Showing posts with label wellbeing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wellbeing. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2010
8lbs of Lean Mass in One Workout - and other surprises Feb 24 - from brad pilon
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Apropos of all this discourse on protein synthesis vs absorption vs muscle mass gain, this just in from brad pilon (yes of eat stop eat fame). How to add 8lbs of lean mass in one workout. i love it
The main idea? Check out the video and register for a teleseminar (it's free) to find out more insider knowledge about how supplement companies make some of the outrageous claims they do - with seeming results.
But get some good tips too. Taken from the teleseminar page:
Aside: as i've said before, colleagues i trust (and now me, too) are blending precision nutrition with eat stop eat for
great nutrition knowledge (overview), and exploration of the benefits/vibes of fasting.
Anyway, the seminar sounds like it's going to be fun. Let me know what you think.
Oh and as one more place to get psyched for what promises to be a fun evening, here's an interview Mike T Neslon did with Mr. Pilon.
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
The main idea? Check out the video and register for a teleseminar (it's free) to find out more insider knowledge about how supplement companies make some of the outrageous claims they do - with seeming results.
But get some good tips too. Taken from the teleseminar page:
* How many calories it REALLY takes to build muscleNote: the above link to the seminar links back to me, but the seminar is free, so it seems that it's for counting purposes - but heck if you'd like to buy a copy of eat stop eat from my site (it's a good researched read whether you practice fasting or not) that's lovely, too (more about affiliate links at b2d)
* Why HEIGHT has more to do with the amount of calories you need on a daily basis and how to use the "Rule of 7's and 3's" to determine how BIG you'll actually end up
* A sneaky trick that all marketers use to get you to THINK that you're gaining more muscle than you really are... and how this same sneaky trick is SAPPING you out of your hard earned money in the process
* How adding just 5 lbs of muscle in JUST THE RIGHT PLACES gives the illusion of a 25 lb increase in size... DRUG FREE...
* The TRUTH on testimonials and "before and after" pics and how EVEN YOU can make yourself look super huge in 24 hours... without ever touching the inside of a gym or taking a "magic powder". This is the one secret the supplement companies DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
(here's a preview on the above one from brad's blog, 2007:how to gain 10 pounds of muscle and lose 5 pounds of fat in only 2 days.
Aside: as i've said before, colleagues i trust (and now me, too) are blending precision nutrition with eat stop eat for
great nutrition knowledge (overview), and exploration of the benefits/vibes of fasting.
Anyway, the seminar sounds like it's going to be fun. Let me know what you think.
Oh and as one more place to get psyched for what promises to be a fun evening, here's an interview Mike T Neslon did with Mr. Pilon.
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Thursday, February 18, 2010
30g of protein per meal for optimal muscle building? That Depends - a lot
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Less and More? Yes, when talking protein. Have you encountered any of these questions? How much protein can i eat at a sitting? What's the right amount of protein to eat? How much protein can i absorb? These are questions in the fitness world that get asked all the time - especially by folks who want to optimize their muscle growth. The answer seems to be "less than you think, but more often"
We know there's a usual formula (even that's been debated at a Protein Roundtable - but not by much) about how much protein to take in in a day - let's just say for now it's 2-2.5 g per kg (based on work in 2006), or about a g/pound (nice mix of metric and imperial there) which has been pretty much the standard recommendation for some time, newly validated. As the authors note, that's about 176 g of protein a day for an 80kg person " This is well below the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80 kg person (285 to 365 g/d)."
Intriguingly, there's a newish study out to show that 30g of protein derived from real food is about all the protein one can reasonably ingest in a sitting that will support muscle or protein synthesis is 30g. There are certain conditions attached to this statement that we'll discuss below.
Also Note, muscle protein synthesis here is being looked at in a particular context. We're talking about what resting muscle can use to handle the ongoing breakdown and build up of muscle proteins. This is potentially different than a body builder working out to build lots of mass. In other words, we're looking at a kind of baseline max.
SO 30g of whole protein or, in the case of this study, a 113g serving of lean beef (about 4oz). That's pretty close to the traditional portion size of a piece of meat the size of a deck of cards.
We can eat more protein at one meal, but the authors would argue, it ain't doing anything for muscle building/protein synthesis of resting muscles. Here's the overview of the research:
Indeed, in the discussion of their results at 30g the authors also speculate
One Feeding. The authors offer even more caveats: the researchers only looked at the ingestion of the whole protein - not at it mixed up with more food, as we usually get it, or after exercise. They say:
Where's the Beef for Application? What is intriguing to me in this study is how one would balance optimal absorption of protein with the amount of protein we're supposed to ingest - especially if remotely active. so our 80kg guy is going for 180ish grams of protein, at max 30g whole protein a meal.
So, let's say our person has three meals a day. 30g per meal, that's only 90g protein, total. That's half the protein our fella needs, according to the usual saw of .8-1g protein/pound of person.
Or what about folks who eat only one meal a day? That's one more potential problem with the evening feast beyond say glucose effects, then, perhaps? They may pig out on protein, but it's still 30g a shot for muscle synthesis this study would suggest. Read on.
Frequent Feedings for Optimal Muscle Building? Er...
Could this max 30g of whole protein be one more argument for the value of frequent meals during the day(s one eats -one may fast)? Consider one of the core heuristics of Precision Nutrition (discussed here): at each feeding make sure to have
Though there is a 2007 8 week trial that shows that lean mass didn't change to any statistically significant degree, whether people got all their daily protein in one meal or three a day. Whether folks were training or not was not considered. So the question comes up: are acute responses (measures taken at time of ingestion) related to longitudinal responses?
And what if Less is More? May be time to highlight again that we're talking about protein synthesis here, not protein absorption. Absorption amounts (2-2.5g/kg body weight) may be greater than required amounts for protein synthesis. An interesting question still kinda out there is if 30g is the max for resting muscle for a more or less 80kg person, what's the least amount to still get this max effect?
What about Work Outs? Things get really interesting if we consider pre and post training nutrition with carb/protein periworkout nutrition, as in this study where participants were fed slightly more than 30g protein pre AND post workouts (along with creatine and carbs). These researchers didn't test the amounts of protein they used (related work in this 2009 study suggests it's 20g post workout - thanks Kevin Greer for the ref); they just looked at whether there was a better effect with pre and post supplementation than not. They did sorta hit the maximal usable amount, which is cool, but it might be too much too soon to be fully absorbable for muscle synthesis.
Or maybe - maybe - the effect was from the Creatine and Carbs + Protein and not just the protein (another few views on protein+ creatine vs carbs + creatine [one] or pro+cho vs pro+cho+cr[another]). Dang.
Questions? What happens if we OD on protein? Can we? We know that if we're in caloric deficit, protein is getting oxidized for fuel before going to protein synthesis, right? And likewise if we eat too much of it, it gets deaminiated and the amonia gets peed out, which has been a concern/question regarding toxicity of overdoing protein:
Summing Up?
What do we know from this study: that measured over three ours post ingestion, it doesn't matter whether an 80kg person eats 30g or three times that, that 30g of whole protein was the most that could be utilized for muscle protein synthesis in their resting muscle at a feeding.
What the authors are NOT saying: 30g of protein is needed every 2-3 hours for muscle growth. It seems kinda the opposite: less protein may be needed for acute muscle protein synthesis.
Where we mayn't be able to Generalize: While the authors suggest therefore that a strategy is to spread protein intake over the day, the 1 meal a day vs 3 meals a day study suggests that lean mass holds over time whether following this strategy or not. SO why spread out protein uptake??
If we move from protein synthesis at rest to muscle building, other work seems to suggest that even when working out that (a) just working out and (b) creatine may be more important for packing on muscle than protein. This latter point is one that Eat STop Eat author Brad Pilon makes in his ebook How Much Protein (thanks to Chris Highcock for pointing this book out to me).
So what can we say? well, what the authors also say is of note is that there's been concern that elderly eating low protein diets, mixed with other nutrients may have a blunted protein synthesis. This study suggests that there's no age related effect of upping protein to a certain point, regardless of age. Ok. So both elderly and younger types respond the same to acute protein intake when just eating protein. Good to know.
But once again a lovely finding of an acute response and a seeming logical conclusion (spread protein out over the day) doesn't seem to hold on its own in the larger context as a prescription for action. We may find though that benefits of protein supplementation have other functions than just mass related - like recovery and immune function. More food for future thought.
dang.
Related Posts
select citations
Bilsborough S, & Mann N (2006). A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism, 16 (2), 129-52 PMID: 16779921
Symons, T., Sheffield-Moore, M., Wolfe, R., & Paddon-Jones, D. (2009). A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly Subjects Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109 (9), 1582-1586 DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.06.369
CARLSON, O., MARTIN, B., STOTE, K., GOLDEN, E., MAUDSLEY, S., NAJJAR, S., FERRUCCI, L., INGRAM, D., LONGO, D., & RUMPLER, W. (2007). Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation in healthy, normal-weight middle-aged men and women Metabolism, 56 (12), 1729-1734 DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2007.07.018
Cuthbertson, D. (2004). Anabolic signaling deficits underlie amino acid resistance of wasting, aging muscle The FASEB Journal DOI: 10.1096/fj.04-2640fje
KERKSICK, C., RASMUSSEN, C., LANCASTER, S., STARKS, M., SMITH, P., MELTON, C., GREENWOOD, M., ALMADA, A., & KREIDER, R. (2007). Impact of differing protein sources and a creatine containing nutritional formula after 12 weeks of resistance training Nutrition, 23 (9), 647-656 DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2007.06.015 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Less and More? Yes, when talking protein. Have you encountered any of these questions? How much protein can i eat at a sitting? What's the right amount of protein to eat? How much protein can i absorb? These are questions in the fitness world that get asked all the time - especially by folks who want to optimize their muscle growth. The answer seems to be "less than you think, but more often"
We know there's a usual formula (even that's been debated at a Protein Roundtable - but not by much) about how much protein to take in in a day - let's just say for now it's 2-2.5 g per kg (based on work in 2006), or about a g/pound (nice mix of metric and imperial there) which has been pretty much the standard recommendation for some time, newly validated. As the authors note, that's about 176 g of protein a day for an 80kg person " This is well below the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80 kg person (285 to 365 g/d)."
Intriguingly, there's a newish study out to show that 30g of protein derived from real food is about all the protein one can reasonably ingest in a sitting that will support muscle or protein synthesis is 30g. There are certain conditions attached to this statement that we'll discuss below.
Also Note, muscle protein synthesis here is being looked at in a particular context. We're talking about what resting muscle can use to handle the ongoing breakdown and build up of muscle proteins. This is potentially different than a body builder working out to build lots of mass. In other words, we're looking at a kind of baseline max.
SO 30g of whole protein or, in the case of this study, a 113g serving of lean beef (about 4oz). That's pretty close to the traditional portion size of a piece of meat the size of a deck of cards.
We can eat more protein at one meal, but the authors would argue, it ain't doing anything for muscle building/protein synthesis of resting muscles. Here's the overview of the research:
A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly SubjectsThe authors cite their motivation for the study in part as a balance to previous work that showed 10g of EAA's at a go was all the body could make use of - that amounts beyond that signalled no greater muscle synthesis (or synthesis of muscle protein, more formally). So what about getting those EAA's from a whole food like "113 g lean beef, 30 g protein, 10 g EAAs, 220 kcal." Turns out that it *seems* it doesn't matter from whence one gets those EAA's, that's the max the body can use for " a maximal acute protein synthetic effect."
T. Brock Symons PhD, Melinda Sheffield-Moore PhD, Robert R. Wolfe PhD and Douglas Paddon-Jones PhDCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
Accepted 30 January 2009.
Available online 21 August 2009.
Abstract
Ingestion of sufficient dietary protein is a fundamental prerequisite for muscle protein synthesis and maintenance of muscle mass and function. Elderly people are often at increased risk for protein-energy malnutrition, sarcopenia, and a diminished quality of life. This study sought to compare changes in muscle protein synthesis and anabolic efficiency in response to a single moderate serving (113 g; 220 kcal; 30 g protein) or large serving (340 g; 660 kcal; 90 g protein) of 90% lean beef. Venous blood and vastus lateralis muscle biopsy samples were obtained during a primed, constant infusion (0.08 μmol/kg/min) of L-[ring-13C6] phenylalanine in healthy young (n=17; 34±3 years) and elderly (n=17; 68±2 years) individuals. Mixed muscle fractional synthesis rate was calculated during a 3-hour postabsorptive period and for 5 hours after meal ingestion. Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance with Tukey's pairwise comparisons. A 113-g serving of lean beef increased muscle protein synthesis by approximately 50% in both young and older volunteers. Despite a threefold increase in protein and energy content, there was no further increase in protein synthesis after ingestion of 340 g lean beef in either age group. Ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly.
Indeed, in the discussion of their results at 30g the authors also speculate
In terms of stimulating muscle growth, it therefore seems likely that under resting/nonexercising conditions, consumption of more than 30 g protein in a single meal is not justified. Indeed, it may well be the case that a slightly smaller meal would produce a similar protein synthetic responseIn terms of stimulating muscle growth, it therefore seems likely that under resting/nonexercising conditions, consumption of more than 30 g protein in a single meal is not justified. Indeed, it may well be the case that a slightly smaller meal would produce a similar protein synthetic response.Considerations: Could even less protein, in other words, have as much of a protein synthesis response as the 30g? Note the caveats given: if we're talking at rest and without exercise. The authors' participants were people who (a) didn't change their diet for the 72 hours leading up to the study (b) didn't do any activities for that period. THe study notes only that they were healthy people in a range of ages, not whether any were jocks or sedentary. Also, the average weight (plus or minus 7kg) was about 80kg in the "young" group and about 78 in the "elder" group. We also don't know what the lean mass is of any of the participants, or perhaps more fundamentally, how amount of protein might be impacted if one weights 20kg less or more than the study average?
One Feeding. The authors offer even more caveats: the researchers only looked at the ingestion of the whole protein - not at it mixed up with more food, as we usually get it, or after exercise. They say:
Perhaps the most obvious is the fact that a single menu item, such as a serving of lean beef, is seldom eaten alone. As noted, there are some data suggesting that elders may have a less robust protein synthetic response to the combined ingestion of protein and carbohydrate than their younger counterparts (25). This has yet to be explored in the context of an actual mixed-nutrient meal, but warrants further investigation. Further, there is the potential of an added protein synthetic response if protein were to be consumed in close temporal proximity to physical activity (29,30).
25 E. Volpi, B. Mittendorfer, B.B. Rasmussen and R.R. Wolfe, The response of muscle protein anabolism to combined hyperaminoacidemia and glucose-induced hyperinsulinemia is impaired in the elderly, J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85 (2000), pp. 4481–4490.In other words the researchers only tested protein synthesis effects when chewing meat in isolation of other food stuffs. Yes that's right, that's all they got: a 90% lean beef patty. And yes, "this project was supported by funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Checkoff Program" But it was also funded by the NIH center on aging. And considering the findings suggest that less is just as good as more, it's not doing the cattleMEN's association a great service.
29 S.M. Phillips, J.W. Hartman and S.B. Wilkinson, Dietary protein to support anabolism with resistance exercise in young men, J Am Coll Nutr 24 (2005), pp. S134–S139.
30 M. Sheffield-Moore, C.W. Yeckel, E. Volpi, S.E. Wolf, B. Morio, D.L. Chinkes, D. Paddon-Jones and R.R. Wolfe, Postexercise protein metabolism in older and younger men following moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 287 (2004), pp. E513–E522.
Where's the Beef for Application? What is intriguing to me in this study is how one would balance optimal absorption of protein with the amount of protein we're supposed to ingest - especially if remotely active. so our 80kg guy is going for 180ish grams of protein, at max 30g whole protein a meal.
So, let's say our person has three meals a day. 30g per meal, that's only 90g protein, total. That's half the protein our fella needs, according to the usual saw of .8-1g protein/pound of person.
Or what about folks who eat only one meal a day? That's one more potential problem with the evening feast beyond say glucose effects, then, perhaps? They may pig out on protein, but it's still 30g a shot for muscle synthesis this study would suggest. Read on.
Frequent Feedings for Optimal Muscle Building? Er...
Could this max 30g of whole protein be one more argument for the value of frequent meals during the day(s one eats -one may fast)? Consider one of the core heuristics of Precision Nutrition (discussed here): at each feeding make sure to have
- some greens
- some healthy fats
- some protein
- (starchy carbs only post workout).
We suggest that instead of a single, large protein-rich meal, ingestion of multiple moderate-sized servings of high-quality protein-rich foods over the course of a day may represent an effective means of optimizing the potential for muscle growth while permitting greater con- trol over total energy and nutrient intake.Full Disclosure: What the authors do not say is what the minimal times are between feedings such that one can make use of that full 30 again. They do state that the "post-ingestion period" is three hours. They did not however retest meal ingestion at that time to see what would happen with another dose. And that's fine for this study that was looking at size of dose for max possible effect, but it does mean we're speculating about repeats - grounded speculation, but still less tested.
Though there is a 2007 8 week trial that shows that lean mass didn't change to any statistically significant degree, whether people got all their daily protein in one meal or three a day. Whether folks were training or not was not considered. So the question comes up: are acute responses (measures taken at time of ingestion) related to longitudinal responses?
And what if Less is More? May be time to highlight again that we're talking about protein synthesis here, not protein absorption. Absorption amounts (2-2.5g/kg body weight) may be greater than required amounts for protein synthesis. An interesting question still kinda out there is if 30g is the max for resting muscle for a more or less 80kg person, what's the least amount to still get this max effect?
What about Work Outs? Things get really interesting if we consider pre and post training nutrition with carb/protein periworkout nutrition, as in this study where participants were fed slightly more than 30g protein pre AND post workouts (along with creatine and carbs). These researchers didn't test the amounts of protein they used (related work in this 2009 study suggests it's 20g post workout - thanks Kevin Greer for the ref); they just looked at whether there was a better effect with pre and post supplementation than not. They did sorta hit the maximal usable amount, which is cool, but it might be too much too soon to be fully absorbable for muscle synthesis.
Or maybe - maybe - the effect was from the Creatine and Carbs + Protein and not just the protein (another few views on protein+ creatine vs carbs + creatine [one] or pro+cho vs pro+cho+cr[another]). Dang.
Questions? What happens if we OD on protein? Can we? We know that if we're in caloric deficit, protein is getting oxidized for fuel before going to protein synthesis, right? And likewise if we eat too much of it, it gets deaminiated and the amonia gets peed out, which has been a concern/question regarding toxicity of overdoing protein:
High protein diets on the other hand advocate excessive levels of protein intake on the order of 200 to 400 g/d, which can equate to levels of approximately 5 g · kg-1 · d-1, which may exceed the liver’s capacity to convert excess nitrogen to urea. Dangers of excessive protein, defined as when protein constitutes > 35% of total energy intake, include hyperaminoacidemia, hyperammonemia, hyperinsulinemia nausea, diarrhea, and even death (the “rabbit starvation syndrome”[link added -mc]).Hence the 2-2.5g/kg recommendation. Other excess ingestion of protein has protein used for glucose conversion, and we know if we don't need all the available sugar, well heck, it's stored as fat.
Summing Up?
What do we know from this study: that measured over three ours post ingestion, it doesn't matter whether an 80kg person eats 30g or three times that, that 30g of whole protein was the most that could be utilized for muscle protein synthesis in their resting muscle at a feeding.
What the authors are NOT saying: 30g of protein is needed every 2-3 hours for muscle growth. It seems kinda the opposite: less protein may be needed for acute muscle protein synthesis.
Where we mayn't be able to Generalize: While the authors suggest therefore that a strategy is to spread protein intake over the day, the 1 meal a day vs 3 meals a day study suggests that lean mass holds over time whether following this strategy or not. SO why spread out protein uptake??
If we move from protein synthesis at rest to muscle building, other work seems to suggest that even when working out that (a) just working out and (b) creatine may be more important for packing on muscle than protein. This latter point is one that Eat STop Eat author Brad Pilon makes in his ebook How Much Protein (thanks to Chris Highcock for pointing this book out to me).
So what can we say? well, what the authors also say is of note is that there's been concern that elderly eating low protein diets, mixed with other nutrients may have a blunted protein synthesis. This study suggests that there's no age related effect of upping protein to a certain point, regardless of age. Ok. So both elderly and younger types respond the same to acute protein intake when just eating protein. Good to know.
But once again a lovely finding of an acute response and a seeming logical conclusion (spread protein out over the day) doesn't seem to hold on its own in the larger context as a prescription for action. We may find though that benefits of protein supplementation have other functions than just mass related - like recovery and immune function. More food for future thought.
dang.
Related Posts
- Optimal Protein Blends for Omnivores and Plant Based Eaters Alike
- A minute with Mike: the Myth of the Post Workout Nutrition Window.
- Set Point Theory is Crap
- General Nutrition Post Index
- Nutrient Timing May be a Good Idea
- Whole Wheat, Whole Protein, Whole Holes?
- supplement curmudgeon: does that DO anything for you?
select citations
Bilsborough S, & Mann N (2006). A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism, 16 (2), 129-52 PMID: 16779921
Symons, T., Sheffield-Moore, M., Wolfe, R., & Paddon-Jones, D. (2009). A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly Subjects Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109 (9), 1582-1586 DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.06.369
CARLSON, O., MARTIN, B., STOTE, K., GOLDEN, E., MAUDSLEY, S., NAJJAR, S., FERRUCCI, L., INGRAM, D., LONGO, D., & RUMPLER, W. (2007). Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation in healthy, normal-weight middle-aged men and women Metabolism, 56 (12), 1729-1734 DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2007.07.018
Cuthbertson, D. (2004). Anabolic signaling deficits underlie amino acid resistance of wasting, aging muscle The FASEB Journal DOI: 10.1096/fj.04-2640fje
KERKSICK, C., RASMUSSEN, C., LANCASTER, S., STARKS, M., SMITH, P., MELTON, C., GREENWOOD, M., ALMADA, A., & KREIDER, R. (2007). Impact of differing protein sources and a creatine containing nutritional formula after 12 weeks of resistance training Nutrition, 23 (9), 647-656 DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2007.06.015 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Barefoot Running - even more vid analysis sources
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
In case you were curious, here's some nice fine comparison work of barefoot and not foot striking. B2D readers know there have been many of us here for awhile, celebrating foot freedom with minimal footwear, or goodness, naked feet, (see the entire index of articles on same).
Some of us have been just waiting for the moment when barefooting or vff'ing would make it through to the mainstream. THis seems to have happened recently on the cover of nature, with DE Lieberman's research in praise of the unshod. The formal article title is "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners" The abstract reads:
Related Posts
CITATION
Lieberman, D., Venkadesan, M., Werbel, W., Daoud, A., D’Andrea, S., Davis, I., Mang’Eni, R., & Pitsiladis, Y. (2010). Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners Nature, 463 (7280), 531-535 DOI: 10.1038/nature08723 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
In case you were curious, here's some nice fine comparison work of barefoot and not foot striking. B2D readers know there have been many of us here for awhile, celebrating foot freedom with minimal footwear, or goodness, naked feet, (see the entire index of articles on same).Some of us have been just waiting for the moment when barefooting or vff'ing would make it through to the mainstream. THis seems to have happened recently on the cover of nature, with DE Lieberman's research in praise of the unshod. The formal article title is "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners" The abstract reads:
Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years1, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.As this work was covered broadly by the media, i haven't jumped in (just quietly celebrating ahead of the curveness), but wanted to foreground an associated resource that b2d reader Robert Cowham forwarded today, followed by one that's on the main vibram fivefingers page now. Enjoy.
Related Posts
- Running Shoes as Single Factor Thinking
- The neurological benefit of the thinly shod
- Review of wearing vff's five months on (it's been 15 months now)
- do YOUR shoes pass the twist test?
CITATION
Lieberman, D., Venkadesan, M., Werbel, W., Daoud, A., D’Andrea, S., Davis, I., Mang’Eni, R., & Pitsiladis, Y. (2010). Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners Nature, 463 (7280), 531-535 DOI: 10.1038/nature08723 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Hypoxia for Muscle Growth: Get Huge or Die?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
A recently accepted paper shows that working in an oxygen deprived environment can gosh darn it, build muscle when doing resistance work. WHile jokes might start about the variety of ways that one could replicate a near-asphyxiated space - from smoking to putting a plastic bag (with some holes) over one's head - i'm thinking that in the case of resistance training (as opposed to altitude/endurance where there's a definite blood/muscle adaptation), based on the findings, we're maybe seeing predictably heightened threat response brought on by 02 deprivation. Here's a look at the study in detail:
What is it with Japanese research and oxygen deprivation? They bring us the most amazing results of occlusion training (b2d discussion here). Now, how about whole body oxygen occlusion?
Some may argue that this seems to be similar to training at altitude, where the benefits are known. Indeed, the authors use a system that's used to generate Everest-like conditions, funnily enough called an "everest generator" and for 5K you can have one, too (shown left).
Thing is, this technique is most often used for endurance athletes (and we've also seen in cycling for instance blood doping associated cases of EPO enriched/adapted blood), and apparently the usual oxygen depletion levels are 20.9% o2 - with associated increased risks of overtraining. Here, in this resistance training study, the researchers use 13ish% o2.
Another unique aspect of this hypoxia study is it's the first time (to my knowledge anyway) researchers have formally looked at effects on resistance training - anaerobic effort as opposed to aerobic effort.
The Rationale: it IS occlusion training. The authors do indeed say yup well, LOW INTENSITY resistance training and partial occlusion has great effect, so how about "systemic hypoxia" - It's the next logical step, isn't it?
Set Up. 10 reps of bench and squat at 70% of tested 1RM in either normal room air or 13% O2. I'm only able to guess that 13% is some standard definition of "acute hypoxia" conditions that are still safe.
The authors alas don't formally justify either why they were going for this percentage or why this definitely NOT low resistance level (like occlusion training uses) was used.
All sorts of Measures. The purpose of the trials were so the researchers will have
And what all the lads love to hear: serum GH - significantly higher in the hypoxia case (potentially triggered, the researchers suppose by increased catecholamine release) Likewise IGF and of course yes the big T, testosterone. But so does cortisol.
And for those trying to burn fat? Not surprisingly to folks who see the world through the nervous system threat/no threat lense, those wonderful fight or flight catecholamines are of course elevated, too. These are the things that help fat mobilisation (discussed here in this b2d piece on HIIT). So gosh, let's see - challenge trying to breath - i'd say that's going to be perceived as a threat to one's system?
So What's Different (than occlusion training)?
The authors suggest that while occlusion training has shown greater muscle growth, they haven't really known why. They put it down to the increased levels of GH noted in occlusion training at LOW REPS. Here they're saying
What they say their specific results also suggest is that IGF-1 may be indedpendent of GH levels. In other words, something else is going on to get a boost in IGF-1 than the presence of GH.
Likewise, they suggest that increases in serum testosterone may have more to do with intensity and muscle mass than "metabolic stress" - like hypoxia.
As for cortisol, another fight or flight hormone, that's also a known biproduct of resistance training. The researchers say they just don't know what the mechanism is such that these levels are particularly higher in this trial. Well heck, again, threat-related hormone; gonna asphixiate. Dunno. seems predictable when seen from that vantage?
Not Normal. The threat hormones did not return to normal levels within an hour after the trials either. Is that good? Not clear, but if overtraining is related to stressing they system, threatening it more than it can handle perhaps, then it's reasonable to see why this kind of training may need to be far more closely monitored for overtraining effects.
Openning New Doors. The biggest outcome it seems right now is the possible relationship of hypoxia to GH - at least in the authors' view:
hypoxic environment in anaerobic work like resistance training - hence the term anaerobic - so it's interesting to see therefore that the hypoxic effect seems to be perhaps on the recovery - where we usually pause between sets to catch our breath and re-oxygenate. Here, in this o2 deprived envrionment, that can't happen. Hence lactate it seems to me goes up. And GH switches in.
Why, when the nervous system might be percieved to be under threat, would the nervous system/brain see this as a good time to, er, grow? (For a review of the systems that get shut down under stress, see this overview of Zebras and Baboons and Stress.)
Again, what these researchers don't seem to clue into is that growth hormone is apparently known to be triggered by stress (and here's a pdf from 76 about how kind of cool this is, where only 1/3 of the sample group was shown to have this particular stress/GH release response). It's role this work shows, is not just to grow the body, but the brain. Is that what's going on? I'm about to die; i suddenly need a bigger brain?
Ramdoc, over at the dragondoor forum (thank you), made the intriguing connexion that GH is related to insulin. Here's 2005 paper outlining the human GH/insulin homeostasis, and that bigger hits of GH lead to a hyperinsulinism - elevated levels of insulin in the bloodstream. That's gonna trigger a temporary blood glucose surge. So if increased GH relates to a rush of glucose to the bloodstream, that certainly would have a survival effect. More fast energy, that means more ATP, more muscle can be recruited, more speed, steve. Cool.
We're about to Die; Let's get Huge?
Well who'd have thought even to test the effects of cutting off c
irculation to see what would happen to our bodies?
I suppose it's an interesting idea - take a process like anaerobic metabolism and string it out to see if by seeing what happens in a less natural environment, we get some better view into a natural environment. And heck, some folks might turn that practice into a way to rehab and train folks.
The responses seen in this environment - a big fat rush of fight or flight related responses - seem pretty predictable. That there's a positive payoff FROM that stress after the event is interesting: survive and get faster, stronger. Recovery means anabolism: more muscle, continued performance improvement. And who knows? Maybe a bigger smarter brain?
But in terms of pushing this principle that's being expressed in the large in this oxygen deprived space? The biggie that those stress levels don't go back to normal in normal time is a reminder that hypoxia work may just be super stressful to our CNS even if we mayn't perceive that directly ourselve - and this study doesn't tell us if it collected any of the athletes' responses to the protocol.
In the meantime, for those who are curious, how would one try this at home without an Hypoxia Generator? The mind reels at the possibilities.
Related Posts
A recently accepted paper shows that working in an oxygen deprived environment can gosh darn it, build muscle when doing resistance work. WHile jokes might start about the variety of ways that one could replicate a near-asphyxiated space - from smoking to putting a plastic bag (with some holes) over one's head - i'm thinking that in the case of resistance training (as opposed to altitude/endurance where there's a definite blood/muscle adaptation), based on the findings, we're maybe seeing predictably heightened threat response brought on by 02 deprivation. Here's a look at the study in detail:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Dec 14. [Epub ahead of print]
Effects of Acute Hypoxia on Metabolic and Hormonal Responses to Resistance Exercise.
Kon M, Ikeda T, Homma T, Akimoto T, Suzuki Y, Kawahara T.
1Department of Sports Sciences, Japan Institute of Sports Sciences, 3-15-1 Nishigaoka, Kita, Tokyo, 115-0056, Japan; 2Laboratory of Regenerative Medical Engineering, Center for Disease Biology and Integrative Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
INTRODUCTION:: Several recent studies have shown that resistance exercise combined with vascular occlusion effectively causes increases in muscular size and strength. Researchers speculated that the vascular occlusion-induced local hypoxia may contribute to the adaptations via promoting anabolic hormone secretions stimulated by local accumulation of metabolic subproducts. Here we examined whether acute systemic hypoxia affects metabolic and hormonal responses to resistance exercise. METHODS:: Twelve male subjects participated in two experimental trials: 1) resistance exercise while breathing normoxic air [normoxic resistance exercise (NR)], 2) resistance exercise while breathing 13 % oxygen [hypoxic resistance exercise (HR)]. The resistance exercises (bench-press and leg-press) consisted of 10 repetitions for five sets at 70 % of maximum strength with 1-min rest between sets. Blood lactate, serum growth hormone (GH), epinephrine (E), norepinephrine (NE), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), testosterone, and cortisol concentrations were measured before normoxia and hypoxia exposures, 15-min after the exposures, and at 0, 15, 30, 60 min after the exercises. RESULTS:: Lactate significantly increased after exercises in both trials (p < style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">These findings suggest that resistance exercise in hypoxic condition caused greater accumulation of metabolites, and strong anabolic hormone response.
What is it with Japanese research and oxygen deprivation? They bring us the most amazing results of occlusion training (b2d discussion here). Now, how about whole body oxygen occlusion?
Some may argue that this seems to be similar to training at altitude, where the benefits are known. Indeed, the authors use a system that's used to generate Everest-like conditions, funnily enough called an "everest generator" and for 5K you can have one, too (shown left).Thing is, this technique is most often used for endurance athletes (and we've also seen in cycling for instance blood doping associated cases of EPO enriched/adapted blood), and apparently the usual oxygen depletion levels are 20.9% o2 - with associated increased risks of overtraining. Here, in this resistance training study, the researchers use 13ish% o2.
Another unique aspect of this hypoxia study is it's the first time (to my knowledge anyway) researchers have formally looked at effects on resistance training - anaerobic effort as opposed to aerobic effort.
The Rationale: it IS occlusion training. The authors do indeed say yup well, LOW INTENSITY resistance training and partial occlusion has great effect, so how about "systemic hypoxia" - It's the next logical step, isn't it?
Set Up. 10 reps of bench and squat at 70% of tested 1RM in either normal room air or 13% O2. I'm only able to guess that 13% is some standard definition of "acute hypoxia" conditions that are still safe.
The authors alas don't formally justify either why they were going for this percentage or why this definitely NOT low resistance level (like occlusion training uses) was used.
All sorts of Measures. The purpose of the trials were so the researchers will have
examined the effects of resistance exercise on metabolic and hormonal responses under acute systemic hypoxia. We hypothesized that the resistance exercise in hypoxic condition would cause greater accumulation of metabolic subproducts, and greater responses of anabolic hormones.To this end, a lot of measures were taken of muscle oxidation, hormones, fuel produced (like lactate). As the abstract says, blood lactate levels were significantly higher in the hypoxia trial than in the normal air trial. This isn't much of a surprise, given that lactate tends to kick in as it gets harder for the body to oxidize fuel in the mitochondria. A goal of Vo2max training (like viking warrior conditioning, reviewed here) is to increase the lactate threshold - the level of effort and time before which bi products of lactate production (H+ ions) can no longer be buffered out of the blood.
And what all the lads love to hear: serum GH - significantly higher in the hypoxia case (potentially triggered, the researchers suppose by increased catecholamine release) Likewise IGF and of course yes the big T, testosterone. But so does cortisol.
And for those trying to burn fat? Not surprisingly to folks who see the world through the nervous system threat/no threat lense, those wonderful fight or flight catecholamines are of course elevated, too. These are the things that help fat mobilisation (discussed here in this b2d piece on HIIT). So gosh, let's see - challenge trying to breath - i'd say that's going to be perceived as a threat to one's system?
So What's Different (than occlusion training)?
The authors suggest that while occlusion training has shown greater muscle growth, they haven't really known why. They put it down to the increased levels of GH noted in occlusion training at LOW REPS. Here they're saying
In the present study, we revealed that systemic hypoxia was actually associated with greater GH response to resistance exercise for the first time. The hypoxia may play a key role in the low intensity resistance training with vascularInteresting that systemic hypoxia is being used to understand the mechanisms of a more local phenomena like Kaatsu cuffing.
occlusion-induced muscular hypertrophy
What they say their specific results also suggest is that IGF-1 may be indedpendent of GH levels. In other words, something else is going on to get a boost in IGF-1 than the presence of GH.
Likewise, they suggest that increases in serum testosterone may have more to do with intensity and muscle mass than "metabolic stress" - like hypoxia.
As for cortisol, another fight or flight hormone, that's also a known biproduct of resistance training. The researchers say they just don't know what the mechanism is such that these levels are particularly higher in this trial. Well heck, again, threat-related hormone; gonna asphixiate. Dunno. seems predictable when seen from that vantage?
Not Normal. The threat hormones did not return to normal levels within an hour after the trials either. Is that good? Not clear, but if overtraining is related to stressing they system, threatening it more than it can handle perhaps, then it's reasonable to see why this kind of training may need to be far more closely monitored for overtraining effects.
Openning New Doors. The biggest outcome it seems right now is the possible relationship of hypoxia to GH - at least in the authors' view:
... it is necessary to investigate whether hypoxic exposure plays an important role for the expressions of genes involving muscular hypertrophy in the future...Our data suggest that hypoxia is a potent factor for the enhancements of anabolic hormone (GH) response to resistanceWhy when fleeing the Tiger does GH turn on? Intriguingly, we already induce a kind of
hypoxic environment in anaerobic work like resistance training - hence the term anaerobic - so it's interesting to see therefore that the hypoxic effect seems to be perhaps on the recovery - where we usually pause between sets to catch our breath and re-oxygenate. Here, in this o2 deprived envrionment, that can't happen. Hence lactate it seems to me goes up. And GH switches in.Why, when the nervous system might be percieved to be under threat, would the nervous system/brain see this as a good time to, er, grow? (For a review of the systems that get shut down under stress, see this overview of Zebras and Baboons and Stress.)
Again, what these researchers don't seem to clue into is that growth hormone is apparently known to be triggered by stress (and here's a pdf from 76 about how kind of cool this is, where only 1/3 of the sample group was shown to have this particular stress/GH release response). It's role this work shows, is not just to grow the body, but the brain. Is that what's going on? I'm about to die; i suddenly need a bigger brain?
Ramdoc, over at the dragondoor forum (thank you), made the intriguing connexion that GH is related to insulin. Here's 2005 paper outlining the human GH/insulin homeostasis, and that bigger hits of GH lead to a hyperinsulinism - elevated levels of insulin in the bloodstream. That's gonna trigger a temporary blood glucose surge. So if increased GH relates to a rush of glucose to the bloodstream, that certainly would have a survival effect. More fast energy, that means more ATP, more muscle can be recruited, more speed, steve. Cool.
We're about to Die; Let's get Huge?
Well who'd have thought even to test the effects of cutting off c
irculation to see what would happen to our bodies?I suppose it's an interesting idea - take a process like anaerobic metabolism and string it out to see if by seeing what happens in a less natural environment, we get some better view into a natural environment. And heck, some folks might turn that practice into a way to rehab and train folks.
The responses seen in this environment - a big fat rush of fight or flight related responses - seem pretty predictable. That there's a positive payoff FROM that stress after the event is interesting: survive and get faster, stronger. Recovery means anabolism: more muscle, continued performance improvement. And who knows? Maybe a bigger smarter brain?
But in terms of pushing this principle that's being expressed in the large in this oxygen deprived space? The biggie that those stress levels don't go back to normal in normal time is a reminder that hypoxia work may just be super stressful to our CNS even if we mayn't perceive that directly ourselve - and this study doesn't tell us if it collected any of the athletes' responses to the protocol.
In the meantime, for those who are curious, how would one try this at home without an Hypoxia Generator? The mind reels at the possibilities.
Related Posts
- Threat response - movement
- Catecholamines release in HIIT
Friday, February 12, 2010
(Why) Do we get Protective of our Pain?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
When i was at my worst with chronic back pain, i was, i think, pretty durn open to hearing about approaches that promised redress. Better than weeping if i picked up a sock and actually didn't hurt - the rarity induced the tears, knowing this would be fleeting; wishing it weren't.
So i've been surprised when i get chatting with folks, and as they hear
about what i do with respect to movement and health coaching, that they start to tell me about their various (often chronic) experiences with their own pain. After the usual "how's it going with your doctor" and "oh they're useless it's just drugs or surgery so i've seen [insert manual therapist here]."
If that's followed with "and how's that going for you?" the reply may vary. Sometimes it's - "oh i have this great therapist i see once a month or once a week and i feel great after those sessions"
And sometimes the follow up discussion is about, why do you think you need to keep going back? - just to explore what the beliefs are that have seemingly come to accept that this is their new fate: to be committed to perpetual treatment. Sometimes, they're open to other models.
An alternate reply is the constant seeker - i can relate - "oh well i try 'em all; i'm still looking for a better [insert therapist type here] i used to have a great one - i've heard [insert other therapy here] is good, so i'm thinking of trying that" Sometimes this leads to a discussion of what these therapies might have in common, such that the approach may be leaving the person wanting; that something might be getting overlooked in the focus on the site of pain rather than perhaps on interrelated movements. Maybe it's not the right model for the circumstances. I do wish someone had offered me that observation sooner than later.
I'm Happy with my Condition. But these two responses are as nothing to this other, rarer
response. The, well, i like the therapy i have now for X. I'm not better, and i don't get too much worse, but it's ok." A few times i have asked "but don't you want to get to a place where you don't need to see Y for X? where X is just better?"
Often the response to such a query is surprisingly protective. I can see the person pulling back almost physically towards that area of specialness, getting it as far away from me as they politely can. Their words in reply to my query are generally awkward and non-specific, indicating they'd just rather change the subject - at least with me, at that time and place.
I realize now, since learning more about motivational interviewing, that my attempt at engagement while feeling incredulous could be better framed as "that's great. sounds like that management of flareups, adapting your workspaces, is working for you. if you learned of an approach that would likely diminish X, rather than manage it, would you explore it?"
Other circumstances, though, are similar. Someone told me recently that they suffer from a particular condition. I'd just seen some research looking at this from an alternative cause perspective, and so asked this person recently if they were aware of it, and that the results seemed promising. The person couldn't have been more luke warm to learning more. And i'm thinking what's up? don't you WANT to get well?
The Value of The Condition. And then it finally hit me, well, maybe not. And then i thought, duh. Physical limitations can be convenient; they can help deal with fears. One person i know is in a constant state about getting back to the Fat Kid stage (he's now skeletal) and happens to have irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) - a recent development, and we're talking a fellow in his late 20's. The biggie that can't get handled with IBS? Fat. Another person i know has "bad knees" and travels a lot, overeating poor food, but is quite content with being overweight - reflecting that for "her age" she's in good shape, don't i think. And with the knees, well, can't really go to the gym now.
That's cheap psychologizing on my part, isn't it? And i don't mean it as a judgement of any of these folks; more a revelation for me (i'm a bit slow sometimes). We likely all have things we use as ways to legitimize choices or limits we put on ourselves that work for ourselves as an optimal strategy, based on the best of our understanding. And i mean that: we're busy people. We only have so many cycles on a day to focus on learning new stuff.
So let's say my cheap psychologizing is right and that IBS person has the best tool they can imagine for maintaining the thin physique they wish. Health is not their priority; not ever getting fat again is. IBS is working. They have the protection of a Condition to justify their very restricted and to me frighteningly low cal way of eating.
Likewise, when my back was killing me, i admit to using it not to go to Event X as i couldn't stay on my feet that long (so true) but did i want to explore alternatives? Hmm.
How Might Our Approach Change? What this dim insight into our attraction some of us have to our own pain may mean is a question mark in terms of better designing delivery of proactive health care/support for well being.
It's a sort of the site of the pain isn't the source of the pain necessarily. To trainers, i might ask, how often do we when taking a history ask about how things are at home? How stressed at work? About general happiness? Generally for me, my focus is on past injuries, surgeries, current training, supplements/medication. I'm a coach, after all, not a doctor, right? Other state checks have only come up if an athlete tells me they've been having a hard time sleeping. But what if i asked "are you happy, stressed, getting enough sleep" or related up front?
I don't have to have the answers if they tell me they're really depressed, actually. But at least that's a sign to say, maybe consider a coach that can help navigate that path, too?
These aren't answers that are complete; its just to highlight that perhaps the way we do health, well being, as only treating an illness is not so useful, especially when that illness may be valued and protected in a person's world.
Still a bit muzzy about the point of all this, but maybe there's a bit of an ah ha in here. let me know what you think. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
So i've been surprised when i get chatting with folks, and as they hear
about what i do with respect to movement and health coaching, that they start to tell me about their various (often chronic) experiences with their own pain. After the usual "how's it going with your doctor" and "oh they're useless it's just drugs or surgery so i've seen [insert manual therapist here]."If that's followed with "and how's that going for you?" the reply may vary. Sometimes it's - "oh i have this great therapist i see once a month or once a week and i feel great after those sessions"
And sometimes the follow up discussion is about, why do you think you need to keep going back? - just to explore what the beliefs are that have seemingly come to accept that this is their new fate: to be committed to perpetual treatment. Sometimes, they're open to other models.
An alternate reply is the constant seeker - i can relate - "oh well i try 'em all; i'm still looking for a better [insert therapist type here] i used to have a great one - i've heard [insert other therapy here] is good, so i'm thinking of trying that" Sometimes this leads to a discussion of what these therapies might have in common, such that the approach may be leaving the person wanting; that something might be getting overlooked in the focus on the site of pain rather than perhaps on interrelated movements. Maybe it's not the right model for the circumstances. I do wish someone had offered me that observation sooner than later.
I'm Happy with my Condition. But these two responses are as nothing to this other, rarer
response. The, well, i like the therapy i have now for X. I'm not better, and i don't get too much worse, but it's ok." A few times i have asked "but don't you want to get to a place where you don't need to see Y for X? where X is just better?"Often the response to such a query is surprisingly protective. I can see the person pulling back almost physically towards that area of specialness, getting it as far away from me as they politely can. Their words in reply to my query are generally awkward and non-specific, indicating they'd just rather change the subject - at least with me, at that time and place.
I realize now, since learning more about motivational interviewing, that my attempt at engagement while feeling incredulous could be better framed as "that's great. sounds like that management of flareups, adapting your workspaces, is working for you. if you learned of an approach that would likely diminish X, rather than manage it, would you explore it?"
Other circumstances, though, are similar. Someone told me recently that they suffer from a particular condition. I'd just seen some research looking at this from an alternative cause perspective, and so asked this person recently if they were aware of it, and that the results seemed promising. The person couldn't have been more luke warm to learning more. And i'm thinking what's up? don't you WANT to get well?
The Value of The Condition. And then it finally hit me, well, maybe not. And then i thought, duh. Physical limitations can be convenient; they can help deal with fears. One person i know is in a constant state about getting back to the Fat Kid stage (he's now skeletal) and happens to have irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) - a recent development, and we're talking a fellow in his late 20's. The biggie that can't get handled with IBS? Fat. Another person i know has "bad knees" and travels a lot, overeating poor food, but is quite content with being overweight - reflecting that for "her age" she's in good shape, don't i think. And with the knees, well, can't really go to the gym now.
That's cheap psychologizing on my part, isn't it? And i don't mean it as a judgement of any of these folks; more a revelation for me (i'm a bit slow sometimes). We likely all have things we use as ways to legitimize choices or limits we put on ourselves that work for ourselves as an optimal strategy, based on the best of our understanding. And i mean that: we're busy people. We only have so many cycles on a day to focus on learning new stuff.
So let's say my cheap psychologizing is right and that IBS person has the best tool they can imagine for maintaining the thin physique they wish. Health is not their priority; not ever getting fat again is. IBS is working. They have the protection of a Condition to justify their very restricted and to me frighteningly low cal way of eating.
Likewise, when my back was killing me, i admit to using it not to go to Event X as i couldn't stay on my feet that long (so true) but did i want to explore alternatives? Hmm.
How Might Our Approach Change? What this dim insight into our attraction some of us have to our own pain may mean is a question mark in terms of better designing delivery of proactive health care/support for well being.
It's a sort of the site of the pain isn't the source of the pain necessarily. To trainers, i might ask, how often do we when taking a history ask about how things are at home? How stressed at work? About general happiness? Generally for me, my focus is on past injuries, surgeries, current training, supplements/medication. I'm a coach, after all, not a doctor, right? Other state checks have only come up if an athlete tells me they've been having a hard time sleeping. But what if i asked "are you happy, stressed, getting enough sleep" or related up front?
I don't have to have the answers if they tell me they're really depressed, actually. But at least that's a sign to say, maybe consider a coach that can help navigate that path, too?
These aren't answers that are complete; its just to highlight that perhaps the way we do health, well being, as only treating an illness is not so useful, especially when that illness may be valued and protected in a person's world.
Still a bit muzzy about the point of all this, but maybe there's a bit of an ah ha in here. let me know what you think. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Heart Rate Variability: Depression Monitor for Work?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Following up on the use of heart rate monitors for recovery/fatigue detection, and at the 
horrid role of stress as what can be a chronic factor in mortality, we may be able to use heart rate variability (HRV) to help detect and so address depression - another stressor. A 2009 study has shown promising results in terms of using HRV to detect if someone is still suffering from the effects of depression. The study looked at folks who were returning to work after being off for depression, and having been cleared to come back to work. Here's the abstract:
As the conclusion of the abstract suggests, this approach could be a very cool, easy way to tune work/practices and to check how someone is doing on return to work. I'm thinking personal iphone ap hooked up to HRV measuring sensor for personal monitoring, too. One could potentially self check not only workout fatigue but work fatigue, too.
citation:
Takada, M., Ebara, T., & Kamijima, M. (2009). Heart rate variability assessment in Japanese workers recovered from depressive disorders resulting from job stress: measurements in the workplace International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health DOI: 10.1007/s00420-009-0499-1
Related:
Following up on the use of heart rate monitors for recovery/fatigue detection, and at the 
horrid role of stress as what can be a chronic factor in mortality, we may be able to use heart rate variability (HRV) to help detect and so address depression - another stressor. A 2009 study has shown promising results in terms of using HRV to detect if someone is still suffering from the effects of depression. The study looked at folks who were returning to work after being off for depression, and having been cleared to come back to work. Here's the abstract:The paper details the simple set up for HRV monitoring and questionnaire to correlate subjective survey responses about depression and this objective factors.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to clarify workers' autonomic nerve balance after long-term sick leave due to depressive disorders resulting from job stress compared with healthy workers. METHODS: The participants were 28 Japanese male workers recovered from depressive disorders and 75 healthy male workers. For each participant, the lifestyle and the fatigue within 1 month were assessed by a checklist. Heart rate variability (HRV) was measured at the workplace by acceleration plethysmography (APG). HRV was assessed by the coefficient of variation of rate intervals (CV), the spectral components in the high- and low-frequency areas represented by the normalized HF and LF (nHF and nLF), and the ratio of LF to HF components (LF/HF). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in individual lifestyle and fatigue symptoms between the recovered and the healthy workers. The former workers showed significantly lower CV, higher nLF and log(10)LF/HF, and lower nHF that represent the predominance of sympathetic activity in comparison with the healthy workers. Moreover, the recovered workers who discontinued medications indicated significantly higher nLF and log(10)LF/HF, and lower nHF compared to the recovered workers who continued their medications. CONCLUSIONS: Recovered workers in the workplace tended to show the depressive HRV feature that is the dominant sympathetic activity compared with the healthy workers. They might still be showing job stress that was not detected by the checklist. HRV analyses by APG in addition to questionnaire has the potential to become an effective approach for assessing workers' job stress to prevent repeated absences.
As the conclusion of the abstract suggests, this approach could be a very cool, easy way to tune work/practices and to check how someone is doing on return to work. I'm thinking personal iphone ap hooked up to HRV measuring sensor for personal monitoring, too. One could potentially self check not only workout fatigue but work fatigue, too.
citation:
Takada, M., Ebara, T., & Kamijima, M. (2009). Heart rate variability assessment in Japanese workers recovered from depressive disorders resulting from job stress: measurements in the workplace International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health DOI: 10.1007/s00420-009-0499-1
Related:
- should i do this next set: self-fatigue testing
- sports training on the other side of the weight room: somatosensory work.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Glucomannan: the Super Weight Loss Satiety Support Supplement (with Fiber, too)
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Lawd, it can be hard when dieting to get enough fiber. Turns out there's a supplement that's been investigated since the 198o's at least that actually seems to keep showing up only positive results in all sorts of contexts. Glucomannan. The fiber of the Konjac root. A soluble fiber, but, what's more, it seems to enhance satiety with less food. And is safe. And seems to do many other Wonderful Things.
I first heard about this stuff in a Precision Nutrition interview with phd Casandra Forsythe of New Rules of Lifting for Women fame. Then there's this cool video on T-Nation showing how much liquid a bit of glucomannan absorbs.
Success -on so many levels.
Studies looking at adding glucomannan to calorie-restricted diets have consistently found that glucomannan groups lose more fat than the non-fiber'd up groups. In one study in 2005, over 5 weeks, the GM group dropped an additional .8/kg. Indeed, in a review of research done on GM and obesity up to 2005 found that adding 2-4g of the stuff to food a day had good weightloss effects while also doing other good things like lipid status, carb tolerance and satiety (as talked about way back in 92 as well).
Fat Related. The review reiterated what's been one of the earliest findings with GM: resduced serum cholesterol AND ldl (1984). IN looking at likely the most popular soluble fiber sup, psyllium, it *seems* that the results on lipoproteins levels are better with GM too.
Weight Loss. In the weightloss space, though, terms like carb tolerance and statiety are really important. Does the person on the calorie restricted diet feel full? That may reduce cheating. Satiety turns out to be a huge topic, and achieving satiety on 1200kcals, for example, is no small thing.
Likewise, being better able to handle starchy carbs means better insulin sensitivity means potentially not taking on board quite so many since one's getting the benefit from them that's approriate with appropriate insulin response.
Related Symptoms? Heck probiotics (eat yogurt) + GM have been shown to reduce acne.
Better Movement. Likekwise having good bowel movements while dieting can be a real challenge. Since gut health is a huge indicator it seems of overall wellbeing, lots of dieters tend to reach for psyllium as a main fiber solutions.
Turns out, though, there are advantages to going the soluble route with glucomannan. Besides just getting better more regular BM's, in a 2006 study, the group using GM (aka Konjac) also shows a significant increase in bifidobacteria, lactobacilli and total bacteria. You know, that friendly stuff we need. The GM "supplement also promoted colonic fermentation as shown in the decreased fecal pH (P < href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19282532">this is one supplement that's actually being suggested can play a role as part of a regimen with kids, where other diet approaches - like drugs - cannot.
Why Does it Work for Weight Loss?
Glucomannan does so many good things, it sounds like it's compressing every thing that goes
along with just eating right into one humble but potent powder. But for most folks doing diets, a biggie reason for adding a little GM (like 4 g, 1.5/meal mixed in with food, not caps) to our lives may be that simply eating less leaves us feeling fuller rather than lesser.
This effect of feeling full is not necessarily obvious - having a full gut does not always leave one feeling satisfied (review of gut triggering brain mechanisms; review of meal size brain signaling). One can have their stomach filled up with water, and as many dieters know, a stomach that's full - of water - doesn't necessarily result in a lack of desire to eat more. So what glucomannan seems to be doing within food use is to assist in having less food register as more satisfying, tripping off those sensors in the gut/brain signaling that say less is more in this case. That is very cool.
That it also helps with "increased fecal energy" as that 2005 review suggests, may be one more reason towards simply feeling better with what one is doing more of the day - i speculate. But feeling good is feeeling good.
Recommendation: If you are struggling with aspects of low-cal'ing, from feeling full, to having healthy bowel movements, glucomannan may be just the ticket. If you have LDL issues as well and are dieting, this may also be a good supplement in any case. Check with your Doc if you're on any medication that may be counterindicated.
Related:
Citations
Lawd, it can be hard when dieting to get enough fiber. Turns out there's a supplement that's been investigated since the 198o's at least that actually seems to keep showing up only positive results in all sorts of contexts. Glucomannan. The fiber of the Konjac root. A soluble fiber, but, what's more, it seems to enhance satiety with less food. And is safe. And seems to do many other Wonderful Things.
I first heard about this stuff in a Precision Nutrition interview with phd Casandra Forsythe of New Rules of Lifting for Women fame. Then there's this cool video on T-Nation showing how much liquid a bit of glucomannan absorbs.Success -on so many levels.
Studies looking at adding glucomannan to calorie-restricted diets have consistently found that glucomannan groups lose more fat than the non-fiber'd up groups. In one study in 2005, over 5 weeks, the GM group dropped an additional .8/kg. Indeed, in a review of research done on GM and obesity up to 2005 found that adding 2-4g of the stuff to food a day had good weightloss effects while also doing other good things like lipid status, carb tolerance and satiety (as talked about way back in 92 as well).
Fat Related. The review reiterated what's been one of the earliest findings with GM: resduced serum cholesterol AND ldl (1984). IN looking at likely the most popular soluble fiber sup, psyllium, it *seems* that the results on lipoproteins levels are better with GM too.
Weight Loss. In the weightloss space, though, terms like carb tolerance and statiety are really important. Does the person on the calorie restricted diet feel full? That may reduce cheating. Satiety turns out to be a huge topic, and achieving satiety on 1200kcals, for example, is no small thing.
Likewise, being better able to handle starchy carbs means better insulin sensitivity means potentially not taking on board quite so many since one's getting the benefit from them that's approriate with appropriate insulin response.
Related Symptoms? Heck probiotics (eat yogurt) + GM have been shown to reduce acne.
Better Movement. Likekwise having good bowel movements while dieting can be a real challenge. Since gut health is a huge indicator it seems of overall wellbeing, lots of dieters tend to reach for psyllium as a main fiber solutions.
Turns out, though, there are advantages to going the soluble route with glucomannan. Besides just getting better more regular BM's, in a 2006 study, the group using GM (aka Konjac) also shows a significant increase in bifidobacteria, lactobacilli and total bacteria. You know, that friendly stuff we need. The GM "supplement also promoted colonic fermentation as shown in the decreased fecal pH (P < href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19282532">this is one supplement that's actually being suggested can play a role as part of a regimen with kids, where other diet approaches - like drugs - cannot.Why Does it Work for Weight Loss?
Glucomannan does so many good things, it sounds like it's compressing every thing that goes
along with just eating right into one humble but potent powder. But for most folks doing diets, a biggie reason for adding a little GM (like 4 g, 1.5/meal mixed in with food, not caps) to our lives may be that simply eating less leaves us feeling fuller rather than lesser.This effect of feeling full is not necessarily obvious - having a full gut does not always leave one feeling satisfied (review of gut triggering brain mechanisms; review of meal size brain signaling). One can have their stomach filled up with water, and as many dieters know, a stomach that's full - of water - doesn't necessarily result in a lack of desire to eat more. So what glucomannan seems to be doing within food use is to assist in having less food register as more satisfying, tripping off those sensors in the gut/brain signaling that say less is more in this case. That is very cool.
That it also helps with "increased fecal energy" as that 2005 review suggests, may be one more reason towards simply feeling better with what one is doing more of the day - i speculate. But feeling good is feeeling good.
Recommendation: If you are struggling with aspects of low-cal'ing, from feeling full, to having healthy bowel movements, glucomannan may be just the ticket. If you have LDL issues as well and are dieting, this may also be a good supplement in any case. Check with your Doc if you're on any medication that may be counterindicated.
Related:
Citations
Birketvedt GS, Shimshi M, Erling T, & Florholmen J (2005). Experiences with three different fiber supplements in weight reduction. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 11 (1) PMID: 15614200Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Keithley J, & Swanson B (2005). Glucomannan and obesity: a critical review. Alternative therapies in health and medicine, 11 (6), 30-4 PMID: 16320857
Walsh DE, Yaghoubian V, & Behforooz A (1984). Effect of glucomannan on obese patients: a clinical study. International journal of obesity, 8 (4), 289-93 PMID: 6096282
Sartore, G., Reitano, R., Barison, A., Magnanini, P., Cosma, C., Burlina, S., Manzato, E., Fedele, D., & Lapolla, A. (2009). The effects of psyllium on lipoproteins in type II diabetic patients European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63 (10), 1269-1271 DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2009.60
Al-Ghazzewi FH, & Tester RF (2009). Effect of konjac glucomannan hydrolysates and probiotics on the growth of the skin bacterium Propionibacterium acnes in vitro. International journal of cosmetic science PMID: 19818083
Marsicano LJ, Berrizbeitia ML, & Mondelo A (1995). [Use of glucomannan dietary fiber in changes in intestinal habit] G.E.N, 49 (1), 7-14 PMID: 8566676
deFonseka A, & Kaunitz J (2009). Gut sensing mechanisms. Current gastroenterology reports, 11 (6), 442-7 PMID: 19903419
Grill, H. (2010). Leptin and the systems neuroscience of meal size control Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 31 (1), 61-78 DOI: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2009.10.005
Monday, January 18, 2010
Eye Health: How Fast can You Switch Focus?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
There are huge benefits from actually practicing eye movement, speed of focal accommodation being one of them. How quickly can we shift from where we're looking now to refocus where the next target is?
Tech Tip of the day: Near Far Eye Drills. The idea of this simple drill is to work the muscles of the eye that help focus. The drill is taught as part of a suite of eye health movement drills in z-health (what's that?) on both the Neural Warm Up I and the S-Phase Complete Athlete, Volume 1 DVDs (reviewed here).
In the following excerpt from the S-Phase DVD, Master Z-Health Trainer and Sr RKC Sara Cheatham demos how the drill works: one hand far, one hand near; switch focus between hands as quickly as possible for reps; switch hands.
The goal of the drill is not just to move our eyes from the near hand to the far hand, but to move our eyes to the other object and FOCUS on that object, so it's important to make sure that our hands are set at distances relative to our eyes that will require that re-focus/acquisition. By practicing this simple drill, we can improve the speed of acquisition. We likewise help keep our eye muscles in better responsive physical shape.
Start off with this drill slowly: when we're not used to working our eyes, we can get a headache pretty quickly. Also watch for signs of stress: shoulders hunching up, face getting tight. A few deep breaths in through the nose, out slowly through pursed lips, and we're likely good to go again.
The benefits are huge in a sport context of speedy target acquisition, but in regular life, practicing responsiveness can be a life saver, too. The eyes are our primary sensory system - before vestibular, before proprioception. The more quickly we can detect something with practiced efficiency, the less stress in an actual event, the more skill brought to the action requiring a response.
Another quick tip? Try using your eyes to see something before turning your head - but again, go slowly. This can be fatiguing quickly when unaccustomed to the motion. Eye rather than head movement has lots of neurological benefits too, described in this post on the arthrokinetic reflex. Doing so also simply works the muscles of the eye in a more complete range of motion, enhancing perfipheral view.
More Eye Work for more kinds of Performance Strength. There are many other drills that can be practiced with the eyes that have a range of benefits including amazingly strength and cognition. Many of these eye drills, based in sports vision and behavioural optometry, are on the Nerual Warm Up 1 and 2, the S-Phase Video, and many are taught at the Elite Performance Workshop. More focal accomodation drills are on the NWU vids; more of the cognition/performance drills are on S-phase. Many can be practiced seated at a desk with just your hands or with a pencil, so they're easy to do anywhere. The point is to know 'em, love 'em and do them.
Related Posts
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Our eyes are moved by a set of 6 muscles. Intriguingly, we rarely work these muscles with any of the attention we give to our other more obvious prime movers like hips or arms; how we work them is usually only in a very restricted range of motion and action. And like any other tissues in the body, use 'em or lose 'em.
Tech Tip of the day: Near Far Eye Drills. The idea of this simple drill is to work the muscles of the eye that help focus. The drill is taught as part of a suite of eye health movement drills in z-health (what's that?) on both the Neural Warm Up I and the S-Phase Complete Athlete, Volume 1 DVDs (reviewed here).
In the following excerpt from the S-Phase DVD, Master Z-Health Trainer and Sr RKC Sara Cheatham demos how the drill works: one hand far, one hand near; switch focus between hands as quickly as possible for reps; switch hands.
The goal of the drill is not just to move our eyes from the near hand to the far hand, but to move our eyes to the other object and FOCUS on that object, so it's important to make sure that our hands are set at distances relative to our eyes that will require that re-focus/acquisition. By practicing this simple drill, we can improve the speed of acquisition. We likewise help keep our eye muscles in better responsive physical shape.
Start off with this drill slowly: when we're not used to working our eyes, we can get a headache pretty quickly. Also watch for signs of stress: shoulders hunching up, face getting tight. A few deep breaths in through the nose, out slowly through pursed lips, and we're likely good to go again.
The benefits are huge in a sport context of speedy target acquisition, but in regular life, practicing responsiveness can be a life saver, too. The eyes are our primary sensory system - before vestibular, before proprioception. The more quickly we can detect something with practiced efficiency, the less stress in an actual event, the more skill brought to the action requiring a response.
Another quick tip? Try using your eyes to see something before turning your head - but again, go slowly. This can be fatiguing quickly when unaccustomed to the motion. Eye rather than head movement has lots of neurological benefits too, described in this post on the arthrokinetic reflex. Doing so also simply works the muscles of the eye in a more complete range of motion, enhancing perfipheral view.
More Eye Work for more kinds of Performance Strength. There are many other drills that can be practiced with the eyes that have a range of benefits including amazingly strength and cognition. Many of these eye drills, based in sports vision and behavioural optometry, are on the Nerual Warm Up 1 and 2, the S-Phase Video, and many are taught at the Elite Performance Workshop. More focal accomodation drills are on the NWU vids; more of the cognition/performance drills are on S-phase. Many can be practiced seated at a desk with just your hands or with a pencil, so they're easy to do anywhere. The point is to know 'em, love 'em and do them.
Related Posts
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Audio Fitness & Ear Health for the iPod'ing Athlete: In Ear Phones + Custom Sleeves
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
You're going deaf and it's your ipod+gym's 
fault. The volume needed to crank the phones on a pod to counter act the noises of the environment usually verges on or goes beyond 80db's. That's not good. In fact it's actually bad. And the rate of youth hearing impairment has gone up so much in the era of the iPod, that the EU is freaking out.
The typical ear bud phone (like the one that comes with ipods) is a big part of where the blame sits, as it sits right beside the ear canal, thus having to crank the volume to be heard - over other competing sounds.
Isolation from the Noise Environment.
There is a fix. It's earphones that support noise isolation. This approach is different than noise cancelation, done by batteries and mics on headphones. Noise isolation is simply achieved by blocking off a great deal of incoming sound into the ear.
The usual method is to use an "in ear" or "canal" headphone design, rather than having something sitting beside the ear canal, ie ear buds. Simply think: earbuds = bad. In ear phones = much better. These enable the ear, effectively, to be plugged, isolating one's hearing from the outside noises; focusing on inner audio peace. The consequence of these monitors is also awesomely that the actual volume of the music can then be turned DOWN substantially. And thus, one's ears are getting the same audio experience at lower decibles. That's critical.
Another plus is that audio quality can improve with better isolation and less drive. This one change can make an audio system feel like new, and a better quality new (more on this elsewhere)
IEM's - In Ear Monitors - the rich variety of type and price
There are numerous types of these headphones now available. Here's a sample listing. The best solution is (of course) a custom made "in ear monitor" designed to fit just YOUR ear. You'll see stage musicians using such monitors rather than those big black speakers facing towards them on stage. More recently, these IEMs have taken off in the audiophile space for simply great listening.
So how get, good audio and the audio isolation to protect one's hearing?
A great solution to bring out the best of great audio and excellent hearing protection isolation in a package that is gym safe is to combine some decent off-the-shelf in ear phones with custom sleeves.
Enter Etymotic Research and ACS. Delighted was i to learn that my fave get around in ear
phones, the Etymotic Resarch 6i's, were being paired (so far just in the UK/EU) with such custom sleeves via customearphones.co.uk (i have nothing to do with this company). I've reviewed the Ety 6i's and Ety's awesome customer service previously (again, no association with the company).
The sleeves are produced by the UK's Advanced Communication Solutions (again no affiliation other than customer), makers of those awesome T2's that Stephen Fry's been blogging about.
Why i like this particular set up is that the Ety 6i's really are a just-right headphone for the quality audio most of us put on our ipods for regular listening (mp3's of 320kbps or less, or aac of some sort; rarely aiff). The 6i ( i is for iPod) is specifically balanced, especially in the bass, for the iPod. If a person wants more audio oomph while staying true to the sound, then it's time to consider a wee exernal amp to drive the ipod sound, like Robert Gerkhe's, discussed here. But that is not a typical gym set up where you may also be using your ipod with an interval timer, say.
Indeed, the 6i is beyond just alright, especially when considering price, value and function and of course audio quality here. They are so infinitely beyond the phones that come with the ipod, it really is like getting a whole other instrument to hear one's music, but they have an unfussy, robust build that can well handle typical ipod scenarios. Like the gym.
Adding custom sleeves makes a great earphone headset even more resiliant and effective.
Sound Comfort. The advantage of the sleeves is at least two-fold. Of the many of these in-ear stock phones i've
sampled, none feels effortless to wear. You do notice them. The Ety's stock sleeves of silicon are likely some of the easiest wearing stock configurations (shown in the white headphones above) and are used by the company's primo Ety 4's as well, but compared to a custom sleeve, well there's no comparison.
The ACS sleeves, shown right in clear and above in colors, is not made of acrylic (like some customs) but a special silicon blend that can be worn all day long (sometimes all night long if one falls asleep to music).
Form = Function. Perhaps more importantly, because they are custom fit, the sleeves do their job as noise isolators better than the non-custom types with that added comfort that makes them really a joy to use, along with the enhanced sense of audio precision. I think i mentioned comfort? They can also be washed, which is great, cuz well, we're talking workouts and sweat here.
How it (the customization + iem purchase) Works
Other Phones
Personally, for the gym and related to'ing and fro'ing, i
think the ety's and the customs are the perfect blend, but you may already have in-ear phones that you love. If you would like to customize these for this comfort, db isolation and enhanced audio zip, you can. As a quick note, ACS does sleeves for most IEMs, too. Here's the page on their site for the info and a list of the brands for which they do customs.
Improving All Parts of Well Being
Working out the physical parts while compromising the vestibular/audio parts is sort of a health contradition, but a lot of us do it: playing our audio to create our own private universe meaning that we have to play it way loud to get the isolation. In ear phones go a long way to redressing the audio overload while improving audio quality. Custom sleeves make that experience that much better - and way more comfortable.
Indeed, in trasit, these are great to wear on trains or planes or the occaisional automobile without being plugged into the 'pod, just for noise isolation. No batteries required.
Again, i'm not remunerated by either Ety or ACS. I do know that they make great products and have awesome customer service. And intiguingly, there's something it seems the UK has put together (with a US partner) in a consumer friendly pacakge ahead of it's US or Euro cousins that is da wee audio bomb - but it a good way.
UPDATE: even more options for iPhone Athlete, via ACS, Ety and the Apple Store
Related Posts
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
fault. The volume needed to crank the phones on a pod to counter act the noises of the environment usually verges on or goes beyond 80db's. That's not good. In fact it's actually bad. And the rate of youth hearing impairment has gone up so much in the era of the iPod, that the EU is freaking out.The typical ear bud phone (like the one that comes with ipods) is a big part of where the blame sits, as it sits right beside the ear canal, thus having to crank the volume to be heard - over other competing sounds.
Isolation from the Noise Environment.
There is a fix. It's earphones that support noise isolation. This approach is different than noise cancelation, done by batteries and mics on headphones. Noise isolation is simply achieved by blocking off a great deal of incoming sound into the ear.
The usual method is to use an "in ear" or "canal" headphone design, rather than having something sitting beside the ear canal, ie ear buds. Simply think: earbuds = bad. In ear phones = much better. These enable the ear, effectively, to be plugged, isolating one's hearing from the outside noises; focusing on inner audio peace. The consequence of these monitors is also awesomely that the actual volume of the music can then be turned DOWN substantially. And thus, one's ears are getting the same audio experience at lower decibles. That's critical.
Another plus is that audio quality can improve with better isolation and less drive. This one change can make an audio system feel like new, and a better quality new (more on this elsewhere)
IEM's - In Ear Monitors - the rich variety of type and price
There are numerous types of these headphones now available. Here's a sample listing. The best solution is (of course) a custom made "in ear monitor" designed to fit just YOUR ear. You'll see stage musicians using such monitors rather than those big black speakers facing towards them on stage. More recently, these IEMs have taken off in the audiophile space for simply great listening.
But even saying you got yourself this little piece of audio heaven like these awesome custom made ACS T2's, would you want to use these in the gym? Or out and about? Maybe not so much.
Aside: Indeed, good 'phones and a good headphone amp is a great way to get audiophile audio experience at literally or proportionally a tenth of the price. And if you haven't tried that, and you love music, you owe it to yourself. Here's an entire article on high fidelity on the cheap (another passion of mine)
So how get, good audio and the audio isolation to protect one's hearing?
A great solution to bring out the best of great audio and excellent hearing protection isolation in a package that is gym safe is to combine some decent off-the-shelf in ear phones with custom sleeves.
Enter Etymotic Research and ACS. Delighted was i to learn that my fave get around in ear
phones, the Etymotic Resarch 6i's, were being paired (so far just in the UK/EU) with such custom sleeves via customearphones.co.uk (i have nothing to do with this company). I've reviewed the Ety 6i's and Ety's awesome customer service previously (again, no association with the company).The sleeves are produced by the UK's Advanced Communication Solutions (again no affiliation other than customer), makers of those awesome T2's that Stephen Fry's been blogging about.
Why i like this particular set up is that the Ety 6i's really are a just-right headphone for the quality audio most of us put on our ipods for regular listening (mp3's of 320kbps or less, or aac of some sort; rarely aiff). The 6i ( i is for iPod) is specifically balanced, especially in the bass, for the iPod. If a person wants more audio oomph while staying true to the sound, then it's time to consider a wee exernal amp to drive the ipod sound, like Robert Gerkhe's, discussed here. But that is not a typical gym set up where you may also be using your ipod with an interval timer, say.
Indeed, the 6i is beyond just alright, especially when considering price, value and function and of course audio quality here. They are so infinitely beyond the phones that come with the ipod, it really is like getting a whole other instrument to hear one's music, but they have an unfussy, robust build that can well handle typical ipod scenarios. Like the gym.
Adding custom sleeves makes a great earphone headset even more resiliant and effective.
Sound Comfort. The advantage of the sleeves is at least two-fold. Of the many of these in-ear stock phones i've
sampled, none feels effortless to wear. You do notice them. The Ety's stock sleeves of silicon are likely some of the easiest wearing stock configurations (shown in the white headphones above) and are used by the company's primo Ety 4's as well, but compared to a custom sleeve, well there's no comparison.The ACS sleeves, shown right in clear and above in colors, is not made of acrylic (like some customs) but a special silicon blend that can be worn all day long (sometimes all night long if one falls asleep to music).
Form = Function. Perhaps more importantly, because they are custom fit, the sleeves do their job as noise isolators better than the non-custom types with that added comfort that makes them really a joy to use, along with the enhanced sense of audio precision. I think i mentioned comfort? They can also be washed, which is great, cuz well, we're talking workouts and sweat here.
How it (the customization + iem purchase) Works
- First a person orders their custom ety 6i's from the web site's partners. The pack includes the 6i's and a voucher to get the custom moulds done (if you already have 6i's you can get the custom sleeve pack separately)
- ACS has partnered with a number of audiologists thoughout the UK that will take the ear impressions on presentation of said voucher (yes that's right: an audiologist puts goo into the ear canal that takes the shape of your ear, and from these shapes, the sleeves are fit).
- Within two weeks, the custom sleeves are deliverd to your door.
- Swap the ear flanges on the ety's for the custom sleeves.
- enjoy enjoy enjoy.
Other Phones
Personally, for the gym and related to'ing and fro'ing, i
think the ety's and the customs are the perfect blend, but you may already have in-ear phones that you love. If you would like to customize these for this comfort, db isolation and enhanced audio zip, you can. As a quick note, ACS does sleeves for most IEMs, too. Here's the page on their site for the info and a list of the brands for which they do customs.Improving All Parts of Well Being
Working out the physical parts while compromising the vestibular/audio parts is sort of a health contradition, but a lot of us do it: playing our audio to create our own private universe meaning that we have to play it way loud to get the isolation. In ear phones go a long way to redressing the audio overload while improving audio quality. Custom sleeves make that experience that much better - and way more comfortable.
Indeed, in trasit, these are great to wear on trains or planes or the occaisional automobile without being plugged into the 'pod, just for noise isolation. No batteries required.
Again, i'm not remunerated by either Ety or ACS. I do know that they make great products and have awesome customer service. And intiguingly, there's something it seems the UK has put together (with a US partner) in a consumer friendly pacakge ahead of it's US or Euro cousins that is da wee audio bomb - but it a good way.
UPDATE: even more options for iPhone Athlete, via ACS, Ety and the Apple Store
Related Posts
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
