CategoriesUncategorized

Working Out vs. Training

Anyone who has read my articles or who has trained with me in person knows that I like to differentiate between “working out” and “training.” In my opinion there is a huge difference.

Walk into any fitness center or sports club and you will inevitably see most people “working out.” If more people “trained,” I am willing to bet more would actually attain their physique goals.

That being said, lets look at the differences between “working out” and “training.” And because this is my blog and I like lists, I’m using a list. So there.

Someone who “works out”

1. Complains that it’s too hot in the gym.

2. Listens to John Mayer or Celine Dion

3. Is reading who currently has custody of Britney Spears kids in this week’s gossip mags while walking on the treadmill. Lets be honest, a pack of lions would make better parents.

4. Wears a headband.

5. Is ecstatic the new line of elliptical trainers is coming in.

6. Wears gloves while lifting weights. You know, to prevent callouses.

7. Would rather perform leg curls.

8. Carries their cell phone with them into the gym. Unless you’re a brain surgeon and/or Reggie Jackson (who I actually did see in the gym talking on his cell phone, but he’s Mr. October and you’re not, plus his forearms are the size of Kansas), you can live without your phone for an hour.

9. Carries a newspaper or magazine with them to read in between sets (worse yet: reads a newspaper or magazine DURING a set). Huh, I wonder why you’re still fat?

10. Uses the phrase, “I don’t want to get big and bulky” whenever anyone suggests that they lift more than 10 lbs (ahem, ladies).

Someone who trains:

1. Actually enjoys sweating and looks like their exerting some sort of effort.

2. Listens to Rage Against the Machine or any other form of “my mother didn’t love me” music.

3. Is catching his or hers breath between sets and could care less what Britney Spears is up to.

4. Wears Chuck Taylors or Nike Frees. If they’re really hardcore, they train barefoot. (Side Note: most people can benefit immensely by training barefoot.)

5. Refuses to sign up at a gym that doesn’t have a squat rack.

6. Is proud of their callouses. Each one has it’s own name.

7. Ditches the leg curls for deadlifts instead.

8. Doesn’t feel that women should train differently then men. I have a female client who box squats 225 for reps and can rack pull over 300 lbs and she still looks like a girl. She’s also stronger than 80% of the guys in the gym. How you like dem apples?

9. Doesn’t come to gossip or to hang out. They’re in and out in less than 75 minutes (which includes foam rolling, dynamic flexibility drills, actual training, and any energy system work that is to be done).

10. Has a purpose and mission each and every day (s)he steps into the gym; whether it’s to get leaner, faster or stronger.

So which do you do? Do you work out or train?

CategoriesUncategorized

Myth Busters

Ever watch that show on the Discovery channel called “Myth Busters?” In short, two dudes separate truth from urban legend with the aid of modern-day science. Some past episodes include:

1. Can the unaided human voice shatter glass?

2. Can a penny dropped from a tall building kill someone on ground level?

3. Is it possible to break off a lock by shooting it with a gun?

4. Is it true that no woman can resist my uncanny charm and wit?

It’s a great show, and it’s always interesting to find out what is fact and what is fiction. In the case of #4 on the list above, it’s totally fact. I wrote it on the internet, so it must be true.

”

Nevertheless, I’d like to take this opportunity and play Myth Buster for some common myths and fallacies that we often come across in the fitness world. First on the hit list: The addition of aerobic training (ie: step class, endless hours on the elliptical machine) to a caloric deficit (through diet) will increase calories burned and therefore increase fat loss. True or false?

This is a myth that my good friend Alwyn Cosgrove tackled in his book “Real World Fat Loss: Destroying the Dogma.” In short the answer is undoubtedly FALSE.

How can this be? Personal trainers and group training instructors have always advocated that aerobic exercise is great for fat loss. We add in aerobic exercise, which increases calories burned, which burns more fat, which brings sexy back. Everyone wins.

Problem is, there is a plethora of research out there which states that aerobic exercise is inferior in regards to fat loss:

“Influence of diet and/or exercise on body composition and cardio respiratory fitness in obese women,” International Journal of Sports Nutrition. 1998 Sep; 8(3): 213-22.

Conclusion: the addition of 45 minutes of aerobic exercise at 78% Maximum Heart Rate (MHR), five days per week for twelve weeks had NO EFFECT over dieting alone.

“Does (aerobic) exercise give an additional effect in weight reduction regimens?” International Journal of Obesity. 1987; 11(4): 367-75.

Conclusion: the addition of of four hours of aerobic exercise per week had no effect on weight loss.

“Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1997 Sep; 66(3): 557-63.

Conclusion: in an isoenergetic comparison, the strength training group lost significantly more fat than the aerobic training group. Additionally the aerobic training group lost significantly more lean body mass than the strength training group.

Despite all the research (and real world evidence), many fitness professionals still advocate aerobic exercise for fat loss. Isn’t it a bit ironic that a large percentage of “fitness or group exercise instructors” have a high body fat percentage themselves? Walk into any class and see for yourself.

Now before I get the hate mail, let me first say that there are many health benefits to including aerobic exercise into one’s weekly routine. But it we’re referring to strictly fat loss, it’s just not going to cut it. End of story.

That being said you need to look at an entire 24 hour day when talking about fat loss. Sure you will burn more calories performing an hour of aerobic exercise compared to an hour of lifting weights. However in a 24 hour period, it’s been shown time and time again that the body will literally burn HUNDREDS more calories through lifting weights due to what is called EPOC (Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption). Long story short, once you’re done doing aerobic exercise, you’re done burning calories. On the flip side, after a strength training session, the body’s metabolism will be elevated for upwards of 24-48 hours, which burns far more calories (and fat).

As Alwyn Cosgrove states in his book, “Someone talking about the benefits of the fat burning zones or fasted cardio is a sure sign that the individual has stopped looking at the end of the exercise session. They have come to the conclusion that lower intensity, steady state exercise (aerobic) burns the most fat and made a massive leap of faith to suggest it is best for real world fat loss.”

Myth Busted: Aerobic exercise does not increase fat loss.

CategoriesUncategorized

Training the Backside of Your Core

I’m not a big fan of the word “core.” Unless of course, your name happens to end with “core,” then it’s completely awesome. However in the fitness world, the term “core” is often misused and misunderstood.

Your “core” is not just the front of Mens Health or Oxygen Magazine, with the cover model sporting a six pack that you could wash your clothes on. Walk into any gym in America and you will find many trainees seemingly working their core by performing endless repetitions of crunches or any other multitude of machines in an effort to attain said six pack. Walk into any gym in America and you will find that most trainees are still fat, despite training their “core.”

Walk into my gym (Cressey Performance Center, located in Hudson, MA) and you will find trainees performing deadlift variations, pull-throughs, glute-ham raises, supine bridges, squat variations, lots of single leg work, and as I have alluded to on several times in the past with this blog, ANTI-rotational movements. No crunches. No gimmickey machines. People look good.

Everyone looks at rear ends. Guess what? That’s your “core” too.

I am in total agreement with physical therapist/strength coach Gray Cook when he says that people need to pay more attention to “training the backside of the core” (ie: glutes, hips).

We should be hip based creatures. The hips are the engine of the core. Everything from force, power, to strength is transferred through the hips. The engine of your car does the same thing; gives your car horsepower. Your mid-section (abdominals) can be seen as the transmission or drive shaft of the core. You’re not supposed to bend or twist the drive shaft/transmission of your car. So why do we seem to think that that is the best way to train our core? Why do we totally neglect the engine?

In the end, training the backside of your core will lead to better PERFORMANCE. Learn to use your hips and glutes, and you will be able to handle more weight in the gym. You handle more weight, you burn more calories. You burn more calories, you burn more fat in any given 24 hour period (assuming your diet is dialed in). Presto: lean, firm mid section (and a nice rear end to boot. Yay you). No crunches involved.

CategoriesUncategorized

Fatigue ALWAYS Masks True “Fitness”

Vladimir Zatsiorsky (a man who is smarter than all of us) summarized the fitness-fatigue theory (or two factor theory) by stating, “The immediate effect after a workout is considered a combination of (a) fitness gain prompted by the workout and (b) fatigue. The summation of positive and negative changes determines the final outcome.”

Fitness-Fatigue Model

Fatigue will always mask your “true” fitness level. Many trainees (myself included) make the mistake of constantly pounding away each and every week, adding more and more volume. Inevitably, performance drops and a whole lot of frustration ensues.

A great analogy I like to use is this: If I were to ask you find your one rep max on the bench press and then told you to go out and run a marathon, do you think you could come back after running 26 miles and still lift that same weight? Um, no.

In general, just learning how to fluctuate your training volume on a weekly basis will go a long way to help prevent fatigue from deterring your progress in the future. I can attest to this. About a year and a half ago I was going through a “funk” and not making much progress in the gym. I just felt really rundown, tired, and weak.

Unfortunately, I continued to pound away each week. I decided to back-off for a week (deload) and low and behold, I came back the following week and broke a personal record (PR) with a 560 pound deadlift.

You can’t expect to set personal records each and every week, and if you’re one of the many who feel that in order to make progress you need to constantly add more and more volume each and every week, then you’re really shooting yourself in the foot. Again, fatigue will always mask fitness. Keep your ego at the door and learn to back-off when needed.

CategoriesUncategorized

Crunches (Revisted)

Awhile back I wrote a blog on how much I dislike the abdominal crunch. If I had to make a list of things that I dislike the most, it would look like this:

1. Ben Affleck

2. Abdominal Crunch

3. People who don’t say thank you when you hold open the door for them.

4. Nutritionist who claim that diets high(er) in protein will result in your kidneys exploding

5. Poodles (my apologies to those who own a Poodle; but seriously, I’d rather have a rat as a pet before a Poodle).

As you can see, I’m not a big fan of the abdominal crunch. As for why, you can read that from the link above. Cliff Notes Version: when one performs an abdominal crunch, they’re essentially pulling the sternum closer to the pelvis hundreds, if not thousands of times, promoting a kyphotic posture (rounded back).

I’m a firm advocate of ANTI-rotational training when it comes to the abdominals, but another great exercise I like to implement with my clients is the REVERSE crunch.

Here, you get ALL the benefits of the crunch but without the disadvantages (which are many). With the reverse crunch, we’re able to train the entire abdominal wall (rectus abdominus, internal/external obliques), but without promoting all of the postural imbalances caused by traditional crunches.

A few key points to remember:

1. Keep your knees tucked to your chest throughout the duration of the movement.

2. Try NOT to use momentum to finish the movement.

3. You can start by holding onto a pole or table to assist you (for leverage). From there, use a medicine ball or 10 lb dumbbell (placed on the floor, above your head) as a counterbalance.

4. I routinely perform charity work rescuing puppies (not Poodles) from animal shelters and fight forest fires with my shirt off. Just wanted to let you know.

5. As you progress, you will soon be able to perform the movement without any “leverage” or assistance. Shoot for 2-3 sets of 12-15 reps two to three times per week.

CategoriesUncategorized

You’re Not That Special

I come across a lot of people who seem to think that they’re special. Don’t get me wrong, we’re ALL special in our own way. I mean, anyone who can sit through an entire evening of listening to the Presidential Debates and not want to punch their television would certainly constitute as someone “special.” That being said, I am here to tell you that you’re not that special.

You don’t have a thyroid issue and you’re not “pre-disposed to being fat,” despite what you may think (my apologies to those people who have actually gone to a physician and have been clinically diagnosed with hypo or hyper-thyroidism). Contrary to what many people believe, you can’t self diagnose yourself with a rare condition . Unless of course you happen to be me, and you self diagnose yourself as the sexiest man this side of the Mississippi River. It’s a curse that I have to live with. True story.

Nonetheless, it dumbfounds me that I come across so many people who seem to think that they’re the one case in all of human history that defies the laws of basic thermodynamics and physiology. The First Law of Thermodynamics (read: it’s a law, not a theory. In other words, it’s a fact) states: “The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.”

In our context: calories in vs. calories out.

If you’re expending (exercise) more calories than you’re ingesting, you lose weight. If you ingest more calories than you expend, you gain weight. If your caloric expenditure equals your caloric intake, weight stays the same. Granted it is a bit more complicated than this, but I am sure you get the point. And if you don’t get my point, let me break it down in more simpler words. Quit lying to yourself and making excuses. It’s been shown time and time again that when left to their own vices, people will OVER-report how much they really exercise and UNDER-report how much they really eat. Remember that piece of chocolate cake you had last night? How bout that six pack of beer over the weekend? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

As I stated above, you don’t have a thyroid issue and you’re body was NOT meant to be fat, and you’re not a human anomaly. You’re not that special.

CategoriesUncategorized

You Think Soy Is Good For You? Think Again.

First off, Vegas was awesome. Unfortunately I can’t tell you what I did because we all know what Rule #1 of going to Vegas is (what’s done in Vegas, stays in Vegas). I will say that the buffet at The Bellagio is unreal and that my girlfriend won $800 using the slots (AKA: dinner was on her for the last three nights we were there).

Anyhoo: soy. Guess what people? It stinks (literally and figuratively), and why anyone would go out of their way to include more of it in their diet is beyond me.

In her book, “The Whole Soy Story,” Kaalya Daniels begins by stating: Soy is the phenomenon of the times, the “healthy alternative” to meat, the “non-allergenic” dairy, the “low cost” protein that will feed millions, the infant formula that is “better than breast milk,” the “wonder food” of the new age.

1. Unfortunately, soy is everywhere and it’s virtually impossible not to get some amount of it into your diet. Admittedly a little soy here and there isn’t that big of a deal. It’s when people go out of their way to include tofu, soy burgers, soy protein bars, soy milk, etc into their diets (thinking that that’s the healthy thing to do) that causes bad things to happen. Needless to say, soy can be found in everything from canned tuna fish to bread to infant formula.

Before the 1950’s there was a limited market for soy based products due to the fact that there wasn’t a huge market for highly processed foods in the first place. It wasn’t till there was massive soy oil “waste problem” that the industry started to market soy as a healthy alternative. As Daniels noted in her book, “the quickest way to gain product acceptability in the less affluent society is to have the product consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society. Thus began the campaign to sell soy products to the upscale consumer, not as a cheap poverty food, but as a miracle substance that would prevent heart disease and cancer, whisk away hot flashes, build strong bones and keep us young forever.” HOGWASH.

2. Many advocates of soy will state that soy has been a “staple” in Asian countries for centuries. A staple food is defined as a major part, element or feature, with the implication that a staple food contributes a large portion of calories to a diet.

Fact: the people of China, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Japan don’t eat that much soy. Many papers have noted that soy only makes up 1.5% of calories in the Chinese diet, compared with 65% of calories coming from pork. Additionally, the type of soy eaten by Asians is COMPLETELY different than what we Americans eat. Asians tend to eat small amounts of old-fashioned, little processed miso and/or tempeh. Not soy sausages, soy burgers, chicken-like soy patties, tofu cheesecake, soymilk, etc that we Americans eat. Big difference.

3. Proponents of soy will also claim that soy prevents certain types of cancer. While some studies show that soy (or its isoflavones) might help to prevent cancer, far more studies show it to be ineffective or inconsistent. And lets not forget that the vast majority of studies are done on rats (not people). Again….big difference.

4. If you’re a male and you’re stressing soy in your diet, say goodbye to your testosterone levels. Soy has been shown to DECREASE t-levels in men due to the high quantities of phyto-estrogens in soy and thus soy based products. This is also a great reason NOT to use soy based formulas with infants. Hormonally speaking, you’re really going to wreak havoc on a developing baby.

5. It should also be known that soy has been shown to DECREASE thyroid function in men and women.

6. And just because I want to kick a horse while it’s down, soy is also listed as one of the top 8 allergens. All soybeans contain antinutritional factors (known as antinutrients) and toxins.

Goitrogens: damage the thyroid (already mentioned above).

Lectins: cause red blood cells to clump together and may cause immune systems reactions

Oligosaccharides: are the pesky sugars that cause bloating and flatulence. Rule of thumb: if you’re on a first date, don’t eat soy.

Oxalates: prevent proper absorption of calcium and have been linked to kidney stones.

Phytates: impair absorption of minerals such as zinc, iron, and calcium

Isoflavones: are phytoestrogens that effect reproductive and nervous systems

Protease Inhibitors: interfere with the digestive enzymes protease and trypsin, which can lead to gastric distress and poor protein digestion.

I could go one and on, but I figured I made my point. Soy is NOT a miracle food and it’s NOT healthy for you, despite what many people will claim. I know I probably stepped on a few toes with this blog post, but it’s just something that I think needed to be said. I highly encourage you to check out Dr. Daniels book for more info.

Tony Gentilcore, CSCS, CPT

CategoriesUncategorized

The World’s Best Coat Rack

I am off to Vegas with the girlfriend this weekend. No we are not eloping, and no we are definitely NOT going to see Celine Dion while we’re there. Sadly this will be the first time on a plane for me (I’m 30) and I heard through the grapevine that they’re taking bets in Vegas on whether or not I wet myself on take off. Needless to say, I figured that since I am going to be gone for a week, I should write a quick blog post before I leave.

The Smith Machine (pictured below) is often touted as being “safer” than their power rack counterparts. To this I say….HOGWASH.

A friend of mine e-mailed me a few days ago saying that the company that he works for was thinking about purchasing a Smith Machine rather than a power rack for safety reasons. He wrote me and asked if I could write a bullet point rationale on why this is flawed thinking. Below is what I wrote, which is a mix of thoughts from my good friend Eric Cressey and myself.

The World’s Best Coat Rack

1. The Smith Machine offers less transfer to the real-world events than free weight exercises. The body isn’t meant to move in a fixed plane of motion. Rather, it’s meant to move in “free space” where the muscles must act in a synergistic fashion to stabilize the body. The Smith Machine is a sure fire way to promote what is called Pattern Overload Syndrome, where the same tendons/ligaments are stressed repeatedly (in a fixed plane)…..resulting in a plethora of postural issues and kinetic chain dysfunction, as well as tendonitis (acute inflammation of soft tissue) and tendonosis (chronic degeneration of soft tissue).

2. Depending on the movement, the shearing forces on the knees and lumbar spine are increased by the fixed line of motion. In short, the Smith Machine is atrocious for the lower back and knees. If anything it serves as a crutch that puts the body in a biomechanical disadvantage and more often than not, promotes injury rather than preventing it.

3. The lifter conforms to the machine, and not vice versa. Human motion is dependent on subtle adjustments to joint angle positioning; the body will always want to compensate in the most advantageous position possible. Fix the feet and fix the bar (which the Smith Machine forces), and the only ways to get this compensation are inappropriate knee tracking and, more dangerously, loss of the neutral spine position (a big no no). Watch most people squat in the smith machine and you will see rounded backs ALL the time. This is “safer”?????? Um no.

4. Smith machines are generally more expensive. I suspect that you could get a regular coat rack for about $2K cheaper – and it would take up less space. You could get two quality racks for the price of ONE Smith Machine.

So no, I have to disagree that you can do everything in a Smith Machine that you can in a power rack. If you want to promote horrible compensation patterns and a ton (literally) more stress on the knees and lumbar spine, then go right ahead…..the smith machine should be your choice.

Tony Gentilcore

CategoriesUncategorized

Are High Heels Worth It?

Believe it or not, one of the first things I do with female clients of mine who come to me with back pain is to get them to stop wearing high heeled shoes all the time. I know there are many men out there cursing my name after having read that, but well…..so be it.

Would you rather look good or have better posture and no lower back pain? High heeled shoes place you into hyperextension, which not only increases stress on the lumbar spine (namely by promoting an anterior pelvic tilt), but also does a number on ankle mobility. And while I enjoy high heeled shoes as much as the next guy, in my opinion they’re just not worth it from spine health standpoint.

I’ve seen it time and time again. When female clients of mine stop wearing high heeled shoes everyday, their chronic lower back pain drastically decreases. Additionally, their kyphotic (rounded back) posture improves because the lumbar spine is no longer in excessive lordosis.

Additionally, in an article written by Yael Grauer, she states:

“According to a series of articles in the Washington Post, heels are even worse than I’d imagined. The long list of heel-related ailments include corns, callouses, bunions, stress fractures, joint pain in the ball of the foot, Morton’s neuroma, hammertoe, tight Achilles tendons and more. Heels cause instability and push the foot too far forward, which increases pressure on toes and joints, throws your natural alignment out of whack and can cause low back pain and osteoarthritis of the knee. Heels also increase the possibility of ankle sprains. The higher the heels, the higher the risk. The American Academy of Podiatric Sports Medicine reports that a 3” heel creates seven times more stress than a 1” heel. Pointed-toe shoes can cause hammertoes and bunions. Open-backed shoes can inflame the tendon connecting the calf muscles to the heel.”

Furthermore, “Long term wear and tear (caused by high heels) will result in degenerative changes in the spine, such as foraminal narrowing, disc degeneration and lipping and spurring on the vertebral bodies. Continuing the narrowing of the foramen will result in pressure on the nerve roots,” he continued, “resulting in a myriad of problems ranging from the musculoskeletal to organ malfunction.”

So ladies, are high heels worth it?

CategoriesUncategorized

Don’t Worry About Minutia

Minutia: small or trivial details.

Setting diets up based on percentages just doesn’t make sense (think The Zone Diet). When someone places protein, carbohydrate, or fat requirements in terms of percentages for a diet, it doesn’t necessarily have any relevance to what that person actually needs. A diet consisting of 30% protein may be too little for one person (ingesting only 1000 kcals per day) and too high for someone else (ingesting 5000 kcals per day). Two extremes I know, but I’m just trying to make a point.

Using the above example, someone who “needs” 150 grams of protein would only be ingesting 75 grams of protein per day on a 1000 kcal per day diet (half of what he actually needs), and 375 grams of protein per day (more than double what he needs) on a 5000 kcal per day diet (again, assuming 30% protein).

Additionally, many diets are often labeled “high carbohydrate or high fat” when a specific macronutrient is over a certain percentage. Most dieticians would be quick to label a diet consisting of 35% fat as “high fat.” However, if we were to take a 2000 kcal diet (with 35% of calories coming from fat) and add 200 grams (800 kcals) of carbohydrate to it without changing anything else (total calories are now 2800), a “high-fat” diet all of a sudden becomes a “low-fat” diet because the percentage of fat dropped from 35% to 25%, even though total grams of fat stayed the same.

No need to worry about trivial minutia such as macronutrient percentages.

Tony Gentilcore