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Why not eat better food?
The pursuit of magic pills, potions and elixirs is such a common crusade that the Food and Drug Administration is currently pondering medicinal doses to cure the ills of it's 'Food Guide Pyramid'. Unable to admit that a structure which usually opitimizes sound engineering, is flawed at it's very foundation, the government agency would prefer to rely on a common tool of western medicine: address the symptoms while ignoring the underlying malady.
Though I believe that some supplementation is a good thing, I think the adoption of a 'Supplement Pyramid' to complement the 'Food Guide Pyramid' ignores prevention and better dietary practices for a quick band-aid approach to the problem. Below in italics are excerpts of a proposal by CRN to introduce a Supplement Pyramid to the populace along with information that illustrates how problems with nutrient density and absorption could be addressed with dietary changes:
The Dietary Supplement Pyramid
CRN has submitted comments to the USDA panel for reviewing the Food Guide Pyramid.
CRN's Dietary Supplement Pyramid provides an easy guide, complements food pyramid and ensure good nutrition with dietary supplements.
Scientific studies have proven that good diets and generous nutrient intakes can help optimize health and protect against serious diseases, including heart disease, osteoporosis, cancer and even some birth defects. Now, consumers can use new food and supplement pyramids to improve eating habits and build a sensible long-term supplement program.
Foods and supplements, the best plan
A good diet is the foundation for better health, but obviously even the most knowledgeable consumers don’t always eat the way they should.
It's little wonder - misleading labeling, large scale farming methods which force rapid production while depleting the nutrient density of our food, lobbying by special interests groups - all have a profound impact on our food supply and on what we think we know about food. Our produce isn't what it used to be and our markets are flooded with poor alternatives. Rather than swallowing both the argument that nutrient deficiency is inevitable and the 'enriched' alternatives the market provides, we need to respond with more tenacity by creating a demand for better quality products and more transparent labeling.
Foundational Flaws
The statement begins, of course by accepting that the foundation of the food guide pyramid is indisputably solid:
Both the food pyramid and the dietary supplement pyramid sit on a base deliberately chosen to highlight a key component–grain products in the case of the food pyramid and multivitamins in the case of the supplement pyramid.
As I'll cover later in the discussion of recommended daily allowances, grains as a foundation are a nutritionally poor base. Not only do grains lack many necessary nutrients, they can also act as an anti-nutrient. This is explained by Paul Chek in 'You Are What You Eat' Part 2, "Even more important in today’s climate of indigestion, is that phytic acid, which is a known mineral blocker, is broken down in the sprouting process. Phytic acid is present in the bran of all grains, the coating of nuts and seeds and inhibits the absorption of calcium, magnesium, iron, copper and zinc. These inhibitors can neutralize our own digestive enzymes, resulting in the digestive disorders experienced by many people." And that can mean a lack of nutrient absorption in a compromised digestive system on top of the mineral-blocking properties of phytates.
It's also important to consider that the inclusion of 9 to 11 servings of grains on top of the more nutrient-dense fruit and vegetables puts a heavy emphasis on carbohydrates as the primary macronutrient. This plan which offers paltry servings of protein may be shortening our lives dramatically. Dr. Loren Cordain sums this up in Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century, "An increasing body of evidence indicates that high-protein diets may improve blood lipid profiles and thereby lessen the risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease]. Wolfe and Giovannetti have shown that the isocaloric substitution of protein (23% of energy) for carbohydrate in moderately hypercholesterolemic subjects resulted in significant decreases in total, LDL, and VLDL cholesterol and triacylglycerols and an increase in HDL cholesterol. Similar beneficial blood lipid changes have been observed in type 2 diabetic patients in conjunction with improvements in glucose and insulin metabolism. Furthermore, high protein diets have been shown to improve metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. In obese women, hypocaloric, high-protein diets improved insulin sensitivity and prevented muscle loss, whereas hypocaloric, high-carbohydrate diets worsened insulin sensitivity and caused reductions in fat free mass."
With its easy availability and limited expense, the urging of the USDA to focus on grains as a primary food source makes it easy for the average consumer to miss out on key nutrients.
Capitalism 1, Consumer 0
There are 12 minerals for which "Reference Daily Intakes" have been established by the Food and Drug Administration, for purposes of nutrition labeling.
have caused the average micronutrient content of the diet to decline. This situation worsened as cereal milling techniques developed in the Industrial era allowed for the production of bread flour devoid of the more nutrient-dense bran and germ (35). The displacement of more nutrient-dense foods (eg, fruit, vegetables, lean meats, and seafood) by less-dense foods (refined sugars, grains, vegetable oils, and dairy products) and the subsequent decline in dietary vitamin and mineral density has far reaching health implications— consequences that not only promote the development of vitamin- deficiency diseases but also numerous infectious and chronic diseases"
Mean nutrient density of various foods groups (418-kJ samples)1
Cordain also discusses homocysteine levels in the paper cited above, "Protein intake has been shown to be inversely related to CVD in a cohort of 80 082 women (126). Dietary protein is also inversely related to blood homocysteine concentration (127), an independent risk factor for CVD. Meat-eating populations have been shown to maintain lower plasma homocysteine concentrations than nonmeat eaters (128, 129). In numerous population studies, summarized by Obarzanek et al (130), higher blood pressure has been associated with lower intakes of protein. A 4-wk dietary intervention of hypertensive subjects showed that a high-protein diet (25% energy) was effective in significantly lowering blood pressure (131)."
While trying not to be a conspiracy theorist, consumers understand cholesterol through the marketing of Statins. Perhaps the introduction of homocysteine-lowering drugs will be the only means of educating the public regarding homocysteine. For now, we have the supplement companies, which are in essence the same thing.
(or the equivalent)
High calcium intakes, preferably with vitamin D, can slow the rate of bone loss and help protect against fractures. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, says everyone over the age of 8 needs at least 1,000 mg of calcium per day, and teens and seniors need even more (1,200 to 1,300 mg). Even people who regularly consume dairy products may not get enough calcium. For example, a glass of milk contains about 300 mg. So if you don’t drink 3 or 4 cups of milk a day (or the equivalent), take 300 mg of calcium for every glass you fall short.
Though I don't disagree that milk is the best source of calcium, I can't help but feel the heavy hand of the dairy lobbyists here and it makes me want to protest just 'cuz.
For the sake of contrarianism, here are other food sources of calcium:
Sardines, canned 3 ½ oz/ 8 med - 370 mg
Chickpeas 100g - 190 mg
White beans 1 cup - 200mg
Turnip greens 1 cup - 190 mg
Blackstrap molasses 1Tbsp - 170mg
According to 'The Journal of the American College of Nutrition,' (JACN) in the article entitled 'The Bioavailability of Calcium', "except for newborns fed on mother’s milk (calves drinking cow’s milk) which can absorb almost all the ingested calcium, the percent of milk calcium absorbed seldom exceeds 40% under normal dietary conditions." It would appear not all milligrams are created equal when considering bioavailability which turns out to be a very complex question.
I again point a finger at grains with the help of the article cited above, "Some components of the diet, such as the phytates found in bran and most cereals and seeds, oxalates in spinach, rhubarb, walnuts and sorrel, and tannins (tea), can form insoluble complexes with calcium, thereby reducing its absorbability. This only seems to affect calcium balance if the diet is unbalanced, high-fiber strict vegetarian diets lacking dairy products (calcium), for example. This must be taken into account when comparing dairy products with soybean-based products, which are generally phytate-rich. The apparently negative influence of fiber on calcium absorption is mainly due to the phytates that are frequently associated with dietary fiber."
And, so as not to convince you that I'm just bitter from years of suffering from a wheat sensitivity, salt, another western dietary staple is also a considerable part of the problem. The JACN article goes on to say, "every extra two grams of dietary sodium increases urinary calcium excretion by an average of 30 to 40 milligrams. Clearly, dietary factors affecting the amount of calcium lost in the urine have a major influence on calcium balance and may even be more important than those that influence the intestinal availability of calcium [17]. This is why the inevitable loss of calcium in the urine (accounting for a large part of the maintenance requirement) is greater for Western-type diets that are high in unfavorable factors such as animal protein, sulfates, sodium, coffee, tea and alcohol, than for other diets with lower levels of consumption of these factors."
Other than the reference to animal protein, which I believe Cordain disputed in the protein debate, our sloppy nutritional habits account for a large part of our calcium deficiency. Though I support the idea of ingesting calcium-rich foods, it would make sense that equal effort should be put into reducing it's unnecessary excretion.
underemphasising the impact of overfeeding
Studies suggest that people who take vitamin E and vitamin C on a regular basis may get some protection against diseases or conditions caused by oxidative damage, such as heart disease, cancer and cataracts. The optimum amount for vitamin E may be more than 100 or 200 International Units (IU) and for vitamin C may be at least 200 mg.
The organization with a long name sums up the issue in an article with a complex title in a way that's both short and simple, "we discussed the evidence that oxidation is a major contributor to cellular aging and the degenerative diseases that accompany aging such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, immune-system decline, brain dysfunction, and cataracts. Also reviewed was the evidence that dietary antioxidants, such as ascorbate, tocopherol, and carotenoids, the main source of which are fruits and vegetables, protect against these degenerative diseases," said the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, in
Oxidative Damage and Mitochondrial Decay in Aging.
In the publication noted above, the authors go on to explain that to mitigate oxidation, it is necessary to restrict caloric intake and believe me, that's a whole new post on a concept called 'Intermittent Fasting' which I will explain another time. In short, PNAS explains it like this, "The physiological mechanisms that control the conservation of energy during periods of low food availability, as observed experimentally with calorie restriction, may temporarily but profoundly affect the metabolic rate of organisms capable of entering this state. Therefore, daily torpor, by lowering the metabolic rate and oxidant production that can exert pro-aging effects, is likely to be responsible for at least some of the life prolonging effects of calorie restriction." In short, sometimes we should stop eating; a concept foreign to this snacking, noshing and pecking population.
Marion Nestle makes the point in 'Food Politics' however, that food lobbyists would never agree to a plan of limiting consumption because it's economically impactful. Selling more. How could you possibly sell more in a world that's overstuffed especially if overstuffing is the problem. Supplementation.
More Fishy Recommendations
Many other dietary supplements are available and their use is often tied to special needs or specific dietary lacks. For example, omega-3 fatty acids, found in fish oils, are believed to help reduce the risk of heart disease. People who don’t (or won’t) eat fish regularly may wish to supplement with omega-3 fatty acids.
I don't dispute that Omega-3 is a valuable supplement but increasing Omega-3 without decreasing Omega-6 is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a Dixie cup. First, let's look at the problem of our ratios with the help of Dr. Cordain, "The trend toward a higher ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 PUFAs [Polyunsaturated fatty acids] was exacerbated as meat from grain fed cattle and livestock became the norm in the US diet over the past 100 y. In the current US diet, the ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 PUFAs has risen to 10:1, whereas the ratio in hunter-gatherer diets predominant in wild animal foods has been estimated to be between 2:1 and 3:1." To compound the problem, we introduce vegetable oil. Says Cordain, "The advent of the oil-seed processing industry at the beginning of the 20th century significantly raised the total intake of vegetable fat, which directly increased the dietary level of Omega-6 PUFAs at the expense of a lowered level of Omega-3 PUFAs because of the inherently higher concentrations of Omega-6 PUFAs and lower concentrations of Omega-3 PUFAs in most vegetable oils." For those of you who know that Canola has a high Omega-3 content, you should also know that it's likely rancid due to the high heat of processing.
Wouldn't it be sad if I didn't mention something about grains and high glycemic diets here as well? Many thanks to Cordain who continues with, "A recent study suggested that the blood concentration of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) is a stronger predictor of CVD [cardiovascular disease] than is LDL cholesterol (106). High-glycemic load diets are associated with increased concentrations of CRP (107), as are low dietary intakes of omega-3 PUFAs [polyunsaturated fatty acids](108), and diets that encourage weight loss reduce CRP (109) concentrations. These studies indicate how multiple interrelated qualities of Western diets and recently introduced Neolithic and Industrial Era foods may drive a variety of mechanisms that promote the development of chronic diseases."
Though I believe that some supplementation is a good thing, I think the adoption of a 'Supplement Pyramid' to complement the 'Food Guide Pyramid' ignores prevention and better dietary practices for a quick band-aid approach to the problem. Below in italics are excerpts of a proposal by CRN to introduce a Supplement Pyramid to the populace along with information that illustrates how problems with nutrient density and absorption could be addressed with dietary changes:
The Dietary Supplement PyramidCRN has submitted comments to the USDA panel for reviewing the Food Guide Pyramid.
CRN's Dietary Supplement Pyramid provides an easy guide, complements food pyramid and ensure good nutrition with dietary supplements.
Scientific studies have proven that good diets and generous nutrient intakes can help optimize health and protect against serious diseases, including heart disease, osteoporosis, cancer and even some birth defects. Now, consumers can use new food and supplement pyramids to improve eating habits and build a sensible long-term supplement program.
Foods and supplements, the best plan
A good diet is the foundation for better health, but obviously even the most knowledgeable consumers don’t always eat the way they should.
It's little wonder - misleading labeling, large scale farming methods which force rapid production while depleting the nutrient density of our food, lobbying by special interests groups - all have a profound impact on our food supply and on what we think we know about food. Our produce isn't what it used to be and our markets are flooded with poor alternatives. Rather than swallowing both the argument that nutrient deficiency is inevitable and the 'enriched' alternatives the market provides, we need to respond with more tenacity by creating a demand for better quality products and more transparent labeling.
Foundational Flaws
The statement begins, of course by accepting that the foundation of the food guide pyramid is indisputably solid:
Both the food pyramid and the dietary supplement pyramid sit on a base deliberately chosen to highlight a key component–grain products in the case of the food pyramid and multivitamins in the case of the supplement pyramid.
As I'll cover later in the discussion of recommended daily allowances, grains as a foundation are a nutritionally poor base. Not only do grains lack many necessary nutrients, they can also act as an anti-nutrient. This is explained by Paul Chek in 'You Are What You Eat' Part 2, "Even more important in today’s climate of indigestion, is that phytic acid, which is a known mineral blocker, is broken down in the sprouting process. Phytic acid is present in the bran of all grains, the coating of nuts and seeds and inhibits the absorption of calcium, magnesium, iron, copper and zinc. These inhibitors can neutralize our own digestive enzymes, resulting in the digestive disorders experienced by many people." And that can mean a lack of nutrient absorption in a compromised digestive system on top of the mineral-blocking properties of phytates.
It's also important to consider that the inclusion of 9 to 11 servings of grains on top of the more nutrient-dense fruit and vegetables puts a heavy emphasis on carbohydrates as the primary macronutrient. This plan which offers paltry servings of protein may be shortening our lives dramatically. Dr. Loren Cordain sums this up in Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century, "An increasing body of evidence indicates that high-protein diets may improve blood lipid profiles and thereby lessen the risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease]. Wolfe and Giovannetti have shown that the isocaloric substitution of protein (23% of energy) for carbohydrate in moderately hypercholesterolemic subjects resulted in significant decreases in total, LDL, and VLDL cholesterol and triacylglycerols and an increase in HDL cholesterol. Similar beneficial blood lipid changes have been observed in type 2 diabetic patients in conjunction with improvements in glucose and insulin metabolism. Furthermore, high protein diets have been shown to improve metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. In obese women, hypocaloric, high-protein diets improved insulin sensitivity and prevented muscle loss, whereas hypocaloric, high-carbohydrate diets worsened insulin sensitivity and caused reductions in fat free mass."
With its easy availability and limited expense, the urging of the USDA to focus on grains as a primary food source makes it easy for the average consumer to miss out on key nutrients.
Capitalism 1, Consumer 0
There are 12 minerals for which "Reference Daily Intakes" have been established by the Food and Drug Administration, for purposes of nutrition labeling.
This is the place where CRN makes it's most obvious point regarding the struggle to consume 'Daily Intakes' without the help of supplementation. But let's consider Cordain's argument which I alluded to earlier. What if the premier carbohydrates came from caloricly sparse, read: low glycemic, vegetables? Here's how Cordain explains it:
"Because whole grains and milk maintain the next to the lowest nutrient density rankings, displacement of fruit, vegetables, lean meats, and seafood by these 2 staple food groups lowers the overall micronutrient density in the diet. Wild plant foods known to be consumed by huntergatherers generally maintain higher micronutrient concentrations than do their domesticated counterparts (4, 145), as does the muscle meat of wild animals (64). Consequently, the Neolithic introduction of dairy foods and cereal grains as staples wouldhave caused the average micronutrient content of the diet to decline. This situation worsened as cereal milling techniques developed in the Industrial era allowed for the production of bread flour devoid of the more nutrient-dense bran and germ (35). The displacement of more nutrient-dense foods (eg, fruit, vegetables, lean meats, and seafood) by less-dense foods (refined sugars, grains, vegetable oils, and dairy products) and the subsequent decline in dietary vitamin and mineral density has far reaching health implications— consequences that not only promote the development of vitamin- deficiency diseases but also numerous infectious and chronic diseases"
Mean nutrient density of various foods groups (418-kJ samples)1
Though the chart above is hard to read, the rank score explains it best. If vegetables have a score almost twice that of grains, it would stand to reason that eating larger quantities of vegetables in place of grains would yield a lower caloric, high fiber, nutrient dense diet.
Know your Cholesterol but not your Homocysteine?
Multivitamins with folic acid may also help reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke in men and women of all ages. Folic acid, vitamin B-6 and vitamin B-12 help reduce blood levels of homocysteine (an amino acid produced in the body), and people with lower homocysteine levels have a lower risk of heart disease and stroke. It is the long-term use of multivitamins that is most beneficial, so consumers should resolve in the year 2005 to make this a lifelong habit.
Usually the first connection anyone makes to heart disease is cholesterol. Often eliminating red meat is considered the wise first step to lowering cholesterol levels. What's funny is that nobody measures homocysteine and yet we understand this connection far more clearly than we can draw conclusions about cholesterol. And that wise first step that arguably lowered cholesterol, may have increased homocysteine levels. Anthony Colpo explains this in 'The Great Cholesterol Con,' "The best way to increase one's dietary intake of B-6 and B12 is to eat methionine-rich protein foods like meat! Animal foods are the only source of bioavailable B12; compared to meat-eating omnivores, vegetarians consistently exhibit higher blood levels of homocysteine, with the highest concentrations found in vegans. A 6-month randomized, controlled clinical trial found that those assigned to a higher protein diet experienced a twenty-one percent drop in homocysteine levels, but no decrease was observed among those assigned to a low protein diet or control subjects following their usual diet."
Cordain also discusses homocysteine levels in the paper cited above, "Protein intake has been shown to be inversely related to CVD in a cohort of 80 082 women (126). Dietary protein is also inversely related to blood homocysteine concentration (127), an independent risk factor for CVD. Meat-eating populations have been shown to maintain lower plasma homocysteine concentrations than nonmeat eaters (128, 129). In numerous population studies, summarized by Obarzanek et al (130), higher blood pressure has been associated with lower intakes of protein. A 4-wk dietary intervention of hypertensive subjects showed that a high-protein diet (25% energy) was effective in significantly lowering blood pressure (131)."
While trying not to be a conspiracy theorist, consumers understand cholesterol through the marketing of Statins. Perhaps the introduction of homocysteine-lowering drugs will be the only means of educating the public regarding homocysteine. For now, we have the supplement companies, which are in essence the same thing.
(or the equivalent)
High calcium intakes, preferably with vitamin D, can slow the rate of bone loss and help protect against fractures. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, says everyone over the age of 8 needs at least 1,000 mg of calcium per day, and teens and seniors need even more (1,200 to 1,300 mg). Even people who regularly consume dairy products may not get enough calcium. For example, a glass of milk contains about 300 mg. So if you don’t drink 3 or 4 cups of milk a day (or the equivalent), take 300 mg of calcium for every glass you fall short.
Though I don't disagree that milk is the best source of calcium, I can't help but feel the heavy hand of the dairy lobbyists here and it makes me want to protest just 'cuz.
For the sake of contrarianism, here are other food sources of calcium:
Sardines, canned 3 ½ oz/ 8 med - 370 mg
Chickpeas 100g - 190 mg
White beans 1 cup - 200mg
Turnip greens 1 cup - 190 mg
Blackstrap molasses 1Tbsp - 170mg
According to 'The Journal of the American College of Nutrition,' (JACN) in the article entitled 'The Bioavailability of Calcium', "except for newborns fed on mother’s milk (calves drinking cow’s milk) which can absorb almost all the ingested calcium, the percent of milk calcium absorbed seldom exceeds 40% under normal dietary conditions." It would appear not all milligrams are created equal when considering bioavailability which turns out to be a very complex question.
I again point a finger at grains with the help of the article cited above, "Some components of the diet, such as the phytates found in bran and most cereals and seeds, oxalates in spinach, rhubarb, walnuts and sorrel, and tannins (tea), can form insoluble complexes with calcium, thereby reducing its absorbability. This only seems to affect calcium balance if the diet is unbalanced, high-fiber strict vegetarian diets lacking dairy products (calcium), for example. This must be taken into account when comparing dairy products with soybean-based products, which are generally phytate-rich. The apparently negative influence of fiber on calcium absorption is mainly due to the phytates that are frequently associated with dietary fiber."
And, so as not to convince you that I'm just bitter from years of suffering from a wheat sensitivity, salt, another western dietary staple is also a considerable part of the problem. The JACN article goes on to say, "every extra two grams of dietary sodium increases urinary calcium excretion by an average of 30 to 40 milligrams. Clearly, dietary factors affecting the amount of calcium lost in the urine have a major influence on calcium balance and may even be more important than those that influence the intestinal availability of calcium [17]. This is why the inevitable loss of calcium in the urine (accounting for a large part of the maintenance requirement) is greater for Western-type diets that are high in unfavorable factors such as animal protein, sulfates, sodium, coffee, tea and alcohol, than for other diets with lower levels of consumption of these factors."
Other than the reference to animal protein, which I believe Cordain disputed in the protein debate, our sloppy nutritional habits account for a large part of our calcium deficiency. Though I support the idea of ingesting calcium-rich foods, it would make sense that equal effort should be put into reducing it's unnecessary excretion.
underemphasising the impact of overfeeding
Studies suggest that people who take vitamin E and vitamin C on a regular basis may get some protection against diseases or conditions caused by oxidative damage, such as heart disease, cancer and cataracts. The optimum amount for vitamin E may be more than 100 or 200 International Units (IU) and for vitamin C may be at least 200 mg.
The organization with a long name sums up the issue in an article with a complex title in a way that's both short and simple, "we discussed the evidence that oxidation is a major contributor to cellular aging and the degenerative diseases that accompany aging such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, immune-system decline, brain dysfunction, and cataracts. Also reviewed was the evidence that dietary antioxidants, such as ascorbate, tocopherol, and carotenoids, the main source of which are fruits and vegetables, protect against these degenerative diseases," said the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, in
Oxidative Damage and Mitochondrial Decay in Aging.
In the publication noted above, the authors go on to explain that to mitigate oxidation, it is necessary to restrict caloric intake and believe me, that's a whole new post on a concept called 'Intermittent Fasting' which I will explain another time. In short, PNAS explains it like this, "The physiological mechanisms that control the conservation of energy during periods of low food availability, as observed experimentally with calorie restriction, may temporarily but profoundly affect the metabolic rate of organisms capable of entering this state. Therefore, daily torpor, by lowering the metabolic rate and oxidant production that can exert pro-aging effects, is likely to be responsible for at least some of the life prolonging effects of calorie restriction." In short, sometimes we should stop eating; a concept foreign to this snacking, noshing and pecking population.
Marion Nestle makes the point in 'Food Politics' however, that food lobbyists would never agree to a plan of limiting consumption because it's economically impactful. Selling more. How could you possibly sell more in a world that's overstuffed especially if overstuffing is the problem. Supplementation.
More Fishy Recommendations
Many other dietary supplements are available and their use is often tied to special needs or specific dietary lacks. For example, omega-3 fatty acids, found in fish oils, are believed to help reduce the risk of heart disease. People who don’t (or won’t) eat fish regularly may wish to supplement with omega-3 fatty acids.
I don't dispute that Omega-3 is a valuable supplement but increasing Omega-3 without decreasing Omega-6 is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a Dixie cup. First, let's look at the problem of our ratios with the help of Dr. Cordain, "The trend toward a higher ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 PUFAs [Polyunsaturated fatty acids] was exacerbated as meat from grain fed cattle and livestock became the norm in the US diet over the past 100 y. In the current US diet, the ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 PUFAs has risen to 10:1, whereas the ratio in hunter-gatherer diets predominant in wild animal foods has been estimated to be between 2:1 and 3:1." To compound the problem, we introduce vegetable oil. Says Cordain, "The advent of the oil-seed processing industry at the beginning of the 20th century significantly raised the total intake of vegetable fat, which directly increased the dietary level of Omega-6 PUFAs at the expense of a lowered level of Omega-3 PUFAs because of the inherently higher concentrations of Omega-6 PUFAs and lower concentrations of Omega-3 PUFAs in most vegetable oils." For those of you who know that Canola has a high Omega-3 content, you should also know that it's likely rancid due to the high heat of processing.
Wouldn't it be sad if I didn't mention something about grains and high glycemic diets here as well? Many thanks to Cordain who continues with, "A recent study suggested that the blood concentration of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) is a stronger predictor of CVD [cardiovascular disease] than is LDL cholesterol (106). High-glycemic load diets are associated with increased concentrations of CRP (107), as are low dietary intakes of omega-3 PUFAs [polyunsaturated fatty acids](108), and diets that encourage weight loss reduce CRP (109) concentrations. These studies indicate how multiple interrelated qualities of Western diets and recently introduced Neolithic and Industrial Era foods may drive a variety of mechanisms that promote the development of chronic diseases."
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Combat Ready
You passed the presidential fitness test, you aced the police academy requirements, now it's Go Guards!
Graduation Requirements
-Successfully qualify with the M16A2 rifle-Pass Hand Grenade qualification course and successfully throw two live grenade (might I request that you refrain from any grenade launches or missiles of any sort in the Fitness Center?)
W/O1 - Weapons at the ready
20 Wall Ball Shots (c'mon, for accuracy)
Overhead Walking Lunges with 10# Body bar - 30 Steps (because An M-16 Rifle with 30 round magazine is 8.79 pounds)
5 Rounds
Pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT):
-Males ages 17-21
42 pushups
53 sit-ups
15:54 2-mile run
-Females 17-21
19 pushups
53 sit-ups
18:54 2-mile run
W/O 2 - APFT
Sir, yes sir! As above, of course
Negotiate both the Confidence and Obstacle Courses
W/O3 - Obstacle Course
50 Swings
25 Pull-ups
50 Squats
25 Hanging Row
50 Box Jumps
25 Knees to Elbows
30 Burpees
25 Sumo Deadlift Hi-pull (45-65 pounds)
Complete combative training to include Bayonet, Pugil and Hand-to-Hand Combat Training
Complete the Field Training Exercise (FTX)
W/O4 - Hand to Hand
Shadow Box
Jump Rope
Alternate 3 minute intervals for 21 Minutes
If you don't know how to shadow box, at least read Combat Calisthenics in this month's CrossFit Journal.
Demonstrate knowledge of the Seven Army Values (LDRSHIP):• Loyalty• Duty• Respect• Selfless Service• Honor• Integrity• Personal Courage
These qualities should be displayed during your training session naturally.
Graduation Requirements
-Successfully qualify with the M16A2 rifle-Pass Hand Grenade qualification course and successfully throw two live grenade (might I request that you refrain from any grenade launches or missiles of any sort in the Fitness Center?)
W/O1 - Weapons at the ready
20 Wall Ball Shots (c'mon, for accuracy)
Overhead Walking Lunges with 10# Body bar - 30 Steps (because An M-16 Rifle with 30 round magazine is 8.79 pounds)
5 Rounds
Pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT):
-Males ages 17-21
42 pushups
53 sit-ups
15:54 2-mile run
-Females 17-21
19 pushups
53 sit-ups
18:54 2-mile run
W/O 2 - APFT
Sir, yes sir! As above, of course
Negotiate both the Confidence and Obstacle Courses
W/O3 - Obstacle Course
50 Swings
25 Pull-ups
50 Squats
25 Hanging Row
50 Box Jumps
25 Knees to Elbows
30 Burpees
25 Sumo Deadlift Hi-pull (45-65 pounds)
Complete combative training to include Bayonet, Pugil and Hand-to-Hand Combat Training
Complete the Field Training Exercise (FTX)
W/O4 - Hand to Hand
Shadow Box
Jump Rope
Alternate 3 minute intervals for 21 Minutes
If you don't know how to shadow box, at least read Combat Calisthenics in this month's CrossFit Journal.
Demonstrate knowledge of the Seven Army Values (LDRSHIP):• Loyalty• Duty• Respect• Selfless Service• Honor• Integrity• Personal Courage
These qualities should be displayed during your training session naturally.
Breaking copyright laws . . .
This came from CrossFit's main page at a time when I was thinking about Overhead Squats. If I'm breaking laws by including this photo here, I'm darn sorry.
The Challenge
Overhead squatting is hard. Unilaterally it's even harder and it takes some practice. This is the perfect time to incorporate a little strength, some flexibility and a good dose of central nervous system stimulation. Oh, and did I mention patience? If it even crosses your mind that you might drop the weight, pick a dumbbell that won't break a toe.
Note the twist at the Shoulders, it's called a 'corkscrew' and it helps if you're not especially flexible. If you're having trouble with stability, look up at the dumbbell AT ALL TIMES. Also, make sure to glue your heels to the floor - this means pushing your knees out.
1 Each Side Unilateral (that's one-sided) OH Squats (UOHS) alternating
10 Hanging Knees to Elbows
2 Each Side UOHS
9 Knees to Elbows
3 Each Side UOHS
8 Knees to elbows
. . . . until 10 each side and 1 Knees to Elbows
You'd only have to goo . . . . msn search . . .
My client was saying that she never gets to see me workout. Unfortunately, the whole planet does with the help of modern technology. Luckily, most of the pictures are safely tucked away at CrossFit Eastside but these are just a few from CrossFit Championships and various other events. It proves I'm right there with you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
