Lyle Mcdonald writes:

The problem in modern society is both

1. Getting people to eat that way in the first place.
2. Getting them to keep eating that way in the long-term.

And, in a lot of ways, ‘b’ is probably the more important of the two. Everybody knows that all diets will work in the short-term. Where dieting invariably fails for most people is in long-term adherence. People fall off the bandwagon for a variety of reasons.

He’s dead right.  The most important rules are the most basic.  Eat a good diet, and be consistent about it.

What constitutes a “good” diet?  Just about anything, as Lyle points out.  So long as you are exercising, and your calories are sufficiently low, you’re OK.  But, only if you stay with it.

Read here about why this gene is NOT likely a major factor in his outstanding performance.  Primarily in the fact that (in all likelyhood) ALL of his competitors have it too.

Rather, my point is that an excessive emphasis on ACTN3 as a major explanation for Jamaican success does a grave disservice to the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors required for top-level athletic performance. This suggestion goes against everything we’ve learnt about the genetics of complex traits from recent genome-wide association studies, which have revealed that quantitative traits (like height and body weight) are frequently influenced by dozens to hundreds of genes, each of small effect; if anything, it’s likely that athletic performance will be even more genetically complex than these traits. The ACTN3-centred argument also dismisses the importance of Jamaica’s impressive investment in the infrastructure and training system required to identify and nurture elite track athletes, the effects of a culture that idolises local track heroes, and the powerful desire of young Jamaicans to use athletic success to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

That last point is one of the explanations as to why the Japanese have been so crappy at Sumo in the last number of years–They’re too rich!  And why Sumo players from poorer countries are dominating.

Peak Power Output and Muscle Metabolism in Sprinters

Usain Bolt, the enigmatic 21 year old sprinter from Jamaica, has taken Olympic track and field by storm being the first person in 24 years to win gold in both the 100 meter and the 200 meter sprints. His successes in both were definitive. He broke the 100 meter world record with a 9.69 (seconds). And his 200 meter was another world record at 19.30. In both races he was able to sprint at top speed for nearly the entire race, only losing a bit of speed near the end of the 200 meters.

In contrast to Bolt, Sonya Richards, the American favorite in the women’s 400 meters, ended up barely getting the bronze. She started out strong, way ahead in the first 200 meters sprinting at top speed. She still had a solid lead at the beginning of the last 100 meter stretch. But, then, suddenly, and dramatically, she ran “out of gas”. She struggled just to stay in third place. She didn’t have the energy to keep up, and she lost her chance at a gold medal.

It is rare for a runner to run out of gas at the end of a 100 or 200 meter dash. But, it happens a lot in the 400. Why the discrepancy? What does it say about the limits of human sprinting ability? And how long can a person, even an elite athlete, maintain maximal speed?

At the elite level, a 100 meter dash lasts about 10 seconds; a 200 meter lasts about 20 seconds; and the 400 takes about 1 minute. It is interesting to note that the 200 meter time is about double that of the 100 meter time, but the 400 meter is six times the 100 meter.

Insight into why it is that after about the 200 meter mark, or after about 20 seconds, the human body can’t keep up its maximal speed can be found at the cellular level: it comes down to ATP (the body’s preferred fuel source) production and the ATP turnover rate (Katz, 1986). The ATP turnover rate refers to your body’s speed-ability to produce ATP. But, to use ATP, the body first has to make it. There are three primary sources of ATP production. The fastest is the phosphocreatine (PCr) system that relies on creatine phosphate. This is used primarily for the shortest bouts of energy, like lifting a maximum weight for one repetition or a 20 meter dash. The second fastest is glycolysis that relies on sugar metabolism used for repetitions at a maximum power output, such as sprinting up to 200 meters. And the slowest is aerobic metabolism that relies on oxygen, primarily used at sub-maximal thresholds. Marathon runners rely primarily on aerobic metabolism.

According to a study by Bogdanis (1996), PCr is highly important to maximum power output for the first 10 seconds of sprinting, but declines rapidly thereafter. Peak power output, the highest level of power that a sprinter can produce, occurs at approximately 3 seconds (Bogdanis, 1998).

It has become widely accepted that PCr provides up to 25-30% of ATP production in a 30 second sprint, the rest coming primarily from glycolysis. In another study, also by Bognanis (1998), PCr stores were found to drop by nearly 60% after the first 10 seconds of sprinting. And after 20 total seconds of sprinting PCr levels have dropped to as low as 25% of the resting value. This means that in a sprint lasting longer than 10 seconds, there just isn’t enough PCr to do the job. But, power output doesn’t slow to a crawl.

Glycolysis generally works right along side the PCr system. Glycolysis uses glucose to form ATP. The glucose is stored in both the liver and in the muscle cells themselves. Glycolysis can operate in an anoxic (without oxygen) environment which makes it ideal for sustained maximal power output situations like a 100 to 200 meter dash because at that speed, the aerobic (oxygen) pathway can’t keep up. But, it has its drawbacks. The primary drawback of glycolysis is that when it is performing without oxygen the system backs up and produces an excess flood of lactic acid (Klapcinska) that builds up to high levels fairly quickly after the first 200 meters.

Aerobic metabolism is the way that our bodies generate ATP while we’re simply waking around, watching TV, or reading papers about metabolic reactions. It is slow, but it creates a large abundance of ATP. The trouble is that at top speed the aerobic pathway just isn’t fast enough to keep up. But, aerobic metabolism isn’t completely out to lunch in an all-out sprint. Remember that Usain Bolt and his competitors all ran the 200 meter sprint at close to full speed throughout the race, and it took most of them about 20 seconds to do it. They slowed down a bit near the end, but not much. If their PCr stores were used up, and their glycogen levels were down one would suspect that their speed would drop considerably as their ability to maintain maximum power output would be severely compromised. But, while their speed did drop near the end, it didn’t drop that dramatically (barely noticeable in fact). There must be some help coming from a different source. Bognanis (1998 ) found that some of that help may be coming from aerobic pathways, though more study is needed to examine why and how this happens.

But the aerobic pathway is too slow to help out for too long. For Sonya Richards, her all out effort for the first 200 meters of her 400 meter sprint left her completely lacking in power by the end of the race. She’d used up all her PCr, she’d depleted her glycogen, and the aerobic pathways just weren’t sufficient to replenish the amount of ATP she needed to win the gold. Her competitors, however, relied more on a combination of their aerobic pathways and glycolytic pathways in the first part of the race and saved their maximal power output for the end where they were able to overtake her.

Human beings are able to do amazing things when they train hard for them. Usain Bolt is a shining example of that. But there are limits to what our species can accomplish. After 10 to 20 seconds, it becomes exponentially harder to maintain the same average power output that one was able to achieve up to that point in an all out sprint. It just so happens that the fastest people in the world sprint the 200 meters in almost exactly 20 seconds, and the 100 meters in under 10 seconds. But, for 400 meter runners, an all out maximal sprint is not a good strategy. The body simply can’t maintain that pace for long. A lesson Sonya Richards will likely never forget.

References:

1. Bogdanis, G (1996). “Contribution of phosphocreatine and aerobic metabolism to energy supply during repeated sprint exercise”. Journal of applied physiology (1985) (8750-7587), 80 (3), p. 876.

2. Bogdanis, G (1998). “Power output and muscle metabolism during and following recovery from 10 and 20 s of maximal sprint exercise in humans”. Acta physiologica Scandinavica (0001-6772), 163 (3), p. 261.

3. Gaitanos, G (1993). “Human muscle metabolism during intermittent maximal exercise”. Journal of applied physiology (1985) (8750-7587), 75 (2), p. 712.

4. Katz, A (1986). “Muscle ATP turnover rate during isometric contraction in humans”. Journal of applied physiology (1985) (8750-7587), 60 (6), p. 1839.

5. Klapcinska, B (2001). “The effects of sprint (300 m) running on plasma lactate, uric acid, creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase in competitive hurdlers and untrained men”. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness (0022-4707), 41 (3), p. 306.

I’ moved this here from my PDX weightlifting blog.

I hate this kind of whiny bullshit:

“This will be my last match. I wanted to take gold, so I consider this Olympics a failure,” he said.

Ara Abrahamian, a Swedish 84k wrestler, threw down his bronze medal in protest and says he’s now going to quit the sport.

Wow. It’s just a sport, dude. Seriously. If there is one thing i can’t stand, it’s athletes (and coaches) who take their sport too seriously (remember all those yelling coaches in womens/girls gymnastics). Training hard and competing hard do not preclude smiling, being gracious, and taking it all in stride. It’s a huge naive mistake to not see the possibility of working at full force while still being happy. You don’t have to get angry to win. In fact, it’ll probably hurt you.

The other night, I heard a broadcaster berate one of the Japanese gymnasts for laughing at himself after he didn’t do so hot on one of his events. What did the broadcaster think this was? War? Were lives on the line? Did someone die I didn’t know about?

There are people in serious peril (right now) all over the world who would LOVE to get last place at the Olympics, or even last place at a local contest if it meant they could get the hell out of their current situation.

Life can get WAY worse. If you don’t keep that in mind ALWAYS than you are kidding yourself. The struggles of life are NOT relative. Crying because you are caught in traffic, or because you didn’t do as well as you’d hoped and trained for in the Olympics is WRONG. It’s morally wrong. A bit of disappointment is natural and reasonable, but outright anger and melodramatic antics are signs of ignorance and selfish arrogance.

If you aren’t in control of your emotions enough to be gracious, you have no business competing.

I love sports. I love the Olympics. But, it’s all just a game. That’s it. Period. It’s supposed to be fun. It’s supposed to be inspiring, no matter how you place. Being a selfish asshole should disqualify you. They should take his medal away.

Swedish coach Leo Myllari said: “It’s all politics.”

Life is politics. Get over it.

The following is a guest post by Heather Johnson.

Not everyone can get geared up to workout on a consistent basis. Many of us only get the urge when we’re feeling particularly gross about our bodies that day. After a week or so of working out we don’t feel the urge to stay on top of our exercise regimen. Those of us that fall into this trap know it’s faulty reasoning to believe that exercising in short spurts every now and again is actually helping us stay fit. We need extra motivation to hit the gym or go for a run on a regular basis. Finding that motivation is the only we can take ownership of our exercise situation. Here are a few tips to consider the next time you’re looking for that emotional lift that you need to get off the couch and into the gym:

1. Get out of the rut. If you’re getting tired of your same jogging route or the same gym every day then it’s time to switch it up before you grow so bored that you stop working out instead. Find a new neighborhood to run in or ask around and find a new gym that may have more to offer than your current spot.
2. Set reasonable goals. If you make outlandish goals you’re setting yourself up for disappointment when you fail to reach them. Reassess your goals and make sure they’re somewhat fair. You know your body better than anyone else and only you know what your limitations are. Plan accordingly and figure out a workout routine that you know you can follow and one that will align itself with your goals if followed properly.
3. Pick up a sport. If you’re growing tired of simply lifting weights and running on a treadmill then find a sport that offers a rigorous workout. Bicycling, swimming and basketball are all great alternatives to the boring workout routine at your local gym.
4. Stop thinking about what you’re doing. Set up your treadmill in front of a television or listen to your favorite song list on your iPod to distract yourself from your mundane workout.
5. Set up a rewards system. It’s one of the most basic principles in life: if you set up a reward for your efforts then you’re more apt to follow through on the required activity to earn your reward. Maybe you run five days in a row and you give yourself a day off. Maybe you lose ten pounds and you treat yourself to your favorite ice cream.

This post was contributed by Heather Johnson, who writes on the subject of online nursing school. She invites your feedback at heatherjohnson2323@gmail.com.

]]> http://blog.dojoathletics.com/2008/08/18/5-ways-to-stick-to-your-workout-regimen/feed/ saij http://blog.dojoathletics.com/2008/08/06/paleodiet-sugar-and-the-history-of-carbohydrates/ http://blog.dojoathletics.com/2008/08/06/paleodiet-sugar-and-the-history-of-carbohydrates/#comments Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:08:19 +0000 saij http://thedojo.wordpress.com/?p=327

(cross-posted @ Good Tithings)

Dr. Lam has a post on the link between sugar and all the ills of humanity. While I’m certainly for a low sugar diet (and the proscriptions in the post are largely fine), he brings up some points that are patently false (and therefor irk me something fierce).

In particular, he quotes (favorably) Robert Crayhon, the dude who created the “Paleo Diet”, in his distinction between what Crayhon calls paleocarbs and neocarbs (no, neocarbs are not a description of Karl Rove and his cronies):

Paleocarbs are carbohydrates that have existed since the beginning of time. They include fruits, seeds, and vegetables that primarily grow above the ground. Generally speaking, these are “good” carbohydrates as they provide the body with needed antioxidants, fiber, nutrients, and calories in a slow-release fashion.

Neocarbs are carbohydrates introduced within the last 10,000 years when modern agriculture first started. These include grains, legumes and flour products. Some neocarbs like legumes are grown above the ground and are nutritious. Others are grown under the ground. These include potato, yam and carrots, which are high in sugar and therefore not optimum for heath.

Ridiculous! “… have existed since the beginning of time.” No they didn’t! The most paleo of carbs are BY FAR simple sugars. Glucose, a very simple sugar. The earliest life forms (that had any sort of complexity) on earth were most certainly bacteria, and they use simple sugars all the time for cellular respiration as well as other processes.

True ‘neocarbs’ are anything at all having to do with plants, like cellulose. These wonderful complex carbohydrates that we are all so fond of eating for our health (a good thing) didn’t pop onto the scene for quite some time. And the newest of them all are fruits and vegetables! They are, in fact, a ridiculously recent invention.

Fruits and veggies come from flowering plants. Up until the Cretaceous period, there were no such thing as flowering plants. That means that early herbivore dinosaurs (like the Brontosaurus) didn’t eat fruit, they probably ate pine needles and other hard to digest foods (partially explaining the VERY large gut needed to ferment, digest, the food). That’s fiber, baby!

Fruits and vegetables actually constitute a relatively simple sugar in comparison.

The next complaint is about the idea that his neocarbs are all recent inventions. Many of them are new varieties, but we have to be careful. Wheat existed previously in the wild. We didn’t engineer it in the lab. We just selected for the right versions for long enough that the domesticated variety is now far easier for us to harvest and process.

Simple sugars are not good for you (except during a workout). But the reason is NOT because they are “newer” inventions in the history of life. Simple sugars are the ‘oldest’ of all sugars (still misleading). That isn’t the point. The point is that your body doesn’t do well when inundated with that much sugar.

We humans are a new ‘invention’, and as such we require a NEW kind of diet. Leave the sugar to paleo-creatures like bacteria and yeast.

That’s the (joke) premise of an article in the WSJ.

These days he stays away from junk food and instead snacks on MET-Rx chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and drinks Black Forest Berry Honest Tea, a healthy organic brew. (Sen. McCain is said to have a weakness for Butterfinger candy bars, jelly beans, and coffee and doughnuts from Dunkin’ Donuts.)

Inflate your chest with Met-Rx.

Eric Cressey gets angry with bad research and its effect on the public’s perception of how they should diet and exercise.

They claim that the results show that low-fat, higher carb diets outperform low-carb, higher fat diets when both diets are low in fat and total calories. In other words, the implication is that they are calorically equal – when in fact, the higher carb group received 155 calories more per day (14.3% higher caloric intake). Over the course of the four month study, the low-carb group averaged five pounds more (28 vs. 23) in body weight reductions. At eight months, however, they had regained 18 pounds while the low-fat, higher-carb group had continued to lose weight. It must be the carbs, right? Wrong!

Go get ‘em!

Alwyn Cosgrove has a post on Abundance vs. Scarcity in the personal training market. He sets up the idea that some people have a mindset of abundance, and others of scarcity. Meaning, those with the abundance mindset think the world is full of plenty of opportunity for everyone whereas those with the scarcity mindset believe there is a limited amount, and to do well means (by necessity) that someone else must fail.

I call it going “Deep Sea Fishing for Water”. This can be a little deep (no pun intended) so bear with me….

It’s as if we chartered a boat and went out to sea, with the goal of collecting as much water as we could. When we get there - I start using a bucket to collect my water. You start using a tea cup.

Now ask yourself this — are you angry that I used a bucket? Do you feel as if I’m taking more than my “fair share” ?

In the personal training and fitness coaching market, there really is an abundance of potential clients. I’m never worried about helping out a fellow trainer for fear of them “stealing” my clients. That’s ridiculous. The United States has a population that is about 30% obese and growing (pun fully intended). Every year we graduate a larger number of high school students who have never had a serious PE class, who couldn’t run a mile to save their lives (literally, if a bear was chasing them, they’d be food).

Here’s the reality. If you’re a man, without any serious physical ailments, and under 70, you should be able to do at least 10 pull ups. You should be able to run a mile in less than 9 minutes (I’m being lax here). You should be able to do 100 crunches in a row, no problem; 50 push ups straight; and squat about bodyweight. I’m not joking. Any male of the species, if truly in shape, should be able to do these things. The amount of testosterone flowing in the male body is ridiculous compared to what women have. Men are quite literally on steroids. There is no excuse. These numbers are low. There are old old old men at Loprinzi’s that can do better than this.

All it takes is some work. And the pay off is huge.

For women there are similar standards. At least: 8 full push ups or 20 knee push ups; run a mile in less than 10 minutes; do 8 pull ups with 75% bodyweight (with 100% bodyweight if you have a small hip structure); Squat 75% bodyweight; 100 crunches, no problem. These could all be higher depending on bone structure.

For certain athletes these numbers would be different. Female Olympic lifters sometimes have a hard time doing pull ups because of the shear muscular weight they carry in their hips and legs. But, then they make up for that by clean and jerking their bodyweight (see below).

If you can’t do those things, I can help you. For that matter, a whole host of trainers could help you get better than you are now, even the crappy ones. All they have to do is encourage you to workout regularly. Most Americans don’t, therefor, it’s an open market. How many people do you know who can boast the aforementioned numbers? Can you?

This is Melanie Roach clean and jerking a ton of weight: