This may help.

Something I see often in today`s fitness industry all to often is "experts" trying to create dependency on them from clients. That makes sense in a way, I get it. Someone has grown reliant on them and therefore keeps giving them money to keep seeing them for the service or product. As I write that I can't help but think this is a parallel to a drug dealer and a junkie (in a small way). To me though it seems a little short sighted. Why? Because this industry should not be about a dependency being created, it should be about educating and creating someone that can do it on there own. Now I am not saying you need to get a degree and so on but you should understand the why's and how's just as much as the whats. Many fitness gurus advertise products and services like ,"get shredded abs in seconds", or ,"get the body you have always wanted in X days". It seems to work, these people are making money. Let us conclude that a person pays the money and does the course and is successful. What happens if they get injured and take 3 months off and put on weight and lose the "shredded abs"? They do the course again? What if they can't or they can't afford it? Well it may be a struggle to get back those "abs". What I am saying is that knowledge is power. If you go and see a personal trainer, exercise physiologist or a strength and conditioning coach they are a product of knowledge and experience. For me I want to share some resources that may help you. If tomorrow I woke up and everyone was fit, healthy and chronic disease free I think I'd be happy about that. To be clear some of these resources I used long before going to get a formal education in the fitness field and some I picked up whilst at university.

First one I will point out is Starting Strengthby Mark Rippetoe. If you are starting as a beginner and want to get strong this is a good place to start. If you are reading this thanks to Reddit, Starting Strength has a big following on there. Rippetoe is a smart guy and the keep it simple approach works really well. No BS just a decent book with a decent program that makes compound movements and the barbell king. Now I am not going to get into a deep review of this or anything merely suggest some resources that may help.

Now if you are thinking of going the Crossfit route for fitness. Becoming a supple leopard is a book you should read. Dr Kelly Starret breaks down the "standards" of Crossfit but even more important is the way he tells you that if you can't achieve movement A you shouldn't try movement B until you can achieve X. That is important to me and it helps give some prescription help and knowledge to remember for yourself. Even better though is if you can't get into a position due to a mobility issues he gives out methods to improve that issue.

If you haven't heard that kettlebells are all the rage or you have and you want to get into it. I have written in the past about how my grandparents bought me my first KB (kettlebell)here. I haven't looked back. In order to learn about using a KB though I needed help. I found Mike Mahler's training dvd. I really enjoy kettlebells they are a different but accessible pieces of equipment. If you can't afford a barbell or gym membership a KB may be the answer.

I think the last resource I will talk about is the internet. Granted there are a lot of people selling snake oil but you can now learn anatomy for free via Youtube which I encourage you to do. You don't have to be Bones to have some knowledge about how your own body works. So do some research and be diligent. After all ,Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Disclaimer: If you do buy any of the above mentioned resources I do receive some income off of it. If you choose to go elsewhere to find it cheaper that is fine as long as you are learning.

Pop a squat

You may have heard this phrase but how often do you do it? Seriously when was the last time you popped a squat. Here comes another question at you, can you pop a squat? The other day whilst lifting with my brother who is a bit of a newbie back to the lifting world, we were speaking about squat depth and he was telling me about his numbers and he was proud and good on him. We began to squat and I noticed that he would just get to parallel.  I come from the Olympic weightlifting school of arse to grass. Science is now backing that depth is not some knee destroying bogey man so we should do it for many reasons. As we got further into the session we were talking about depth and he tells me at the gym he trains at no body he has seen and he`s been there a few months now, nobody goes beyond parallel and trainers at the gym teach people and tell people parallel is the depth they should squat to. I said,”Well we do big boy squats”. We can, we are both fairly mobile (not perfect) and we can get below parallel so we should. This meant he had to take some weight of the bar and he did and we squatted and I cued him as he did to improve some things. He remarked several times the difference between the two depths.

 It really does require more muscle activation to go deeper and get out and it requires better mobility and it requires better technique. You could make the argument against depth and for people that are restricted, injured or need to improve the technique/strength I get it and we have  many tools to deal with that. Now this could become another article about what to do to fix your squat but there`re so many articles and videos on this subject. My argument though is more than lifting weight or working out. The statement “pop a squat”, is just that, get into the bottom position of the squat and sit there. Kelly Starret of Crossfit fame (mobility wod) talks about the 10mins in the pain cave. Popping a squat and sitting there for 10 mins working the odds and ends of position and mobility and listening to your body. That is great I think and we need to make it more a part of our lives. In Asia many people squat into old age, they use it and don`t lose it. They squat from children into old age. The benefits are many, less loss of ROM (range of motion), improved strength which in old age is linked to falls and many more that can be found here http://www.naturesplatform.com/health_benefits.html

 

I pose this to you why don`t you from time to time squat and sit in the bottom position and just hang out? Not just because it`s to improve the squat but to improve your health and life. I do it regularly in fact some people know me because I do it. I have been at work and just pop a squat and sit down. It turns out my grandfather who`s in his 70`s the one I wrote about here http://therandomandthefit.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/do-you-want-to-get-fitripped-and-in.html he regularly pops a squat and just sits. Before you say “oh that’s you” and make excuses, try it after all if you begin to use it you can often get it back.

The doping crystal ball: A sporting performance future.

Not too long ago I was having a conversation with someone while we were doing some weightlifting. I was snatching that day and somehow we had come to the topic of drugs in sport. The person I was lifting with is an ironman and in the past I have worked with him to improve his nutrition and overall performance. As you may be aware performance enhancing substances are often linked with weightlifting and also since the outing of Lance (you know who I am talking about) the public is becoming aware of drugs in endurance based events. To be frank I don`t know of many sports where someone hasn`t tried something to get an advantage, golfers have had laser procedures to improve vision after all. During this conversation I told this person about the possible future of performance enhancement in sports and he seemed shocked. I told him I thought the future in performance enhancement is gene doping and about what potential things gene therapy could do. I thought it was worth sharing this information with all of you as well.

So first off what is gene doping? Gene doping is defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency as "the non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or of the modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to improve athletic performance". Seems simple right? We also have to ask ourselves is it ethical and is it safe. I`ll leave these questions up to you to answer for yourself. 

So how do we detect and stop gene doping? Well I want to be clear about this the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other agencies are trying to get ahead of the game here. It is well known that they had to play catch up with steroids and some other performance enhancing substances. Often I have heard through the sport grapevine that detecting for substances is done via changes in blood and urine and even now some drugs are hard to detect with current methods. Gene doping is introduced differently than these other enhancing methods.  Gene doping can be done in a number of ways these include direct injection of DNA into the muscle, insertion of genetically modified cells or utilising a virus to introduce the information. Right now you may be thinking that it sounds really far out. Gene therapy was created to help those with life threatening disease and I believe the future of medicine lies in stems cells and gene therapy. The problem exists for sporting agencies because these genes are from our genetic codes. In other words the changes that would appear seem like natural mutations in the body. For testing to be successful agencies will have to take a long term approach. Reference values may have to be established from the time an athlete starts competing. The reference values would have to take a far more comprehensive range of values and see if overall homeostasis is disturbed or altered in some shape or form.  That would include even lower levels of competition to track changes over time. This type of testing would also require tissue samples to test DNA which may have to be site specific.

It has been outlined in a basic fashion what gene doping is and how it can be administered, but how could it actually be used? Well gene doping started out in medicine to help save lives. The doping method is the same in both instances with only the outcome being different. The difference being that therapy is used for those that are very sick e.g. someone with severe anaemia requires more haemoglobin or red blood cells (RBC`s) to get oxygen around the body. In comparison a healthy athlete doesn`t require further RBC so when they dope they gain benefits which equates to an advantage i.e. getting extra capacity to carry more oxygen to muscles. There are drugs already in existence that can do something similar but they can easily be detected through testing. Another case that was brought to my attention was those born without the myostatin gene or receptors. Myostatin helps to regulate muscle growth. This happens in a number of species including humans resulting in large and powerful muscles. This is a natural mutation but since gene therapy came along for muscular dystrophy, people have turned their attention to using this for improving sporting performance.  Gene doping has even been hypothesised to be used in concert with these other changes to increase endorphins of the doping athlete to further the effects of the enhanced “abilities”.

Sounds great doesn`t it? How great would it be too be able to run all day and then lift a car and look like the Hulk. Well I want you to think about this saying  “there is no such thing as a free biological lunch” (I am not sure who said that version and if you do please tell me). Those that dope already have to weigh up the risk reward equation. Those that want to increase erythropoietin may be faced with thickening blood that may clot leading to a number of adverse outcomes. It may even come to a point that the heart may stop due to excess load. Athletes don`t seem to stop and think “what are some bigger muscle going to do to me?” There are repercussions for all doping, connective tissues such as tendons and ligaments face extra strain which may lead to sprains, strains and tearing of tendon insertions from the bone. There is also an increased metabolic cost the body having so much muscle.  These are by no means an extensive list but provide food for thought. The ultimate risk is not knowing what could happen to the rest of the body. Will those new genes affect other genes leading to a more complex adverse outcome? No one really knows the long term effects because all of this is relatively new. To me it seems crazy to even think of doing anything like this but in saying that I have always been against drugs in sport. 

So what does the future look like? Will there be hulking twelve year olds breaking weightlifting records or humans making ultra-marathons look like a walk on the beach? I can`t say. What I can say is the future is here and now. I am sure this is not the last of the discussion on gene doping and this will begin to be seen more in the public eye. Who knows maybe the future of sports will be dominated by the genetically doped and manufactured battling it out for our attention and money.  What do you think the future will look like? Post comments.

References:

                     Filipp, F. (2007). Is science killing sport? Gene therapy and its possible abuse in doping.                                             NEMBO reports, 8(5), 433.

             Scherling, P. (2001, November). Gene doping, ISM. In UCL Conference on Genes in     Sport.

          Unal, M., & Unal, D. O. (2004). Gene doping in sports. Sports Medicine, 34(6), 357-362.

Bodybuilding, Crossfit a love hate story

Crossfit V Bodybuilding who’s side are you on? Me personally it’s either both or neither depending on how you look at it. These days between the lovers and haters it seems everyone must choose a side. I want to make myself clear from the get go. I stand completely in the middle of these two methods. I live in what most people would call the grey area. As a result I often find myself in discussion with passionate lovers and haters. 

For those of you at home who haven’t yet found yourself in one of these discussions (just wait you will) there are really only two sides to this argument out there it seems. Lovers are those who see Crossfit as the be all and end all of fitness. The lovers are devotees of the WOD and mixing it up and just generally being prepared for anything. Haters are those that see Crossfit as unsafe and a fad and for whatever reason are often linked with bodybuilders.  

I would like to address both of these types of extremists because as far as I can see you both live in a different world to me. After all every fitness philosophy has perks and drawbacks and for two sides that seem to be locked in quite a headstrong battle, they share a few similarities. That’s right similarities I can hear my inbox filling up with emails already. 

Personally when I create my workouts I like to use a combination of scientific research and methods. I am also a big believer in experience being one of the greatest tools of all. Now in saying this I would like to add that I have five years of Exercise Science studying under my belt as well over ten years combined experience in Martial Arts, Olympic Weightlifting and general fitness. This combined experience fills me with confidence to draw my own conclusions over some of the methodology suggested by both Crossfit and Bodybuilding. After all why else would I pay thousands of dollars for student loans to the government if not for educated blogging? 

What specifically inspired me to write this post was a conversation held with a friend of mine. Like many people I know on both sides of the argument he is a personal trainer with decades of experience and numerous world class sporting achievements. This person in particular was a hater pure and simple. I was shocked by the remarks he was making in regards to Crossfit. Remarks such as “it`s a fad”, “it`s inefficient”, “it`s not long term”, “it`s just crap”. This seems to echo the hater community pure and simple. Other arguments are the programming has no rhyme or reason and the use of kipping is for idiots. The lovers also have a few opinions about bodybuilders. Some of the remarks include bodybuilders are not being functional and they are all about appearances. 

I would like to analyse some of these arguments. The first thing I would like to address is the common term of fad attached to Crossfit. How do you define a fad? The most common description is something that is popular for a short amount of time. Does Crossfit really fit this term? For one think Crossfit has been around for fourteen years give or take (Founded by Greg Glassman in 2000). 

Fourteen years seems like a long time for something to be a fad. So far I believe Crossfit is appearing like most things in the health in fitness industry. First every fitness philosophy starts small and then becomes more mainstream before contracting once again if not evolving into something new. This rule of expansion and contracting works for everything and does not point to Crossfit being a fad. The only things I have truly seen as fads are health and fitness gadgets sold on T.V. Honestly I can’t even tell you if Crossfit has even reached its maximum popularity yet. It could continue growing and evolving for years to come.

Another argument made against Crossfit is their high rep and high load training. Haters see it as downright dangerous pushing yourself so hard all of the time. In this instance I do agree. All research I have ever read on high rep high load Olympic lifting WODs says it will lead to technical breakdown. Technical breakdown basically means after doing the same lift over and over again it will lead to muscle fatigue which off course leads to poor technique and then potential injury. For example say you are doing high load dead lifts over and over eventually you will fatigue, your shoulders might drop and that could lead to a back injury to put it simply. These kind of WODs concern me because they have such a high risk/injury rate. Now I understand that Crossfit mantra of being prepared for anything even if it doesn’t make sense and I have nothing against it. But you can find other exercises that are physically demanding and create the same results without putting the exerciser at risk.

At first I wasn’t sure what the reasoning is behind the programming of WODs. Sometimes it seems to be done just to grind people into the ground. That was until I was attending university with a now Crossfit box owner. Instead of stacking his programming with injury inducing WODs his had a clear and intelligent design. He even ran an introductory course to WODs to ensure his clients are using proper technique. If you are willing to chat to the trainers at your local box you are likely to find other like-minded trainers writing there programs like this. 

It seems to me that Crossfit isn’t necessarily dangerous but has the same pitfalls of all competitive sports. Trainers that range from bad, good to great. I am often asked by beginners to martial arts “What’s the best style?” I reply “the teacher, master, coach is the most important thing, not the style”. I think it is no different in regards to programming be it Crossfit or any other sport or exercise endeavour. You need to find a box or gym that programs safely and makes you feel comfortable. If you are finding yourself getting injured a lot more than usual then it’s probably a sign to find a new trainer. If you are not sure what to expect then do some research of your own, the internet provides good and simple advice for free. I would like to emphasis once again this problem is found in all sports. Perhaps the only reason it seems higher in Crossfit is due to their high market saturation currently.

Now for some of the arguments surrounding Bodybuilders. I think the biggest complaint Crossfitters have against Bodybuilders is that they aren’t functional. I love this statement because every man and his dog are really behind functional training movements or exercise. It’s so strange because functional just means that it is designed to have a practical use. The problem with this is what is practical to you may not be for me. It all depends with what fitness goals you are trying to achieve or what sport you are competing in. I have had experience with writing programs for the elderly whose goals are to walk to their mailbox or climb a set of stairs. The programs I write for them are full of functional movements but as you could imagine they won’t apply to everyone equally.

So this belief that there are wrong and right functional movements really isn’t right. Just because exercises bodybuilders do don’t apply to Crossfit doesn’t make them wrong. It just makes them functional for bodybuilding. That being said a lot of these so called functional exercise are actually shared by the two sports. For example the humble squat is used by both Crossfitters and Bodybuilders alike. Yep serious a “functional” movement used by opposing groups. If you really compare the two you will find a lot more of these functional movements in common. For example, deadlifts, thrusters, chin-ups, pull ups and even lunges.

Another argument against Bodybuilding is that it’s all about appearance. Well first off let me say off course it is. During competition they are scored on appearance. Why wouldn’t you work at the very thing that gives you a higher score, after all every sport does it. For sports like Olympic Weightlifting, Martial Arts or Boxing there is a big emphasis on weight class and a lot of extra work goes into maximising you scoring potential for competition. Bodybuilders are doing the same thing by putting emphasis on their appearance. Even Crossfitters do it by utilising kipping to maximise the amount or reps they get during competition. Every athlete is looking for an edge during competitions and as far as I can see there is no reason why that is a bad thing. 

Really there is a deeper and a more complex argument going on here. Both sides seem to stereotype how the other trains even though in truth ultimately it is up to the individual not the whole. It’s hard looking past the hordes to get down to the real bare bones of any sports but until you make the effort to do so you can’t expect to understand why they do and what they do. Another key point both sides have seemed to neglect is the overarching principle of specificity. This principle is something it seems Crossfit has tried to beat but won`t as our own anatomy and physiology is the limiting factor. The idea that training with a specified set of “standards” and a few odd extra`s thrown in makes you the most fittest and prepared for anything person on the planet is limited. Bodybuilding is no different they train for appearances getting strong or fast is a side effect. Being that both are sports and yes Crossfit is now a sport it has rules like bodybuilding they are ultimately bound by the rule of specificity. If both sides laid done their ignorance and see they are just points on the continuum of movement and life they would set their differences aside and just get on with what they are doing. I would go as far to say that if there was some transfer in training both sides would benefit. Maybe it`s time they walk in each other’s shoes even if it is once a week.